Plaintiff landlord brought an action to recover for rent not paid against defendant tenant. The District Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District (California) reversed the judgment in favor of the landlord. Both parties appealed.
California Business Lawyer & Corporate Lawyer, Inc. counsels on reporting time pay California
Overview
The landlord leased a house and premises to the tenant. The tenant repudiated the contract and refused to be bound by the terms thereof. The landlord sought to recover the full amount due had the contract run its course. The lower court held that the landlord was, at most, entitled to only the difference between the rent he was to receive and the rent actually received from the subsequent tenant. The lower court also held that the landlord’s complaint was lacking in essential allegations entitling the landlord to judgment, and did not properly state a cause of action. The court affirmed the judgment of the lower court, adopting its findings. The court noted that the landlord did not aver that he sustained any damage by the tenant’s repudiation, nor did the landlord’s complaint state any facts from which the amount of damage could have been inferred.
Outcome
The court affirmed the lower court’s judgment reversing the trial court’s judgment for the landlord.