Application of the law pertaining to landlords...

Application of the law pertaining to landlords and tenants sometimes is complicated and can lead to unpredictable results.

For example, in one recent case, the court dealt with the situation where a commercial lease was scheduled to expire on Sept. 14. The landlord made it known to the tenant that he did not intend to renew the lease. However, on Sept. 1, the tenant paid a full month’s rent, which the landlord accepted.

The landlord on Sept. 14 instructed the tenant to leave, but the tenant refused. The landlord filed an unlawful detainer action against the tenant.

The Court of Appeal upheld a summary judgment in favor of the landlord because the landlord accepted the rent before the lease had expired. Even though the rent paid on Sept. 1 appeared to cover a period beyond the termination date, the acceptance of such rent was not construed as implied consent to a holding over by the tenant under Civil Code Section 1945.

On the other hand, if the landlord had accepted the rent after the lease had expired, there would have been a presumption that the parties had created a month-to-month tenancy.

Furthermore, the apparent overpayment of rent for the month of September was not clear because, as with many commercial leases, the lease provided for payment of rent as a percentage of revenue and required other adjustments at the conclusion of the lease.

This, and the landlord’s clearly expressed intention to terminate, made it clear that acceptance of the full month’s rent on Sept. 1 was not intended by the landlord to extend the tenancy.

This case involved commercial property. Typically, courts do not view residential property in the same way. There is a general bent toward extending every consideration to the residential tenant, and in a residential setting, it is unlikely that there would be rental and other adjustments at the termination of the lease.