Judge: Douglas W. Stern, Case: 22STUD01776, Date: 2022-10-06 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STUD01776 Hearing Date: October 6, 2022 Dept: 52
Tentative Ruling:
Defendant Cipriano
Escobar’s Motion for Relief from Forfeiture
Defendant Cipriano Escobar moves for
relief from forfeiture of his tenancy. “The court may relieve a tenant against a
forfeiture of a lease or rental agreement … and restore him or her to his or
her former estate or tenancy, in case of hardship.” (CCP § 1179.)
In considering a motion for relief
from forfeiture, the court “should engage in a weighing process for a
determination as to whether denying relief would be manifestly unjust … . Examples of considerations to be examined in
this weighing process include: the nature and character of the breach; the
hardship, if any, to the lessee from the forfeiture; the hardship, if any, to
the lessor from relieving the lessee from the forfeiture; … ; the good faith or
lack of it on the part of any party, whether lessor, lessee or sublessee; [and]
the extent of bad faith, if any, on the part of any party, whether lessor,
lessee or sublessee.” (Thrifty Oil
Co. v. Batarse (1985) 174 Cal.App.3d 770, 778.)
After weighing all relevant factors,
the court exercises its discretion to deny relief. Defendant fails to show sufficient
hardship. He states he is in poor health
and, if evicted, “would instantly become homeless.” (C. Escobar Decl., ¶ 9.) He further states, “I do not have any family
upon whom I can depend for financial assistance to help me relocate. Currently, there is no one with whom I can
stay if I am evicted.” (Id., ¶
15.)
Plaintiff Diana Escobar, however,
provides persuasive evidence in opposition.
Defendant vacated the home on August 31, 2022. (D. Escobar Decl., ¶ 6.) He left “with his sister Deysi
Calderon.” (Id., ¶ 7.) He was recorded on camera stating that “his
plan was to move in with his sister Ana Hilda Escobar.” (Id., ¶ 8.) Defendant’s brother “volunteered to take him
in for a limited time period until assisted living or other arrangements can be
made for him.” (N. Escobar Decl., ¶
6.) Defendant’s brother also “confirmed”
to plaintiff’s brother Nixon Escobar that defendant “was living with … Ana
Hilda Escobar” as of September 18. (Id.,
¶ 7.)
The nature and character of
defendant’s breaches weighs against him. He committed “material and substantial” and
“intentional” breaches of his agreement with plaintiff. (Statement of Decision, p. 6.) Those breaches included intentionally
damaging the home’s heater, bringing a dog into the home (which resulted in
damage), smoking inside, subletting the garage to someone else without
authorization, and creating a nuisance by soliciting prostitution. (Id., pp. 3-6.)
The motion is denied.