LANDLORDS ARE LIABLE FOR INJURIES AFTER EVICTING TENANT
It is not unusual for a landlord, particularly in a commercial situation, to allow a tenant to remain in possession after an eviction for a limited time, or a limited purpose. Even without the landlord’s consent, a tenant can remain in possession for the time of the judgment until the sheriff locks the tenant out. Having the tenant in possession after a judgment for eviction is risky. It can expose the landlord to additional liability and problems.
When a tenant fails to pay rent, or otherwise breaches a lease, the landlord gives the tenant a notice to pay rent or quit or a notice to cure covenant or quit. If the tenant fails to pay the rent or cure the covenant, or leave, within the time allowed, usually three days, the landlord can file an unlawful detainer suit to evict the tenant. If the landlord has followed all the procedures correctly, it will get a judgment restoring possession of the premises to the landlord. This usually takes about two months from the time of the default.
The tenant often vacates the premises within this time and before the sheriff forces the eviction. Sometimes, however, the tenant tries to make a deal with the landlord to delay the actual lock out by the sheriff. The tenant may promise to cure all the back rent and pay expenses within a short time to salvage its tenancy. The tenant may pay some money for a little extra time to move. There is no shortage of hard luck stories or benevolent landlords who are willing to soften the harshness of an eviction.
By cutting a deal with the tenant, a landlord may be getting more than he or she bargained for. First, by accepting money or other consideration, the landlord may be creating a new tenancy with the tenant. This new tenancy could be deemed to be an oral or implied agreement which does not give the landlord any of the protections of the prior written lease. When the tenant fails to abide by the new agreement, the landlord would have to start the entire eviction process over again, beginning with the notice to pay rent or quit.
Moreover, once the landlord has been restored possession of the premises, he becomes liable for injuries occurring on the premises. In the case of Stone v. Center Trust Retail Properties, Inc., 146 Cal. App 4th 1435 (2007), a restaurant continued to operate following the court’s order restoring the landlord to possession and before the arrival of the sheriff. Ten days after the order of eviction, Ms. Stone was injured at the restaurant. The court found that while the landlord was not liable for the restaurant’s negligence before the order restoring possession, after the order, the landlord had a duty to inspect the premises and insure that it was safe:
“It is one thing for a landlord to leave a tenant alone who is complying with its lease. It is entirely different, however, for a landlord to ignore a defaulting tenant’s possible neglect of property. Neglected property endangers the public, and a landlord’s detachment frustrates the public policy of keeping property in good repair and safe. To strike the right balance between safety and disfavored self-help, we hold that Center Trust’s duty to inspect attached upon entry of the judgment of possession in the unlawful detainer action and included reasonable periodic inspections thereafter. Upon entry of judgment, a tenant’s incentive to maintain a property dissipates because continued maintenance likely benefits only the landlord. To protect the public, the incentive to maintain the property must not be an orphan abandoned by a tenant and ignored by a shortly reoccupying landlord.”
Accordingly, the landlord was found liable for the plaintiff’s injuries. The lesson learned is that once the decision to evict has been made, landlords need to complete their evictions promptly and without any delay.
