Sylve

Sylve v. Riley

Good Law
15 Cal. App. 4th 23·18 Cal. Rptr. 2d 608·1993 Cal. App. LEXIS 434·93 Daily Journal DAR 5142·93 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2985
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 22, 1993A058303California1,547 words

Opinion

Opinion

King, J.

San Francisco’s rent control ordinance allows a landlord to evict a tenant to permit a designated relative to occupy the premises, but specifies no time limit within which that occupancy shall commence, Under the facts in this case, we hold that the question of when the former tenant discovered or should have discovered the relative never occupied the premises, so as to trigger the running of the statute of limitations for bringing a wrongful eviction action, is a question of fact which precludes the entry of summary judgment.

Audrey Sylve appeals from an order dismissing her wrongful eviction action after summary judgment in favor of landlords Lenora and Homer Riley, averring the action was not barred by the applicable statute of limitations.

On or about May 3, 1988, Sylve received a 30-day notice to terminate tenancy alleging the Rileys sought to recover possession “in good faith, without ulterior reasons, and with honest intent, for the use and occupancy as the principal residence of the landlord’s son and daughter-in-law for a period of at least 12 continuous months,” in accordance with section 37.9, subdivision (a)(8), of San Francisco’s rent stabilization and…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.