WDT-WINCHESTER

WDT-WINCHESTER v. Nilsson

Good Law
1994 Cal. App. LEXIS 807·27 Cal. App. 4th 516·32 Cal. Rptr. 2d 511·94 Daily Journal DAR 11019·94 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6059
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 4, 1994H011285California6,531 words

Opinion

Opinion

Elia, J.

Defendant lessee Eleanor Nilsson appeals from a judgment in unlawful detainer in favor of plaintiff lessor WDT-Winchester (WDT). On appeal, Nilsson makes the following claims: (1) the trial court abused its discretion when it denied her request for relief from jury trial waiver; (2) the trial court erred in relying upon Code of Civil Procedure section 1161.1 as that provision was not applicable to these proceedings; (3) assuming arguendo that section 1161.1 was applicable, the court relied upon an erroneous interpretation of the statute as well as faulty calculations of the amount owed under the terms of the lease in determining that WDT had reasonably estimated the amount stated in its three-day notice. We find the last contention to be meritorious and therefore reverse the judgment.

Facts

In April 1992, the parties executed a lease by which Nilsson became the lessee of a commercial building owned by WDT, a California limited partnership. Nilsson leased the building for the purpose of operating a retail business. The lease was for a period of five years at an initial base monthly rental of $12,616. Stuart Adams, vice-president of Huettig and Schromm, handled the lease…

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.