Mohammed
Mohammed v. Mohammed CA2/1
Opinion
Opinion
BACKGROUND
Husna filed suit against Mohsin and Dilruba, alleging claims for partition and accounting with respect to a piece of real property “commonly known as 4192 West Broadway, Hawthorne, CA 90250” (the Property). Husna alleged that she and her brother, Mohsin, owned the Property as tenants in common, with Husna owning a 75 percent interest and Mohsin owning a 25 percent interest. She further alleged that Dilruba is Mohsin’s wife. Husna alleged that “[t]he Property is a multi-unit dwelling consisting of Units A through E,” and that “Unit A is a self-contained home that is separated from the main building . . . and is the largest of all the units in the building.” She alleged that Mohsin leased Unit A to Exodus Recovery, which subleased Unit A to one of its own subsidiaries to be used as housing for “mentally challenged individuals.” According to the complaint, Mohsin “collects in excess of $2,000.00 in rent per month from Exodus Recovery.” Mohsin and Dilruba answered and asserted several affirmative defenses. The second putative affirmative defense merely described Mohsin and Dilruba’s version of
1 Because the parties share a last name, we will refer to them by their first…