Legal Opinion
Freeze v. Brinson
Appellate Division of the Superior Court of California
Decided December 3, 1991No. Civ. A. No. BV19009PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
ROBERSON, P. J.
Appellants challenge the judgment rendered against them in an unlawful detainer proceeding in which the trial court concluded they committed waste of the apartment they had leased from respondent’s *Supp. 3predecessor in interest. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1161, subd. 4, 1174, subds. (a) & (b).)1 They contend that the evidence does not support the conclusion they committed waste and that, since respondent was not a party to the lease, the trial court erred in awarding him attorney fees thereunder. The first contention is meritorious and requires reversal; consequently, we do…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Smith v. Cap Concrete, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1982
- Rowe v. Wells Fargo Realty Services, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1985
- Rishwain v. SmithCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1947
- Smith v. BakerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1950
- Bittman v. CouringtonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1948
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Avalon Pacific-Santa Ana, L.P. v. HD Supply Repair & Remodel, LLCCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2011
- Gonzalez v. BolanosCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2025
- Stancil v. Super. Ct.California Supreme Court · 2021
- Stancil v. Super.Ct.California Supreme Court · 2021