• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

Appeal of denial of motion to vacate

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

tranquility

Senior Member
Your defense is under CA law landlord had 21 days to mail you your deposit OR an itemized statement of damages. She failed to do so. I would ignore her until you are formally served, then file a motion for dismissal.
I believe the deposit/itemized statement has to do with that, the deposit. The landlord does not lose the right to sue for damage to the apartment if they did not meet that deadline. Also, some of the damages claimed here is unpaid rent.
 


renterx2

Junior Member
I believe the deposit/itemized statement has to do with that, the deposit. The landlord does not lose the right to sue for damage to the apartment if they did not meet that deadline. Also, some of the damages claimed here is unpaid rent.
Just to clarify, there was no damage to the apartment and there was never any argument over damage to the apartment. The landlord stated via email that she was retaining the entire security deposit as unpaid rent.

So if she was ordered to return the security deposit which she had retained as unpaid rent, does that not mean that the issue of unpaid rent was decided, even though, through no fault of mine, her non-appearance at the first hearing meant that she did not get to make her case? Also, I should point out that, as I noted back in June in this forum, the judge pro tem actually allowed her to state her case, not only her argument about why the motion to vacate should not have been denied, and he still denied the appeal.

My worry is that if we go back to court and argue the case on the merits (as I was fully prepared to do before she didn't show up!), and she doesn't like the outcome (again), then she'll definitely appeal (again) and I will have ended up in court at least 5 times over this. I feel like I should be entitled to some sort of damages at that point, or at least compensation for work time lost, if not more.
 

tranquility

Senior Member
Just to clarify, there was no damage to the apartment and there was never any argument over damage to the apartment. The landlord stated via email that she was retaining the entire security deposit as unpaid rent.

So if she was ordered to return the security deposit which she had retained as unpaid rent, does that not mean that the issue of unpaid rent was decided, even though, through no fault of mine, her non-appearance at the first hearing meant that she did not get to make her case? Also, I should point out that, as I noted back in June in this forum, the judge pro tem actually allowed her to state her case, not only her argument about why the motion to vacate should not have been denied, and he still denied the appeal.

My worry is that if we go back to court and argue the case on the merits (as I was fully prepared to do before she didn't show up!), and she doesn't like the outcome (again), then she'll definitely appeal (again) and I will have ended up in court at least 5 times over this. I feel like I should be entitled to some sort of damages at that point, or at least compensation for work time lost, if not more.
You sued her for the return of your deposit. You won by default. You did not sue her to say you did not have any outstanding rent or commit any damages. That might have been in your argument if it were herd, but, you sued for your deposit.

If the case had been settled on the merits, where you both argued and the court found the deposit should be returned because you did not owe rent and did not commit damages and not just because the landlord did not follow the statute appropriately, then you would have claim/issue preclusion on those matters. Read the second link I supplied, it goes into the elements for such preclusion.

Sometimes against a determined opponent there is a big hassle on even simple cases. Unless there is something frivolous in the argument, you really cannot prevent it.
 

renterx2

Junior Member
Sometimes against a determined opponent there is a big hassle on even simple cases. Unless there is something frivolous in the argument, you really cannot prevent it.
Thanks, tranquiity. I'm obviously not happy about having to go through this again, but on some level, I can see the benefit of finally having the case be heard on the merits so that it can truly be over, once and for all.
 

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top