|
Olivia Owner owned some undeveloped acreage along the Sacramento River. She lives in Southern California and so was unable to keep an eye on the property. She gave Carol Caretaker the opportunity to move her travel trailer onto the riverfront property and live there in exchange for watching the property. Caretaker accepted the offer, moved her trailer onto the property, and lived there for five years. Owner put the property up for sale, and it went into escrow, with a stipulation that it would be tendered with no residents on it. Owner wrote a letter thanking Caretaker for watching the property and asked her to move the trailer off the property before the close of escrow, in one month. She didn’t serve Caretaker with formal notice to terminate because she had never considered her a tenant. Caretaker refused to leave, so Owner brought a UD action against her, stating in the complaint that she had not provided notice to Caretaker because none was required by the law. Caretaker defends against the action on the ground that she was not given a 30-day notice to terminate, as required for tenants with indefinite terms. How would you rule?
There is no clear answer here, but a ruling for Owner may be most appropriate. It could be argued that the right to stay on the property rent-free was compensation for services rendered, and thus no notice was required when the employment was terminated. [See CCP §1161(1).] The safest approach for Owner would have been to provide a 30-day notice to Caretaker (or a 60-day notice after 1/1/07, because Caretaker resided on the property for more than one year), even though technically she may not have been a tenant. |
How Would