But I do have one lingering question that, totally sincerely, confuses me.
The background rules are basically these: (1) If you want, you can let someone live in a house you own without paying rent; if so, once you die, they have to leave. (2) Normally, if someone has lived in a place for a year, you can't evict them without a good reason, and those good reasons include, for example, not paying rent.
So how do these two background principles interact?
Here, Dan Blechman owned a place in Laguna Hills, and let Loretta Stiles live there for free for several years. Ms. Stiles said that this was because she did some work for Mr. Blechman and that, in lieu of any pay, he just let her live in his place for free. Makes sense.
Eventually, Mr. Blechman dies, and the administrator of his estate lets Ms. Stiles remain in the property for quite a while, but eventually asks her to leave. She refuses, saying that there's not "just cause" for her eviction, since she's always paid all the rent that's due, which (as a reminder) was nothing.
Hence the lawsuit.
The lower courts both hold that Ms. Stiles gets to stay there. But the Court of Appeal reverses, holding that what Ms. Stiles was a "tenancy at will" and that those things automatically end once the principal dies. So, at that point, her continuing tenancy was unlawful, which removes it from the scope of the "just cause" eviction requirement.
That all makes total sense to me. It sounds exactly right, and I was surprised that the lower courts held otherwise.
Now, at the very end, Justice Motoike says that it's unclear when exactly Ms. Stiles learned that Mr. Blechman died, or whether she paid rent or anything like that after his death, so she remands the case to figure all that stuff out; in particular, to ascertain whether the administrator of the estate "had potentially
entered into a new tenant relationship with Stiles" after Mr. Blechman's death.
That makes sense. Though I'm pretty sure it didn't happen. Still, yep, we need to make sure.
But here's the thing I'm confused about:
Justice Motoike correctly explains (IMHO) that tenancies at will automatically terminate at death. But it's only a tenancy at will if the property owner can terminate the thing at any time (and, if so, pursuant to Section 1934 of the Civil Code, it then automatically terminates on death). But the way I read what Ms. Stiles' declaration said below, her testimony is that she was given the place for free as a reward for her services -- all fine thus far -- but also that the parties "agreed that [she] would be taken care of at the end of their partnership."
Doesn't that make a difference?
If I pay someone to, say, garden my shrubs, and in return, they get to live in the guest house for free while doing so, yeah, totally, once I'm dead, the deal ends. They don't have to garden my shrubs, and they've got to find another place to live.
But if I say "Hey, you've been gardening my shrubs for a long time now; keep doing it, and you get to live in the guest house for free, and I'll 'take care of you' thereafter," isn't that a different deal? Isn't that not terminable at will? Which means they get to stay in the place even after you're dead, for however long the agreement (if any) intended?
Say, for example, that Mr. Blechman expressly said "You're the best shrubber in the world, Loretta; keep it up, and even after all the shrubs die -- or I die -- you'll get to stay in the guest house for another five years." Surely she gets to stay there for the extra five years, right? For free. Her tenancy would not be "unlawful" then.
It seems to me that that's (at least in part) what Ms. Stiles is saying. In which case, the issue is not just whether she struck a new deal with the estate administrator after Mr. Blechman died. But, in addition, there's an issue of what, exactly, the scope of the deal was before Mr. Blechman died, and whether it's sufficiently definite (particularly in terms of duration) to be enforceable.
No?
Then, if there was an enforceable deal, and Ms. Stiles' continuing occupation of the property was in fact lawful, we've got the additional complexity of deciding precisely the thing that the lower courts thought was a real tough question: whether the "just cause" provisions then require a good reason before Ms. Stiles' can be evicted?
Now, personally, I think she can be. Yes, if the deal was that you get to live rent free for, say, until I die and for five years thereafter, that means you get to stay there as promised. But for no longer. After then, you've got to pay market rent or leave. The rule would be silly otherwise; it'd mean that since no rent was due for five years, no rent is effectively due forever. Which can't be the rule. (Or at least would make no sense.)
Anyway, I doubt that, in fact, the deal that Mr. Blechman (allegedly) made with Ms. Stiles was for a particular period after his death. But if it was, and was enforceable, I think that's another way that Ms. Stiles might prevail in the unlawful detainer action. Not just if she had made a "new deal" with the administrator of the estate.
Or so I figure, anyway. This stuff gets really complicated once you have to wade through all of the statutory weeds.
