Re: Question for CA Landlords - Landlord Forum thread 360580

Re: Question for CA Landlords by Tom on June 6, 2020 @15:55

It is patently foolish to claim that, "it would be impracticable or extremely difficult for LL to fix the actual damage . . ." As a blanket statement in a lease because Orozco found that a the landlord must must present evidence to that point. "2. Respondent neither pleaded nor proved that damages were impracticable or extremely difficult to fix, and thus he was not entitled to the presumption that the late fee represented actual damages. Under these circumstances, the late fee was void."

Further the Civil Code Section 1671(a) provides that Section 1671 does not apply in cases where a statute specifically prescribes rules or standards for determining liquidated damages. Because Civil Code Section 3302 states, "The detriment caused by the breach of an obligation to pay money only, is deemed to be the amount due by the terms of the obligation, with interest thereon." The California Constitution defines that interest rate as 10% simple interest per year, or 1/3650 per day. However, the current reasonable percentage could be asserted as the actual interest rate on LL bank account for receipt of rent.

Because the law proscribes the actual calculation for liquidated damages on rental payments, their is nothing impracticable or extremely difficult. All case law stating that administrative costs are included do not withstand this point of law, as they do not address it.

[ Reply ] [ Return to forum ]