Representative image
A Los Angeles tenant who paid a $19,500 deposit to rent a $9,750-a-month home has won a major legal victory against the property’s landlords. Shenon, the California Court of Appeal upheld a $61,801.67 judgment in favour of former tenant Eric Aviles, rejecting the landlords’ attempt to limit court costs to $1,000 under a clause in the lease, as per Justia U.S. In Aviles v. Law. The decision confirms that a landlord cannot use a private lease provision to override a tenant’s statutory right to recover litigation costs after prevailing in court.
The trial court ruled for Aviles and entered a judgment of $61,801.67. Because the costs of litigation might exceed the money involved, landlords could set a low cap on recoverable costs, which might discourage tenants from bringing legitimate claims. This amount included not only damages related to return of the deposit dispute, but also reasonable attorney fees and costs permitted under the applicable statutes. The landlords appealed the judgment both on its merits and as to the amount of costs awarded. The conclusion is of practical importance. By striking down the cap, the appellate court reinforced the principle that tenant-protective statutes take precedence over conflicting lease terms.
The appeal was over a narrow but important issue: could the landlords rely on a lease clause limiting recoverable court costs to $1,000? The lease contained a provision limiting court costs to $1,000. It held that the lease’s $1,000 cap could not override the statutory cost award available to a prevailing tenant. The appellate court affirmed the $61,801.67 judgment in Aviles’s favour.
They argued that the clause should limit Aviles’s recovery even though he had prevailed in the case. The landlords argued that this provision should control the amount Aviles could recover as costs after winning his case. In effect, they claimed the contract had set a ceiling on the litigation expenses a tenant could pass on to them. The Court of Appeal rejected that argument. The court ruled that a private agreement cannot take away a tenant’s statutory rights, especially when the law is intended to protect tenants and to give them meaningful access to the courts. The decision means the landlords cannot use the lease’s cost limitation to reduce the financial consequences of losing the case.
