image of spinning marijuana leaf
palmspringsbum
Morongo Valley
Eviction
Appeal Decision CIV.A.1197 5
Home
Timeline
Felony Cultivation
Eviction
HUD/DFEH Complaint
Appeal Decision CIV.A.1197
April 04, 2005 - page 5


evict (or raise the rent, or decrease services) within 180 days of the judgment in

tenant's favor. Appellant contends this statue applies here because he won the

first unlawful detainer case in February of 2004. We may judicially notice the

register of actions in the earlier unlawful detainer case, CMB 11396. It indicates

that case was not resolved in appellant's favor on the merits but, rather, was

dismissed for lack of proper notice. Accordingly, Civil Code section 1942.5 does

not apply.

Next, appellant contends the court should have admitted into evidence

certain statements respondent made to some news agency. The record contains

nothing concerning any attempt by appellant to get any such statements admitted

into evidence. When the record is inadequate to permit meaningful review, the

appellant defaults on that issue and the trial court's decision must be affirmed.

(Gee v. American Realty & Const., Inc. (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 1412, 1416.)

Appellant's primary contention is that the court erred in not finding the

eviction was illegally motivated by discrimination against the disabled. He

reasons respondent evicted him because of his marijuana use and, since that

use was for medical purposes, the eviction illegally discriminated against a

disabled person.

The problem with this reasoning is that the court explicitly found

respondent was not motivated by appellant's medicinal marijuana use. We

cannot disturb that finding unless it is unsupported by the evidence. In evaluating

substantiality of evidence, we presume the trial court's decision is correct and



5


copyright © 2003-2015 J. Craig Canada aka palmspringsbum.
Commercial use prohibited without consent. All rights reserved.