Pamela was raped in the garage of her “security apartment building” where she lived with her boyfriend, Ion. As Pamela was walking alone to Ion’s car, she asked a stranger in the dark basement garage to close the door of his adjacent car so she could enter Ion’s car.
But as Pamela opened Ion’s car door, a second man grabbed her from behind, held a knife to her throat, and threatened to kill her if she did not cooperate. The assailant then forced Pamela to remove her clothing, raped her and pushed her into the trunk of another car.
The rapist and his accomplice were caught, convicted and sentenced to state prison. Pamela then sued her landlord, David, and his professional property management company, contending their inadequate security caused her rape.
Approximately 50 percent of the underground garage lights were burned out, the locks were defective and the tenants had complained to no avail. An investigating police officer testified “It was probably the darkest underground parking lot that I’ve ever been in that I can recall.”
Are the landlord and professional property manager liable for damages to Pamela?
The judge said yes.
He explained a property owner and professional management company have a duty to tenants, especially in a “security apartment building,” to keep the equipment working properly to prevent criminal activity. Failure to maintain the premises breached their duty to tenant Pamela, he continued.
Although a landlord and property manager cannot guarantee the safety of residents and guests from criminal activity, they have a duty to minimize the opportunity for crime to occur, the judge emphasized. Therefore, David and his property management company are liable to Pamela for damages for their negligent maintenance of the garage, the judge ruled.
Based on the 1994 California Court of Appeal decision in Pamela B. vs. Hayden, 31 Cal.Rptr.2d 147.
Delay no defense
Valerie alleged she openly and exclusively possessed four lots starting between 1966 and 1979. But she didn’t file her adverse possession lawsuits until 26, 23, 17 and 13 years later. By then, some of the original owners were dead and unavailable to defend their titles.
The current owners of the lots argued Valerie should be barred from claiming title by adverse possession because she waited so long to file her claims. They invoked the legal defense of “laches,” which means the plaintiff’s unreasonable delay in asserting a legal right.
Is laches a valid defense to Valerie’s adverse possession claim to the four lots?
The judge said no.
The courts of virtually every state, the judge explained, have ruled laches is not a defense to adverse possession property claims. The legal theory, he emphasized, is a fee simple title cannot be destroyed by a delay in asserting an adverse possession right to title.
Valerie has proven the adverse possession elements of open, notorious, hostile and exclusive possession, plus payment of property taxes, the judge noted. She was not required to promptly bring her lawsuit to perfect her legal titles, he added.
Rather, it is the property owner, not the adverse possessor, who must bring an action after adverse possession commences in order to recover the property, the judge ruled. Since Valerie has met all the adverse possession requirements, although she did not promptly bring her lawsuit, title to the lots is quieted in her name, the judge concluded.
Based on the 1994 California Court of Appeal decision in Marriage vs. Keener, 31 Cal.Rptr.2d 511.
