3

My brother gave the required 60 day notice that he was moving out of an apartment. Two weeks after giving notice, he had vacated the unit. The landlord has found a new tenant, but won't allow the new tenant to move into the unit until the end of the 60 day period, thus requiring my brother to continue paying rent.

Generally, the law and court precedent favors financial efficiency over inefficiency. If the landlord has a new tenant who wants to take possession, don't they have a duty to mitigate my brother's lease obligations?

Is there California law that addresses this situation?

Improve this question

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
2

If the landlord has a new tenant who wants to take possession, don't they have a duty to mitigate my brother's lease obligations? Is there California law that addresses this situation?

Yes, the doctrine of mitigation of damages. See Valle de Oro Bank v. Gamboa, 26 Cal.App.4th 1686, 1691 (1994):

The doctrine of mitigation of damages holds that "[a] plaintiff who suffers damage as a result of either a breach of contract or a tort has a duty to take reasonable steps to mitigate those damages and will not be able to recover for any losses which could have been thus avoided.

The application of this doctrine in landlord-tenant disputes is also palpable in CA Civil Code §1951.2(a). The statutory language is needlessly convoluted, but Danner v. Jarrett, 144 Cal.App.3d 164, 166-7 (1983) points out that "section 1951.2 [...] encourages the lessor to mitigate damages [...]. Its formula for damages permits the lessee to prove what rental loss could have been avoided" (citations omitted).

Consistent with the previous statement, Powerhouse Motorsports Group, Inc. v. Yamaha Motor Corp., USA, 221 Cal.App.4th 867, 884 (2013) mentions that "[t]he burden of proving a plaintiff failed to mitigate damages [...] is on the defendant".

Improve this answer

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .