<<< Go Back

Legal Column, February 2004
By Gordon P. Gitlen, Esq.

We recently prosecuted an unlawful detainer action through a court trial, which proved to be a bit different and may be of interest to you. Approximately fourteen years ago, our client, an elderly gentleman, entered into a written rental agreement with a tenant. The elderly gentleman managed his own property, a 12-unit property in Santa Monica and of course signed the rental agreement and met the tenant. After a few years, the elderly gentleman decided to no longer manage the property and allowed a family member, his daughter, to handle the affairs of the apartment building. As the daughter had occasionally run into the “tenant” for various repairs, collection of rents, etc., she assumed that the tenant was the same tenant that was granted possession of the apartment by her father. In reality, the original tenant had vacated and without permission turned the apartment over to the “new” tenant, Adam Rosenbaum, ten years ago. The original tenant always paid rent by cashier’s check and the new tenant did the same without any designation on the return envelope or the check itself of who was actually paying the rent. The tenant himself never changed this assumption. Approximately ten years passes at which time, another tenant in the building informs the daughter that there is a federal express package for Mr. Adam Rosenbaum. Our client is not aware of anyone living in the building by the name of Adam Rosenbaum at which point the other tenant says “oh, he is subletting Apartment 201”. Our client immediately comes to our office to gain information and advice.

It appears as if Adam Rosenbaum has been portraying the identity of the previous tenant for approximately ten years without anybody’s knowledge. His telephone answering machine does not identify himself by name and all communications with the management of the building have been telephonic without him leaving a name except as “the tenant in 201.” All rent increase notices have been to the original tenant and, of course, the 3-bedroom unit north of Wilshire is rented under market value. With these facts, and further investigation, our office generated a 3-day notice to the original tenant to get rid of the unauthorized occupants. Failing to do so, the office filed an unlawful detainer action and it proceeded to trial. At trial, the new tenant, Adam Rosenbaum, testified that because his job requires secrecy, he does not want anybody to know where he lives and that he has been paying the rent in the same manner as the original tenant for ten years. Of course, he testifies that the manager knows his real name, but the evidence is to the contrary. For ten years Mr. Rosenbaum has been pretending to be the original tenant in order to obtain cheaper rent. For ten years, the management and ownership of the property have been unaware of the switch and has not been made aware of the change in tenancy as evidenced by the management’s action and correspondence.

At trial, the court saw through the fraudulent charade and terminated the tenancy and ordered possession of the property returned to the owner forthwith. It was clear that the intent of Mr. Rosenbaum was to hide the “switch” and clearly the ownership was not aware of the change in tenancy. Based on these facts, the court ordered relief to the property owner. It is unusual for a fraud to be perpetrated for approximately ten years, but even through the lapse of time, it is possible for an owner to regain possession of an apartment of which he has been deprived fraudulently for so many years. The owner is currently assessing whether to file suit to collect the damages as a result of the 10-year fraud.

Of course, you should be aware of all people living in your property at all times, accept rent only from the original signing tenant, and the minute that you detect a discrepancy, seek legal counsel so as to avoid a possible claim of waiver of your rights.