Guarantor Must Pay Owner Despite Husband's Lockout

The wife of a principal of the tenant was a guarantor of the tenant's lease. Because of criminal wrongdoing by the principal, the tenant's board of directors asked the owner to change the locks at the space to keep the principal out. The owner complied. The tenant then paid only eight months of rent and abandoned the space. The owner sued the tenant and the guarantor for rent. The guarantor argued that she wasn't liable for the unpaid rent because the owner had violated the lease by locking the principal out.

A California appeals court ruled that the guarantor was liable for the unpaid rent. The guarantor's argument was misguided, the court said. The lease was between the tenant and the owner—not the principal and the owner. So locking out the principal didn't violate the lease. Plus, the evidence showed that the tenant didn't pay its rent, and the guarantor hadn't proven that she was relieved of her guaranty obligations, noted the court. “Merely showing that her husband had been locked out of the space at the request of [the tenant] itself hardly excused her own obligation under the guaranty,” said the court [California Realty Services Corp. v. Bradley].