Tenant Couldn't Prove Intent, Ability to Reclaim Property Left Behind

Facts: A tenant that operated a thrift store was evicted for nonpayment of rent. The owner believed the store's inventory, which the tenant had left behind, was “junk” and disposed of it without waiting 15 days—the statutory period during which tenants have an opportunity to reclaim personal property left in the space they rented.

The tenant sued the owner for conversion—that is, depriving a person of his or her personal property. The tenant argued that the owner hadn't given it notice of its intent to dispose of the property, and that it could have and would have reclaimed it in a timely manner had the owner not thrown it away. The trial court found that the tenant's testimony about its ability and intent to reclaim the property was not credible. It ruled in favor of the owner, and the tenant appealed.

Decision: The appeals court upheld the decision in favor of the owner.

Reasoning: On appeal, the tenant contended that the trial court had misconstrued the California law that applied to the disposal of property at the end of a commercial lease: An owner is required to hold a former tenant's property for 15 days after the tenant vacates the space, to avoid liability. Here, it was clear that the owner hadn't followed the law. As the trial court found, the owner began to dispose of the tenant's property before the 15-day period for reclaiming the property had elapsed. However, the tenant didn't meet its burden of showing conversion because it couldn't show its “ability and intent to reclaim its personal property within the statutory time limit.” Therefore, the tenant couldn't prove any damages, stated the appeals court.

Moreover, a commercial owner is not required to retain junk, trash, or rodent-infested material with no outward value for 15 days before disposal. “Implicit in the statutory scheme requiring a landlord to hold property for 15 days is the requirement that such property have an objective value,” said the appeals court. In this case, neighboring tenants testified that the owner reasonably viewed the property left behind as trash and junk of no appreciable value. Recognizing for argument's sake that some of the personal property may have indeed had some value, the appeals court further found that the owner had no duty to make a value determination on an item-by-item basis.

• Calhoun v. Coffron et al., March 2011