Ernst Enterprises Inc. v. Sun Valley Gasoline, Inc.

139 Cal. App. 3d 355, 188 Cal. Rptr. 641, 1983 Cal. App. LEXIS 1335
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal
DecidedJanuary 13, 1983
DocketCiv. 64096
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 139 Cal. App. 3d 355 (Ernst Enterprises Inc. v. Sun Valley Gasoline, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Ernst Enterprises Inc. v. Sun Valley Gasoline, Inc., 139 Cal. App. 3d 355, 188 Cal. Rptr. 641, 1983 Cal. App. LEXIS 1335 (Cal. Ct. App. 1983).

Opinion

Opinion

NELSON, (J. F.), J., *

In an unlawful detainer action, summary judgment was granted plaintiff, a petroleum distributor lessor, against defendant, a petroleum dealer lessee. The defendant appeals.

Facts

The plaintiff Ernst Enterprises, Inc., is a commissioned distributor of Texaco Oil Products including gasoline. The defendant Sun Valley Gasoline, Inc., leased a gasoline station from Ernst and entered into a consignment agreement with Ernst to furnish certain Texaco products including gasoline. The original lease was for a specified term which had terminated and the tenancy had continued from month-to-month without modification for several years. Such month-to-month extension was anticipated by the terms of the original lease.

In May 1980, about five years after the tenancy had become month-to-month, plaintiff served upon the defendants a notice of an immediate rent increase in the form of a charge of three cents per gallon of gasoline delivered. The addi *357 tional rent was objected to by defendants and was not paid. Thereafter, defendants were charged and did pay a fee of two cents per gallon for gasoline delivered. The defendants contend that this fee was paid for drayage. The plaintiffs contend that it was paid as additional rent.

On July 31, 1980, a notice of termination of tenancy was given defendant by plaintiff. This notice required that the premises should be vacated by September 30, 1980. Defendants objected that the franchise agreement had not been properly terminated. Plaintiff elected to forego unlawful detainer proceedings and the tenancy continued as before. On October 24, 1980, in a letter acknowledging the tenancy of defendant, plaintiff gave another notice of increased rent of three cents per gallon effective November 1, 1980. Defendants did not pay the additional rent. They contended that the notice of increase worked a change in the terms of the tenancy and that they should have received 30-days notice instead of the few days notice actually given. On December 2, 1980, plaintiff served defendant with a three-day notice to pay rent or quit. Defendant contended rent was not due. No payment was made and this action followed.

Each side presented the trial court with a motion for summary judgment and judgment was ultimately granted to plaintiff. We are required under the authority of Union Oil Co. v. Moesch (1979) 88 Cal.App.3d 72 [151 Cal.Rptr. 517], to reverse for trial upon the merits of the complaint and applicable defenses.

I

The trial court in rendering summary judgment for plaintiff stated: “It is ordered and adjudged that pursuant to Civil Code of Procedure section 1174, that good cause existed for termination of the tenancy of defendant, Sun Valley Gasoline, Inc., a California corporation, pursuant to the requirements of Business and Professions Code section 20999.1. . . .” The trial court thus correctly acknowledged the applicability of Business and Professions Code section 20999.1. 1

*358 However, good cause to terminate a lease pursuant to the Business and Professions Code section 20999.1 is a question of fact. (Union Oil Co. v. *359 Moesch, supra, at p. 75.) The trial court concluded the fact of good cause-adversely to the defendant, without trial and in spite of the fact that defendant had disputed that conclusion. The issue must be tried on its merits.

II

Another question of fact which must be put to trial is whether the notice to pay rent or quit states precisely the rent due. The plaintiff contends that it does. Defendant contends that it does not. A notice to pay rent or quit which overstates the rent due is ineffective and will not support an action for unlawful detainer. (Canal-Randolph Anaheim, Inc. v. Wilkoski (1978) 78 Cal.App.3d 477 [144 Cal.Rptr. 474]; Johnson v. Sanches (1942) 56 Cal.App.2d 115 [132 P.2d 853]; Code Civ. Proc., § 1161.)

Since at least two triable issues of fact exist and the matter must be reversed for trial upon those issues, it is unnecessary to consider appellant’s remaining contentions on appeal, including applicability of section 2804 of title 15 of the United States Code.

*360 The judgment is reversed. Appellant to recover costs on appeal.

Ashby, Acting P. J., and Hastings, J., concurred.

*

Assigned by the Chairperson of the Judicial Council.

1

Business and Professions Code section 20999.1 is preceded by the following list of definitions in section 20999:

“(a) ‘Franchise’ means any contract between a refiner and a distributor, between a refiner and a retailer, between a distributor and another distributor, or between a distributor and a retailer, under which a refiner or distributor authorizes or permits a retailer or distributor to use, in connection with the sale, consignment, or distribution of gasoline, diesel, gasohol, or aviation fuel, a trademark which is owned or controlled by such refiner or by a refiner which supplies fuel to the distributor which authorizes or permits such use. The term ‘franchise’ includes the following:
“(1) Any contract under which a retailer or distributor is authorized or permitted to occupy leased marketing premises, which premises are to be employed in connection with the sale, consignment, or distribution of fuel under a trademark which is owned or controlled by such refiner *358 or by a refiner which supplies fuel to the distributor which authorizes or permits such occupancy.
“(2) Any contract pertaining to the supply of fuel which is to be sold, consigned, or distributed under a trademark owned or controlled by a refiner, or under a contract which has existed continuously since May 15, 1973, and pursuant to which, on May 15, 1973, fuel was sold, consigned, or distributed under a trademark owned and controlled on such date by a refiner.
“(3) The unexpired portion of any franchise, as defined by the preceding provisions of this paragraph, which is transferred or assigned as authorized by the provisions of such franchise or by any applicable provision of state law which permits such transfer or assignment without regard to any provision of the franchise.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Vaughn v. Darwish CA2/2
California Court of Appeal, 2020
Levitz Furniture Co. of the Pac., Inc. v. Wingtip Commc'ns, Inc.
103 Cal. Rptr. 2d 656 (California Court of Appeal, 2001)
Bevill v. Zoura
27 Cal. App. 4th 694 (California Court of Appeal, 1994)
Club Rendezvous v. South Plaza Associates
872 F.2d 426 (Ninth Circuit, 1989)
Nourafchan v. Miner
169 Cal. App. 3d 746 (California Court of Appeal, 1985)
Valov v. Tank
168 Cal. App. 3d 867 (California Court of Appeal, 1985)
Davis v. Gulf Oil Corp.
572 F. Supp. 1393 (C.D. California, 1983)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
139 Cal. App. 3d 355, 188 Cal. Rptr. 641, 1983 Cal. App. LEXIS 1335, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ernst-enterprises-inc-v-sun-valley-gasoline-inc-calctapp-1983.