COMPLIANCE INFO_2016-2017 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Terry J. Mollica, Esq. Chiarelli & Mollica LLP May 23, 2017 Page 2 retaliation for the Tenant exercising its rights under the Lease to reject relocation sites that were unacceptable. And at a point in time when the actions of the Landlord in selling the Property to a prospective buyer made the contemplated operation of the Tenant's business at the Subject Property commercially impossible. And with the Notice dated the very same day as the notice of a one year cancellation issued by the Landlord sent via Federal Express on May 12, 2017 under Paragraph 1.2 of the Lease (the "Lease Cancellation Notice"). These actions individually and in combination render the 5 -Day Notice, the Lease Cancellation Notice and the Relocation Notice as invalid as part of a systematic and improper effort by the Landlord to interfere with the Tenant's right to continued occupancy at the Subject Property or at suitable alternative site owned by the Landlord on commercially reasonable terms. The Landlord should not proceed with an unlawful detainer action as the Landlord as the Tenant has been given no reasonable alternative but to vacate the Premises and surrender possession due to the wrongful acts and interference by the Landlord causing the Tenant's forcible removal. For these reasons, no unlawful detainer action may either be brought or maintained by the Landlord against the Tenant who has surrendered possession to the Landlord. This letter shall evidence such surrender as there are no keys to deliver back to the Landlord or its attorneys. (Civ. Code, § 1952.3; Markham v. Fralick (1934) 2 Cal.2d 221, 223-225; Const. Co., Inc. v. Moselle Coach Works, Inc. (1983) 148 Cal.App.3d 654, 658.) Sincerely, —• , H:\FILES\V038.01\Correspondence\Letter to Terry Mollica_5.22.17.wpd