Landlord didn't use legal name on lease

[olestuckinthemud1122]

Jurisdiction

California

I've moved out of a unit in a single residential home; it was a guest suite. The manager didn't use her legal name; she used an alternate spelling. She gave me a 60-day notice to vacate. Then I learned it was an unpermitted unit. She became quite aggressive and I decided to move out for my own mental health. While I was considering whether to pursue legal action, I learned of the alternate spelling of her name and that the property was in an irrevocable trust. The manager holds 1% interest in the home. But, also, didn't reference it on the lease. Do I have a case to sue for misrepresentation and deception?

 

[Tax Counsel]

Do I have a case to sue for misrepresentation and deception?

In order to have a case for misrepresentation or fraud, the information given to had to be material (that is, had you known it was owned a trust you'd not have rented it) and you have to have suffered some monetary loss because of the mispresentation. Few renters really care whether the unit they rent is owned by an individual, LLC, corporation, partnership, or trust. In my experience most renters barely pay attention to person/entity listed in the rent agreement beyond knowing to whose name goes on the rent check. I don't see anything in your post that indicates that the incorrect name in the lease caused you any damages.

You might have something to pursue with regard to the unit not having the proper permit. That's going to depend on what permits the landlord was missing, if the condition of the living unit was below required standards or even dangerous, and what rental rate you were paying. If you were paying market rent for a place that was substandard, for example, you might have a good claim to get at least some of the rent money back because had you known the unit didn't have the necessary permits you likely would have passed on that one and looked elsewhere. In other words, the lack of a permit would be a material fact. The issue that would arise next, though, is what amount of damages might you reasonably expect to get if you sued the landlord. That may be worth discussing with a CA attorney who handles landlord-tenant issues for tenants. Check your lease to see if it has a provision in it that in a dispute the loser pays the winner's legal fees. That will factor into your decision. If the lease has that kind of provision, it increases the stakes for both parties, especially the one with the weaker case.

 

[zddoodah]

she used an alternate spelling.

So...something like "Kathryn" instead of "Katherine"?

the property was in an irrevocable trust. The manager holds 1% interest in the home.

Is this "manager" also the trustee of the trust? Are you saying that the trust owns 99% of the home, while the manager owns 1%?

Do I have a case to sue for misrepresentation and deception?

Nothing you have posted suggests you do. How the person's name is spelled is irrelevant, and you appear to have suffered no damage as a result of anything you mentioned in your post.

 

[Red Kayak]

The manager didn't use her legal name; she used an alternate spelling.

Unless the "alternate spelling" could reasonably be argued to cast ambiguity as to the identity of who signed it, this is a minor detail not worth focusing on.

If she is authorized to act on behalf of the irrevocable trust, either as a trustee or as an authorized agent of the trustee(s), then there is nothing at all fishy going on.

What *would* be fishy is if she had no connection to the trust, and was renting out the place without the knowledge of the trustee(s) of the trust. I think you are grasping at straws.