{"id":211,"date":"2026-01-27T12:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-01-27T12:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=211"},"modified":"2026-01-27T12:00:00","modified_gmt":"2026-01-27T12:00:00","slug":"de-paolo-v-rosales-jad25-12-tenant-protection-act-resident-manager","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=211","title":{"rendered":"De Paolo v. Rosales \u2014 Tenant Protection Act’s Just-Cause Provisions Do Not Apply When Resident Manager’s Tenancy Ends With Termination of Employment"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n
Case<\/dt>\n
De Paolo v. Rosales<\/dd>\n
Court<\/dt>\n
Appellate Division of the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County<\/dd>\n
Date Decided<\/dt>\n
2026-01-27<\/dd>\n
Docket No.<\/dt>\n
25APLC00029<\/dd>\n
Status<\/dt>\n
Reported \/ Citable<\/dd>\n
Topics<\/dt>\n
Unlawful Detainer, Tenant Protection Act, Civil Code section 1946.2, Resident Manager Agreements, Termination Notice<\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n<\/div>\n

Background<\/h2>\n

John R. De Paolo, as trustee of a family trust that owned a Sherman Oaks apartment building, employed Jenny Rosales as a resident manager beginning in 2020. The written ‘Resident Manager’s Agreement’ provided that Rosales would receive a unit at the property as a condition of her employment. The agreement set the unit’s fair rental value at $780 per month, but Rosales was required to pay only $710 per month in rent. The agreement also stated that her $710 monthly compensation for management duties exactly equaled the rent due, and that her employment was at will and terminable by the owner without cause and without advance notice.<\/p>\n

De Paolo terminated Rosales’s employment and served her with a 30-day notice to quit. When she did not vacate, he filed an unlawful detainer complaint. Rosales (and her co-occupant Charlemagne) defended on the ground that the Tenant Protection Act of 2019 (TPA, Civil Code section 1946.2) required a 60-day notice and just-cause termination, that she was a tenant rather than an employee, and that the 30-day notice was therefore void. After a bench trial, the trial court entered judgment for De Paolo. Rosales appealed to the Los Angeles Superior Court Appellate Division.<\/p>\n

The Court’s Holding<\/h2>\n

The Appellate Division affirmed. The court held that the TPA’s just-cause and 60-day-notice protections apply to ordinary residential tenancies, not to housing provided to an employee as compensation under a resident-manager agreement. Where the housing arrangement is an integral part of the employment relationship \u2014 and where, as here, the written agreement clearly establishes that the rental rate is the form of employment compensation and that termination ends both employment and housing rights \u2014 the TPA’s protections do not control.<\/p>\n

The court rejected the contention that Rosales was a tenant ‘and not merely an employee provided housing.’ The agreement plainly characterized the relationship as employer-employee, and Rosales had signed the agreement with full awareness of its terms. The court also rejected the argument that the 30-day notice was defective for being shorter than the TPA’s 60-day requirement; because the TPA did not apply, the 30-day period under the agreement (and consistent with applicable employment-housing law) was sufficient.<\/p>\n

Substantial evidence supported the trial court’s findings on service of the termination notice and on the validity of the agreement, and the unlawful detainer judgment was affirmed.<\/p>\n

Key Takeaways<\/h2>\n