Lexplug logoLexplug

Zigas v. Superior Court

Court of Appeals of California, First District, Division Three
120 Cal.App.3d 827 (1981)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Tenants of a housing project financed by a federally insured mortgage are direct third-party beneficiaries of the financing agreement between the landlord and the government agency (HUD) and have standing under state contract law to sue for reimbursement of rents charged in excess of the amount specified in the agreement.


Facts:

  • The petitioners are tenants residing in an apartment building at 2000 Broadway in San Francisco.
  • The apartment building was financed with a multi-million dollar mortgage insured by the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) pursuant to the National Housing Act.
  • As a condition of the financing agreement, the landlords promised HUD they would not charge rents higher than a HUD-approved schedule without prior approval from the Secretary of HUD.
  • The tenants allege that their landlords have been charging rents that exceed the maximums set out in the approved rental schedule.
  • The tenants further allege that the landlords have collected over $2 million in excessive rents and fees as a result of these overcharges.

Procedural Posture:

  • The tenants (petitioners) filed a class-action lawsuit against their landlords (real parties in interest) in a California superior court (trial court).
  • The landlords filed demurrers, a motion to dismiss for failure to state a valid claim, against several causes of action.
  • The trial court sustained the landlords' demurrers without leave to amend, dismissing the tenants' third-party beneficiary claims.
  • The trial court also granted the landlords' motion to strike all references in the complaint to the National Housing Act and the HUD agreement.
  • The tenants petitioned the California Court of Appeal for a writ of mandate to compel the trial court to set aside its orders.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Do tenants in a housing project financed by a federally insured mortgage have standing under California law to sue their landlord as third-party beneficiaries of the financing agreement between the landlord and HUD to recover rents collected in excess of the contractually-approved rent schedule?


Opinions:

Majority - Feinberg, J.

Yes. Tenants have standing under California law to sue as third-party beneficiaries of an agreement between their landlord and a government agency when the agreement's provisions are intended for their direct benefit. The court reasoned that the tenants' cause of action arises under California contract law, not federal statute, making state law the appropriate authority. Distinguishing the case from Martinez v. Socoma Companies, Inc., the court found that the tenants, not the government, suffered the direct pecuniary loss from the breach. The purpose of the rent schedule provision in the HUD agreement was narrow and specific—to provide moderate rental housing—and was intended to directly benefit the tenants. Furthermore, the contract itself manifested this intent, as it made the landlords personally liable for funds they were not entitled to retain, and there was no alternative administrative procedure for tenants to resolve such disputes. Allowing tenants to sue promotes the federal interest by inducing compliance with HUD agreements.



Analysis:

This decision solidifies the rights of tenants in government-subsidized housing under California law, establishing that they are direct, rather than incidental, beneficiaries of rent-limiting provisions in landlord-government agreements. By affirming a private right of action, the court provides tenants with a powerful enforcement mechanism, independent of government oversight, to protect themselves from unlawful rent increases. The case sets a precedent for interpreting government contracts, distinguishing between those with broad societal goals, where beneficiaries may be incidental, and those providing specific, tangible benefits to a defined class, where beneficiaries have standing to sue for enforcement.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query Zigas v. Superior Court (1981) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for Zigas v. Superior Court