Boshernitsan v. Bach

Case Number: A159532

Court: Cal. Ct. App.

Date Filed: 2021-03-12

Case Brief – Boshernitsan v. Bach

Court: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Date: 2025-09-03
Case Number: A159532
Disposition: The Court reversed the trial court’s order sustaining the tenants’ demurrer and remanded for further proceedings; appellants were awarded costs on appeal.

Holding

The court held that natural persons who serve as settlors, trustees, and beneficiaries of a revocable living trust “hold a recorded fee interest” in the property and therefore qualify as “landlords” under San Francisco’s family‑move‑in eviction provision. Consequently, the trial court’s dismissal of the unlawful detainer action was improper.

Narrative

Lead – In a decision that clarifies the intersection of San Francisco’s rent‑control ordinance and California trust law, the Court of Appeal ruled that owners who hold title to a rental unit through a revocable living trust are “landlords” for purposes of the city’s family‑move‑in eviction exemption. The ruling overturns a lower‑court judgment that had barred a landlord‑initiated eviction on the ground that a trust, not a natural person, owned the property.

Procedural backdrop – Rimma Boshernitsan and Mark Vinokur (the appellants) owned a two‑unit building in San Francisco. In April 2018 they transferred title to the “Vinokur and Boshernitsan Living Trust” they created, naming themselves as trustees, settlors, and beneficiaries. In August 2019 they served the tenants of the second unit with a notice of termination, invoking the family‑move‑in provision of San Francisco’s Rent Stabilization and Arbitration Ordinance (the “Rent Ordinance”) to place the tenants’ mother in the unit. The tenants demurred, arguing that the “landlord” under the ordinance must be a natural person or group of natural persons, not a trust. The trial court agreed, sustained the demurrer without leave to amend, and entered judgment for the tenants.

On appeal, Boshernitsan and Vinokur contended that the trial court erred in treating the trust itself as the landlord. They argued that, under California trust law, only trustees hold legal title, and that as natural persons acting in that capacity they satisfy the statutory definition of “landlord” in Rule 12.14(a).

Key issues –

Does a revocable living trust qualify as a “landlord” under Rule 12.14(a) and the Rent Ordinance’s family‑move‑in provision?
Assuming the trust is not a “landlord,” can the trustees—who are natural persons—be treated as a “group of natural persons” that holds a recorded fee interest, thereby satisfying the definition?
Whether the tenants’ alternative ground—that the notice of termination imposed procedural requirements beyond the ordinance—justifies affirming the demurrer.

Court’s analysis

Standard of review – The Court applied de novo review to the demurrer, emphasizing that the question of statutory construction is a pure question of law.

Title ownership – The opinion reaffirmed the well‑settled principle that a trust is not a legal entity capable of holding title; the trustee holds legal title, while the beneficiary holds equitable title. The grant deed expressly conveyed the property “to Mark Vinokur and Rimma Boshernitsan, Trustees, or their successors” of the named living trust, confirming that the trustees, not the trust, are the record owners. The Court cited Galdjie v. Darwish and Moeller v. Superior Court to underscore that legal title resides with the trustee.

Statutory construction – The Rent Ordinance defines “landlord” broadly as an owner, lessor, or sublessor who receives rent, and Rule 12.14(a) narrows that definition for eviction under § 37.9(a)(8) to “a natural person, or group of natural persons … who in good faith hold a recorded fee interest.” The Court read the ordinary meaning of “natural person” and “group of natural persons” and concluded that a pair of individuals acting jointly as trustees fits the “group” language. The trustees are natural persons; they hold the fee interest in the deed; thus the statutory definition is satisfied.

Legislative intent – The Court emphasized the remedial purpose of the Rent Ordinance: to protect tenants while preserving owners’ limited right to recover units for bona‑fide family occupancy. Interpreting the “landlord” definition to exclude trustees would frustrate the ordinance’s balance, especially given the prevalence of revocable living trusts as probate‑avoidance devices. The decision invoked Parkmerced Co. v. San Francisco Rent Stabilization & Arbitration Bd. to support a liberal construction of tenant‑protection statutes.

Good‑faith requirement – The Court noted that the family‑move‑in provision also demands good‑faith intent and a 36‑month residency requirement. The appellants’ intent to house Vinokur’s mother satisfies those conditions, and the trustees’ dual role as settlors and beneficiaries eliminates any risk of “ulterior motives” the tenants feared.

Secondary ground – Regarding the tenants’ claim that the notice of termination imposed onerous procedural demands, the Court found no statutory basis to invalidate the action. While unlawful‑detainer statutes demand strict compliance, the notice’s additional instructions did not contravene any provision of the Rent Ordinance or Board rules. Accordingly, the judgment could not stand on that ground.

Disposition – The appellate court reversed the trial court’s demurrer, remanded for entry of an order allowing the unlawful‑detainer action to proceed, and awarded costs to the appellants.

Implications – This decision provides a clear precedent that trustees of revocable living trusts are “landlords” under San Francisco’s eviction exemptions, ensuring that owners who employ trusts for estate planning retain the ability to invoke the family‑move‑in provision. The ruling also narrows the scope of “natural person” to include groups of individuals acting jointly, a reading likely to influence future disputes in other municipalities with similar landlord‑definition clauses.

Nevertheless, the Court limited its holding to situations where the trustees are also the settlors and beneficiaries of a revocable living trust, leaving open the question of whether trustees of irrevocable trusts—or trustees who are not beneficiaries—would be treated similarly. Practitioners should therefore assess the specific trust structure before relying on this precedent.

Referenced Statutes and Doctrines

San Francisco Rent Stabilization and Arbitration Ordinance, § 37.9(a)(8) (family‑move‑in eviction provision)
San Francisco Rent Ordinance, § 37.2(h) (definition of “landlord”)
Rule 12.14(a) (interpretive rule for § 37.9(a)(8) evictions)
California Probate Code (trust definitions; § 56)
California Civil Code § 671 (definition of “person”) and § 14(a) (corporations as persons)
California Government Code § 7060(a) (Ellis Act reference)

Key Cases Cited