Facts: A landlord leased property to a nonresidential tenant. The lease provided the landlord with the right to inspect the premises with reasonable notice. The tenant’s attorney notified the landlord all contact with the tenant is to be conducted through the attorney. Later, the landlord wrote the attorney, notifying the attorney of the landlord’s intent to inspect the premises. After no response, the landlord conducted the inspection without acknowledgment by the attorney or tenant.

Claim:  The tenant sought money losses for the unconsented to entry and to prevent further access by the landlord, claiming the landlord violated the lease since the landlord did not give the tenant  notice of the inspection before entering the property.

Counter claim:  The landlord claimed they did not violate the lease as they gave proper notice to the attorney since the tenant demanded the landlord send all communications to the attorney who was to act on the tenant’s behalf.

Holding: A California Court of Appeals held the landlord was not liable for unconsented entry since the landlord did not violate the lease as the landlord gave notice to the attorney as authorized by the tenant to receive all communications on their behalf. [Eucasia Schools Worldwide, Inc. v. DW August Co. (2013) ___ CA 2nd___]