Case Background
William Dedman filed a contract and intentional tort lawsuit against Brian Howard and Natalia Howard (also known as Nataliya Howard) in the Superior Court of California, Contra Costa County, on July 25, 2024. The dispute arose from a residential tenancy at 445 Fremont Park Drive, Brentwood, California. Dedman, the property owner, alleged that the Howards breached their residential lease agreement, violated a Court-ordered stipulation governing their move-out, and converted household appliances that belonged to him. The case was designated as an unlimited civil action exceeding $35,000.
Cause
Dedman alleged the parties entered into a written residential lease on or about October 11, 2015, for the rental property at a rate of $2,975 per month. Under the lease, the Defendants agreed to maintain the landscaping, keep the property clean, sanitary, and well ventilated, report any problems, and remove all debris upon surrendering possession. Dedman further alleged the parties entered into a written stipulation on June 27, 2022, in a prior limited civil action (Case No. PS22-0321), under which the Defendants agreed to vacate the premises on or before 4:00 p.m. on July 15, 2022, deliver all keys, and leave the property in broom-clean and undamaged condition with all personal property removed. Any personal items remaining after the deadline could be disposed of by the Plaintiff without further notice.
Injury
Dedman alleged the Defendants failed to pay rent, failed to maintain the landscaping, failed to keep the property clean and sanitary, failed to report plumbing problems, and failed to remove all debris and personal property when they vacated on or about July 15, 2022. He also alleged the Defendants did not return the property in broom-clean and undamaged condition as required by the stipulation. In a separate claim, Dedman alleged the Defendants intentionally removed appliances belonging to him from the property, including a refrigerator, a washing machine, and a dryer, without his consent and refused to return them when he demanded their return.
Damages Sought
Dedman sought $50,000 in damages, prejudgment interest according to proof, attorney's fees according to proof, and punitive damages.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
Legal Representation
Plaintiff: William Dedman
· Counsel for Plaintiff: Heidi Coad-Hermelin
Defendant: Brian Howard | Natalia Howard AKA Nataliya Howard
· Counsel for Defendant: Natalia Howard (pro se)
Claims
Dedman brought three causes of action. The First Cause of Action alleged breach of the October 2015 residential lease. According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to pay rent, neglected the landscaping, left the property in unsanitary condition, failed to report plumbing issues, and did not remove debris upon vacating. The Second Cause of Action alleged conversion of household appliances, asserting the Defendants intentionally took possession of a refrigerator, washing machine, and dryer belonging to Dedman on July 15, 2022, and refused to return them. The Third Cause of Action alleged breach of the June 27, 2022 stipulation, under which the Defendants agreed to return the property in broom-clean and undamaged condition and remove all personal property by July 15, 2022.
Defense
Natalia Howard filed a first amended answer on October 29, 2025, denying the allegations and raising six affirmative defenses. In her first affirmative defense, she argued that Dedman could not produce the original lease agreement and that his own counsel acknowledged the original documents had been destroyed, citing California Evidence Code Section 1520 regarding the best evidence rule. In her second affirmative defense, she asserted that Dedman or his agent applied for the California COVID-19 Rent Relief Program on November 3, 2021, and received compensation through the program for unpaid rent during the pandemic period. She attached a declaration from Brian Howard and a letter from the CA COVID-19 Rent Relief Program as supporting exhibits.
Her third affirmative defense addressed the personal property claim, arguing that under the stipulation itself, any items left on the premises after the July 15, 2022 deadline could be disposed of by the Plaintiff, and therefore Dedman could not charge the Defendants for removing their belongings. In her fourth affirmative defense, Howard contended that no landscaping existed in the backyard when the Defendants moved in, that the backyard was unimproved land, and that the Defendants created the landscape at their own expense with the Plaintiff's permission and hired professional contractors. Her fifth affirmative defense asserted the Defendants did not cause damage beyond normal wear and tear, cleaned the premises before moving out, and requested a walk-through inspection that Dedman refused to conduct in the Defendant's presence.
In her sixth affirmative defense, addressing the conversion claim, Howard argued that the appliances in question were used items the Plaintiff received from the previous property owners, that they stopped working shortly after the Defendants moved in, that the Defendants notified the Plaintiff and purchased their own replacements, and that they left all of the Plaintiff's appliances on the premises upon vacating. Howard requested a jury trial and prayed that Dedman take nothing.
Jury Verdict
The case proceeded to jury trial commencing January 2026 in Department 16 of the Contra Costa Superior Court before the Honorable Benjamin T. Reyes II. Dedman appeared in person and through counsel. Natalia Howard appeared in pro per. A jury of 12 was impaneled and sworn.
On the breach of residential lease claim, the jury found that Dedman and Howard entered into a contract, that Dedman performed substantially all that the contract required, that all conditions for Howard's performance occurred, that Howard failed to perform, and that Dedman suffered harm as a result. The jury awarded damages of $19,312.50 in unpaid rent, $1,100 for property cleaning costs, $4,850 for property repair costs, $2,500 for personal property removal costs, and $1,000 for the value of appliances, totaling $28,762.50.
On the conversion claim, the jury found that Dedman owned the refrigerator, washer, and dryer, that Howard intentionally took possession of or prevented Dedman from accessing the appliances for a significant period, that Dedman did not consent, that he suffered harm, and that Howard's conduct was a substantial factor in causing that harm. The jury awarded $1,000 in conversion damages.
On the breach of stipulation claim, the jury found that the parties entered into a contract, that Dedman substantially performed or was excused from performing, that Howard failed to do what the stipulation required, and that Dedman suffered harm. The jury awarded $1,100 for cleaning, $4,850 for repairs, and $2,500 for personal property removal, totaling $8,450.
The Court entered judgment on February 17, 2026, awarding Dedman $28,762.50 in damages against both Brian Howard and Natalia Howard, $6,947.20 in prejudgment interest pursuant to California Civil Code Sections 3287 and 3289 against both Defendants, $1,712.87 in attorney's fees against Brian Howard pursuant to local rule, and $767.53 in costs against Brian Howard. Attorney's fees and costs against Natalia Howard were reserved for determination by separate motion and memorandum of costs.
Court documents are available upon request at [email protected]
