The California Court of Appeal has upheld a lower court's judgment in favor of commercial landlords George and Aftin Andraos against their tenant Arkadi Hayrapetyan. The ruling, issued on October 26, 2026, concerns a dispute over unpaid rent and a settlement agreement related to a commercial lease. The court's decision reinforces the importance of adhering to settlement agreements in landlord-tenant relationships.

The case, Andraos v. Hayrapetyan (B346761), arose from a series of legal actions initiated by the Andraoses against Hayrapetyan for unlawful detainer and breach of contract. This ruling is significant as it clarifies the enforceability of settlement agreements and the obligations they impose on parties involved.

The dispute began in September 2023 when the Andraoses filed a complaint against Hayrapetyan for unlawful detainer, alleging he failed to pay twelve months of rent under a commercial lease. By October 2023, the Andraoses filed a second action against Hayrapetyan for breach of that lease. The two cases were consolidated, and in April 2024, the parties reached a settlement agreement. This agreement required Hayrapetyan to pay the Andraoses $200,000 in installments over four months and set new rental payment terms.

As part of the settlement, the trial court dismissed the unlawful detainer action but retained jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the settlement agreement. However, after Hayrapetyan failed to make the required payments, the Andraoses filed a motion for entry of judgment, seeking to recover unpaid rent and enforce the settlement agreement.

The court ruled in favor of the Andraoses, awarding them a total judgment of $110,000, which included $65,000 for the unpaid settlement payment and $45,000 for unpaid monthly rent from December 2024 through February 2025. Hayrapetyan appealed the decision, arguing that the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction and violated his constitutional rights.

The court found that Hayrapetyan did not meet his burden of demonstrating error on appeal. The ruling stated, "We conclude Hayrapetyan has not met his burden of demonstrating error on appeal." The judges emphasized that the trial court acted within its jurisdiction and that the settlement agreement clearly outlined the obligations of both parties.

In its analysis, the court highlighted that Hayrapetyan had failed to provide adequate legal arguments or documentation to support his claims. The court noted that it is the responsibility of the appellant to demonstrate that the trial court committed an error justifying a reversal of the judgment. The court affirmed the trial court's findings, stating that Hayrapetyan's arguments were insufficient and did not warrant a change in the ruling.

This ruling has significant implications for future landlord-tenant disputes, particularly regarding the enforceability of settlement agreements. It underscores the importance of adhering to the terms of such agreements and the consequences of failing to do so. Landlords and tenants alike should take note of the court's emphasis on the necessity of fulfilling contractual obligations.

Looking ahead, Hayrapetyan may seek to appeal the ruling further, although the court's decision is a strong affirmation of the trial court's judgment. The case highlights the critical need for both parties to understand their rights and responsibilities under lease agreements and settlement terms.