A landlord leased property to a private school. At a certain point, the landlord listed the premises for sale with a real estate broker, and decided to have a building inspector “find out all the things that may or may not be wrong.” The lease provided for the landlord to inspect “at reasonable times after reasonable notice,” but the tenant’s lawyer wrote to the landlord stating: “Please have NO DIRECT CONTACT with our client without the express permission of this office.” Accordingly, the landlord’s counsel wrote to the tenant’s counsel stating: “Please advise who we are to contact regarding property inspections,” but received no response. Several months later, the landlord’s counsel sent to the tenant’s counsel a notice of inspection on a date two months later. On that date, an inspection was conducted. Four days later, the tenant brought an action against the landlord. A jury returned a special verdict in favor of the landlord. The tenant appealed, contending the trial court erred when it denied the tenant’s motion for a directed verdict. The appellate court affirmed the judgment in the landlord’s favor as well as the trial court’s award of $124,997 in attorney fees. Eucasia Schools v. DW August Co. (Cal. App. Second Dist., Div. 6; July 24, 2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 176.