Hyatt v. Tedesco

California Supreme Court Jan 31, 2002 No. BV 23290Published

Before: P. McKay

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. A trial court errs by granting a landlord possession in an unlawful detainer action after finding that the landlord breached the warranty of habitability, even if the court characterizes the breach as 'nonsubstantial,' because such conditions constitute a substantial breach under Code of Civil Procedure section 1174.2.

Issues

Whether the trial court misapplied the law by entering judgment for the landlord after finding a nonsubstantial breach of the warranty of habitability that justified a rent reduction.

Disposition. reversed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The issue presented by this appeal is whether the trial court misapplied the law when it entered judgment for the plaintiff after finding a nonsubstantial breach of the warranty of habitability that justified a $200 reduction in the tenant's rent.”

“a tenant is entitled to a reduction of rent only upon a showing of a substantial breach of the warranty of habitability or of Civil Code section 1941.”

“Appellant, having prevailed on her affirmative defense, was entitled pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1174.2, subdivision (a), to possession of the premises and to a conditional judgment in her favor.”

117 Cal.Rptr.2d 921 (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th Supp. 62 Herb W. HYATT, Plaintiff and Respondent,

Nora TEDESCO, Defendant and Appellant.

No. BV 23290. Appellate Division, Superior Court, Los Angeles County.

January 31, 2002. [922] Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles and Kenyon F. Dobberteen for Defendant and Appellant.

Meller & Floyd and Harry Floyd for Plaintiff and Respondent.

MEMORANDUM JUDGMENT

P. McKAY, J.

This cause having been submitted for decision, and fully considered, judgment is ordered as follows:

The judgment is reversed. Appellant to recover costs on appeal.

Defendant and tenant Nora Tedesco (hereinafter appellant) timely appeals the judgment entered in favor of plaintiff and landlord Herb W. Hyatt (hereinafter plaintiff) following an unlawful detainer court trial.

PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND

On September 20, 2000, plaintiff filed an unlawful detainer action against appellant seeking possession of the premises, forfeiture of the agreement, past due rent and damages on the theory of nonpayment of rent.

On September 25, 2000, appellant filed her answer to the complaint. In her answer, appellant, among other things not germane to this appeal, denied the monthly rent amount as stated in the complaint, the amount of rent that was due and owing, and set forth the affirmative defense of breach of warranty of habitability. Appellant specifically alleged that the following conditions existed in the premises: leaking roof, missing bathtub tiles, windows not secure from the elements due to rotten frames, holes in the carpeting, cracks in the walls, security bars without release latches, water damage throughout the house to the walls and carpets, and plumbing that does not adequately drain.

A court trial was held on October 17, 2000, wherein plaintiff, appellant, and Rocco Spinelli testified.[1] Plaintiffs testimony established a prima facie case for relief under an unlawful detainer cause of action. Additionally, in his case-in-chief, plaintiff testified about matters raised by appellant in her answer to the complaint. According to plaintiff, the conditions that appellant complained of did not exist when he acquired the property in 1995. Plaintiff had the roof of the premises repaired in December

Hyatt v. Tedesco

AI Brief

MEMORANDUM JUDGMENT

PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

ISSUE ON APPEAL

DISCUSSION

NOTES

AI Brief