Knight v. Hallsthammar

29 Cal. 3d 46 (Cal. 1981) · Supreme Court of California · February 13, 1981 · No. L.A. 31235

Summary

The California Supreme Court considers whether residential tenants may defend unlawful detainer actions based on a landlord's breach of the implied warranty of habitability. It holds that continued occupancy, tenant knowledge of defects, and the landlord's lack of a reasonable repair period do not defeat the defense, and that the defense may apply against a current owner even when the conditions predated the ownership change. The court reverses because the trial court gave misleading or erroneous jury instructions concerning habitability and the warranty.

Holdings

  1. A residential tenant does not waive the landlord's implied warranty of habitability merely by continuing to live in premises that are uninhabitable, and the tenant's lack of knowledge of the defects at the time of occupancy is not a prerequisite to establishing breach.
  2. When a landlord has notice of uninhabitable conditions not caused by the tenant, breach of the implied warranty of habitability does not depend on whether the landlord has been given a reasonable time to repair.
  3. A tenant may defend an unlawful detainer action brought by a current landlord, at least as to rent currently claimed, even when the uninhabitable conditions first existed under a former owner.
  4. Where appropriate under the facts, tenants are entitled to jury instructions based on relevant standards in Civil Code section 1941.1 even when they assert the common-law implied warranty of habitability rather than the statutory repair-and-deduct remedy.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether a residential tenant waives the landlord's implied warranty of habitability by continuing to occupy premises despite knowledge of defective conditions.
  2. Whether a tenant asserting breach of the implied warranty of habitability as a defense to unlawful detainer must allow the landlord a reasonable time to repair after notice.
  3. Whether a tenant may assert the implied-warranty defense against a current landlord when the uninhabitable conditions began under a former owner.
  4. Whether tenants may receive jury instructions based on Civil Code section 1941.1 habitability standards when relying on the common-law warranty defense rather than the statutory repair-and-deduct remedy.

Disposition

reversed

Cases Cited (19)

  • Green v. Superior Court, 10 Cal. 3d 616, 111 Cal. Rptr. 704, 517 P.2d 1168 (1974)(followed)
  • Secretary of Housing & Urban Dev. v. Layfield, 88 Cal. App. 3d Supp. 28, 152 Cal. Rptr. 342 (1978)(followed)
  • Berman & Sons, Inc. v. Jefferson, 396 N.E.2d 981, 983 (Mass. 1979)(followed in principle)
  • Jarrell v. Hartman, 48 Ill. App. 3d 985, 363 N.E.2d 626, 6 Ill. Dec. 812 (1977)(followed in principle)
  • Standard Livestock Co. v. Pentz, 204 Cal. 618, 269 P. 645, 62 A.L.R. 1239 (1928)(distinguished)
  • Ray v. Alad Corp., 19 Cal. 3d 22, 136 Cal. Rptr. 574, 560 P.2d 3 (1977)(not reached)
  • Henderson v. Harnischfeger Corp., 12 Cal. 3d 663, 670, 117 Cal. Rptr. 1, 527 P.2d 353 (1974)(followed)
  • Quevedo v. Braga, 72 Cal. App. 3d Supp. 1, 140 Cal. Rptr. 143 (1977)(disapproved)
  • Hinson v. Delis, 26 Cal. App. 3d 62, 102 Cal. Rptr. 661 (1972)(disapproved)
  • Shaw v. Pacific Greyhound Lines, 50 Cal. 2d 153, 158, 323 P.2d 391 (1958)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 19.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Download CaseDownload Case DataDownload Case and DataDownload AI Instructions

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…

More from California Supreme Court