Erlach v. Sierra Asset Servicing, LLC, 226 Cal. App. 4th 1281 (2014)

Citation: Erlach v. Sierra Asset Servicing, LLC, 226 Cal. App. 4th 1281 (2014)
Parent Document: Erlach v. Sierra Asset Servicing, LLC, 226 Cal. App. 4th 1281 (2014)
Jurisdiction: California (state)
Effective Date: 2014-06-10
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2677838/erlach-v-sierra-asset-servicing-llc/ ↗

Full Text

2,212 chars

11
one guilty of the greatest moral fault, and where to apply the rule will be to permit the
defendant to be unjustly enriched at the expense of the plaintiff, the rule should not be
applied." ' [Citations.]" (Carter v. Cohen, supra, 188 Cal.App.4th at p. 1048.)
       " '[W]hen the Legislature enacts a statute forbidding certain conduct for the
purpose of protecting one class of persons from the activities of another, a member of the
protected class may maintain an action notwithstanding the fact that he has shared in the
illegal transaction. The protective purpose of the legislation is realized by allowing the
plaintiff to maintain his action against a defendant within the class primarily to be
deterred. In this situation it is said that the plaintiff is not in pari delicto. [Citations.]'
[Citation.] Courts have thus permitted parties to obtain benefits under a law enacted for
their protection, despite their participation in transactions that contravened the law
[citations]. Similarly, courts have permitted parties to enforce contracts that contravene
statutes enacted for the parties' benefit [citation.]" (Carter v. Cohen, supra, 188
Cal.App.4th at p.1048.)
       Although rental agreements regarding units lacking a certificate of occupancy are
unlawful, their enforcement by tenants is subject to the aforementioned principles.
(Carter v. Cohen, supra, 188 Cal.App.4th at at p.1048.)
       Accordingly, we turn to appellant's complaint to determine whether he has stated
viable claims. We begin by discussing tort claims and statutory claims involving a
landlord-tenant relationship.
       The California Supreme Court has held that because "under contemporary
conditions, public policy compels landlords to bear the primary responsibility for
maintaining safe, clean and habitable housing in our state," there is a warranty of
habitability implied in residential leases in California. (Green, supra, 10 Cal.3d at p.
627.) In Green, the court explained that "[t]his implied warranty of habitability does not
require that a landlord ensure that leased premises are in perfect, aesthetically pleasing
condition, but it does mean that 'bare living requirements' must be maintained. In most

Other Sections in This Document (35)

Full Text