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

1,505 chars

14
caused by the tenant's acts or omissions. (Civ. Code, § 1942.4, subd. (a).) In the event
that each of the circumstances under subdivision (a) of the statute is satisfied, a tenant
may bring an action for actual damages plus statutory damages of between $100 and
$5,000. (Civ. Code, § 1942.4, subd. (b)(1).)9
       In Stoiber v. Honeychuck, supra, 101 Cal.App.3d 903 (Stoiber), the court held that
a tenant may maintain a tort action against his landlord for damages suffered by way of
annoyance or discomfort or for injury to his personal property caused by the landlord's
failure to keep the premises in a habitable condition under the expansive rationale of
Rowland v. Christian (1968) 69 Cal.2d 108. (Stoiber, supra, 101 Cal.App.3d at pp. 916-
917, 918-919.) The Stoiber court concluded "that the availability of a remedy for breach
of implied warranty of habitability does not preclude a tenant from suing his landlord for
intentional infliction of mental distress if the landlord's acts are extreme and outrageous
and result in severe mental distress." (Id. at p. 922.) Whether this is so under the present
allegations presents a factual question; however, it cannot be said as a matter of law that
appellant has not stated such a claim.
       Furthermore, "the negligent infliction of emotional distress–anxiety, worry,
discomfort–is compensable without physical injury in cases involving the tortious
interference with property rights [citations]." (Stoiber, supra, 101 Cal.App.3d at p. 922.)

Other Sections in This Document (35)

Full Text