4
1 applying a de novo standard of review. (See Ghirardo v. Antonioli (1994) 8 Cal.4th 791, 799;
2 Nguyen v. Calhoun (2003) 105 Cal.App.4th 428, 437-438.)
3 III. Analysis
4 A. The Carters Were Entitled to Assert and Litigate Affirmative Defenses
Concerning Habitability and Retaliatory Eviction in This Proceeding
5
6 The Carters posit that the trial court erroneously prohibited them from presenting their
7 retaliatory eviction and habitability defenses, which are affirmative defenses permitted by
8 statute and common law in an unlawful detainer proceeding. (Civ. Code §§ 1941, 1942.4 &
9 1942.5; Code Civ. Proc. § 1174.2; Green v. Superior Court (1974) 10 Cal.3d 616, 635 (Green);
10 S.P. Growers Assn. v. Rodriguez (1976) 17 Cal.3d 719, 723 (S.P. Growers); Vargas v.
11 Municipal Court (McAnally Enterprises, Inc.) (1978) 22 Cal.3d 902, 916 (Vargas); Barela v.
12 Superior Court (Valdez) (1981) 30 Cal.3d 244, 249 (Barela).)
13 With respect to the habitability defense, Boyd retorts that, consistently with what the
14 trial court determined, the Carters‟ habitability defense was waived or forfeited because they did
15 not check the box on the first page of the Judicial Council answer form, which states, “Plaintiff
16 has breached the warranty to provide habitable premises.”
17 The Carters concede that they did not check this box on the answer form. But they
18 contend that they nonetheless asserted a habitability defense by the statements handwritten on
19 page two of their answer regarding claimed habitability problems. They contend that this, along
20 with the attachments to their answer, was sufficient, to put Boyd on notice that this affirmative
21 defense was in issue at trial. They further contend the same statements in their answer also
22 raised their defense that the eviction was retaliatory and in response to their deduction of rent in
23 December 2012 and their complaint about habitability conditions to the City of Sunnyvale.
24 The Carters‟ contention as to the sufficiency of pleading of both affirmative defenses
25 has merit. Their allegations that the residence “was not move-in ready,” that they had to make
26 repairs to make it “livable,” and that “the house was code tag[ged by] code enforcement to be
27 uninhabitable, and things needed to be repair[ed] by certain date” were sufficient, along with the
28 letters and other attachments to their answer, to put Boyd on notice that they were asserting an