Fairchild v. Park, 109 Cal. Rptr. 2d 442 (2001)

Citation: Fairchild v. Park, 109 Cal. Rptr. 2d 442 (2001)
Parent Document: Fairchild v. Park, 109 Cal. Rptr. 2d 442 (2001)
Jurisdiction: California (state)
Effective Date: 2001-07-19
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2256171/fairchild-v-park/ ↗

Full Text

872 chars

We acknowledge that a landlord has a statutory obligation under Civil Code section 1941 to keep residential property in “a condition fit for [human] occupation, and repair all subsequent dilapidations thereof.” But in Green, supra, 10 Cal.3d 616, the Supreme Court made clear that Civil Code section 1941 does not affect a tenant’s right to pursue a claim for violation of the warranty of habitability. In the words of the court, “we conclude that Civil Code section 1941 et seq. do not preclude the development of new common law principles in this area, and we now hold that a warranty of habitability is implied by law in residential leases in California.” (Green, supra, 10 Cal.3d at p. 631, italics added.) And, as stated, the trial court in this case did not rely on section 1941, but instead based liability solely on the implied warranty of quiet use and enjoyment.

Other Sections in This Document (144)

Full Text