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

1,186 chars

The degree to which the landlord’s breach of the implied warranty of habitability provides a defense to an unlawful detainer action depends entirely upon the extent of the damages caused by the landlord’s breach. If *933the “landlord’s breach of warranty is total, [such] that the tenant owes no rent whatsoever, the court should, of course, enter judgment for the tenant in the unlawful detainer action.” (Green v. Superior Court, supra, 10 Cal.3d at p. 639.) On the other hand, “if the trial court finds that the landlord has not breached the warranty of habitability, it should immediately enter judgment in favor of the landlord.” (Ibid.) Where the landlord’s breach falls somewhere in between, such that the damages do not exceed the fair rental value, the trial court will assess the amount of rent owed: “If the court determines . . . that the damages from the breach of warranty justify only a partial reduction in rent, the tenant may maintain possession of the premises only if he pays that portion of the back rent that is owing, as directed by the trial court. [Citations.] If the tenant fails to pay such sum, the landlord is entitled to a judgment for possession.” (Ibid.)

Other Sections in This Document (144)

Full Text