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

1,300 chars

Enforcing the attorney fees clause under these facts would only serve to warn other landlords not to tolerate a nonpayment of rent and to file unlawful detainer actions immediately, in every instance. Any rational landlord will do so as a matter of self-protection. If by enforcing the attorney fee clause despite the tenants’ unjustified material breach of contract, the majority seek to further the public policy of requiring landlords to maintain habitable dwellings, it is not necessary to punish this landlord to accomplish that goal. The law already protects holdover tenants by requiring landlords to maintain the premises in a habitable condition, despite the tenants’ unjustified nonpayment of rent. (Civ. Code, § 1941 [“The lessor of a building intended for the occupation of human beings must, in the absence of an *935agreement to the contrary, put it into a condition fit for such occupation, and repair all subsequent dilapidations thereof, which render it untenantable, except such as are mentioned in section nineteen hundred and twenty-nine.”].) Accordingly, although nonpayment of rent is a material breach that gives rise to a summary action for recovery of possession and back rent, it does not excuse the landlord from maintaining a habitable dwelling during the holdover period.

Other Sections in This Document (144)

Full Text