Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

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

Other Sections in This Document (144)

Full Text

723 chars
[1] The parties do not attach any significance to the difference in terminology between the complaint—the "covenant of habitability "— and the trial court's memorandum of intended decision—the "covenant of quiet use and enjoyment." This is understandable because "the implied covenant of quiet enjoyment is similar to, and sometimes overlapping with, the warranty of habitability." (Friedman et al., Cal. Practice Guide: Landlord-Tenant (The Rutter Group 2000) § 4.23, p. 4-8.1, rev. # 1, 2000.) "[T]he `line between' the landlord's interference with the tenant's quiet enjoyment and the landlord's failure to maintain the leased premises in a `tenantable' condition can be `blurred.'" (Id., § 4.7, p. 4-3, rev. # 1, 1999.)