Hyatt v. Tedesco, 117 Cal. Rptr. 2d 921 (2002)
- Citation
- Hyatt v. Tedesco, 117 Cal. Rptr. 2d 921 (2002)
- Parent Document
- Hyatt v. Tedesco, 117 Cal. Rptr. 2d 921 (2002)
- Jurisdiction
- California (state)
- Effective Date
- 2002-01-31
- Original Source
- https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2246961/hyatt-v-tedesco/ ↗
Other Sections in This Document (28)
- Hyatt v. Tedesco, 117 Cal. Rptr. 2d 921 (2002)
- Hyatt v. Tedesco, 117 Cal. Rptr. 2d 921 (2002)
- Hyatt v. Tedesco, 117 Cal. Rptr. 2d 921 (2002)
- Hyatt v. Tedesco, 117 Cal. Rptr. 2d 921 (2002)
- Hyatt v. Tedesco, 117 Cal. Rptr. 2d 921 (2002)
- Hyatt v. Tedesco, 117 Cal. Rptr. 2d 921 (2002)
- Hyatt v. Tedesco, 117 Cal. Rptr. 2d 921 (2002)
- Hyatt v. Tedesco, 117 Cal. Rptr. 2d 921 (2002)
- Hyatt v. Tedesco, 117 Cal. Rptr. 2d 921 (2002)
- Hyatt v. Tedesco, 117 Cal. Rptr. 2d 921 (2002)
- Hyatt v. Tedesco, 117 Cal. Rptr. 2d 921 (2002)
- Hyatt v. Tedesco, 117 Cal. Rptr. 2d 921 (2002)
- Hyatt v. Tedesco, 117 Cal. Rptr. 2d 921 (2002)
- Hyatt v. Tedesco, 117 Cal. Rptr. 2d 921 (2002)
- Hyatt v. Tedesco, 117 Cal. Rptr. 2d 921 (2002)
- Hyatt v. Tedesco, 117 Cal. Rptr. 2d 921 (2002)
- Hyatt v. Tedesco, 117 Cal. Rptr. 2d 921 (2002)
- Hyatt v. Tedesco, 117 Cal. Rptr. 2d 921 (2002)
- Hyatt v. Tedesco, 117 Cal. Rptr. 2d 921 (2002)
- Hyatt v. Tedesco, 117 Cal. Rptr. 2d 921 (2002)
- Hyatt v. Tedesco, 117 Cal. Rptr. 2d 921 (2002)
- Hyatt v. Tedesco, 117 Cal. Rptr. 2d 921 (2002)
- Hyatt v. Tedesco, 117 Cal. Rptr. 2d 921 (2002)
- Hyatt v. Tedesco, 117 Cal. Rptr. 2d 921 (2002)
- Hyatt v. Tedesco, 117 Cal. Rptr. 2d 921 (2002)
- Hyatt v. Tedesco, 117 Cal. Rptr. 2d 921 (2002)
- Hyatt v. Tedesco, 117 Cal. Rptr. 2d 921 (2002)
- Hyatt v. Tedesco, 117 Cal. Rptr. 2d 921 (2002)
Full Text
980 charsA court trial was held on October 17, 2000, wherein plaintiff, appellant, and Rocco Spinelli testified.[1] Plaintiffs testimony established a prima facie case for relief under an unlawful detainer cause of action. Additionally, in his case-in-chief, plaintiff testified about matters raised by appellant in her answer to the complaint. According to plaintiff, the conditions that appellant complained of did not exist when he acquired the property in 1995. Plaintiff had the roof of the premises repaired in December *923 1999. It was not until appellant filed her answer to the complaint that plaintiff became aware of appellant's complaints. Appellant did not mention the condition of the premises when plaintiff spoke with appellant about the September rent or when appellant mailed plaintiff the September rent after expiration of the period stated in the three-day notice. After receipt of appellant's answer, plaintiff had the roof and the interior of the premises repaired.