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
1,622 charsAccording to the engrossed statement on appeal, appellant testified that the following conditions existed in the premises during September 2000: "the carpet was torn and dirty throughout the property, there were leaks around some of the windows[,] that the bathtub overflow valve leaked badly which had caused the subflooring under the tub to deteriorate, and that the thermostat for the heater did not work properly." Additionally, appellant testified that the roof to the premises had leaked during the entire term of her tenancy and, as a result, personal property had been damaged. It was appellant's contention that even though she provided plaintiff with both written and oral notice of the conditions that existed at the premises, plaintiff had failed to make repairs with the exception of "restoring hot water to the property." In support of her testimony, appellant offered a series of exhibits which were received into evidence. Seven of the exhibits were letters from appellant to plaintiff for the time period starting on March 14, 1996 and ending on March 15, 2000, wherein appellant complained in each letter about the roof leaking when it rains, and other conditions in the apartment. The exhibits also included a series of photographs[2] depicting the roof; water damage inside the closet, bathroom and bedroom; the bathroom with a portion of the wall exposed, crack in the sink and bathtub overflow valve; exterior window frames; carpeting worn or missing to the extent that the floorboards are visible; and pictures taken from underneath the house that include missing floorboards underneath the bathtub.