Section 1942
- Citation
- Section 1942
- Parent Document
- Knight v. Hallsthammar, 623 P.2d 268 (1981)
- Jurisdiction
- California (state)
- Effective Date
- 1981-02-13
Other Sections in This Document (192)
- Knight v. Hallsthammar, 623 P.2d 268 (1981)
- Knight v. Hallsthammar, 623 P.2d 268 (1981)
- Knight v. Hallsthammar, 623 P.2d 268 (1981)
- Knight v. Hallsthammar, 623 P.2d 268 (1981)
- Knight v. Hallsthammar, 623 P.2d 268 (1981)
- Knight v. Hallsthammar, 623 P.2d 268 (1981)
- Knight v. Hallsthammar, 623 P.2d 268 (1981)
- Knight v. Hallsthammar, 623 P.2d 268 (1981)
- Knight v. Hallsthammar, 623 P.2d 268 (1981)
- Knight v. Hallsthammar, 623 P.2d 268 (1981)
- Knight v. Hallsthammar, 623 P.2d 268 (1981)
- Knight v. Hallsthammar, 623 P.2d 268 (1981)
- Knight v. Hallsthammar, 623 P.2d 268 (1981)
- Knight v. Hallsthammar, 623 P.2d 268 (1981)
- Knight v. Hallsthammar, 623 P.2d 268 (1981)
- Knight v. Hallsthammar, 623 P.2d 268 (1981)
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
Full Text
969 charsThe undisputed facts of the present case are that all of the defendant tenants had personally complained to the resident manager about various conditions before plaintiffs assumed ownership of the apartments. One day after plaintiffs became the owners, they announced that every tenant’s rent would be raised. One week later, plaintiffs’ agent was notified of the tenants’ complaints and that the rent was going to be withheld. Any plans of the new owners to repair and improve the building did not negate the tenants’ defense, since plaintiffs were already in breach of their implied warranty of habitability, if the premises were indeed uninhabitable. Moreover, the change of ownership was an event over which the tenants had no control. Therefore, a tenant may defend an unlawful detainer action against a current owner, at least with respect to rent currently being claimed due, despite the fact that the uninhabitable conditions first existed under a former owner.