Stoiber v. Honeychuck, 101 Cal. App. 3d 903 (1980)
- Citation
- Stoiber v. Honeychuck, 101 Cal. App. 3d 903 (1980)
- Parent Document
- Stoiber v. Honeychuck, 101 Cal. App. 3d 903 (1980)
- Jurisdiction
- California (state)
- Effective Date
- 1980-02-05
Other Sections in This Document (161)
- Stoiber v. Honeychuck, 101 Cal. App. 3d 903 (1980)
- Stoiber v. Honeychuck, 101 Cal. App. 3d 903 (1980)
- Stoiber v. Honeychuck, 101 Cal. App. 3d 903 (1980)
- Stoiber v. Honeychuck, 101 Cal. App. 3d 903 (1980)
- Stoiber v. Honeychuck, 101 Cal. App. 3d 903 (1980)
- Stoiber v. Honeychuck, 101 Cal. App. 3d 903 (1980)
- Stoiber v. Honeychuck, 101 Cal. App. 3d 903 (1980)
- Stoiber v. Honeychuck, 101 Cal. App. 3d 903 (1980)
- Stoiber v. Honeychuck, 101 Cal. App. 3d 903 (1980)
- Stoiber v. Honeychuck, 101 Cal. App. 3d 903 (1980)
- Stoiber v. Honeychuck, 101 Cal. App. 3d 903 (1980)
- Stoiber v. Honeychuck, 101 Cal. App. 3d 903 (1980)
- Stoiber v. Honeychuck, 101 Cal. App. 3d 903 (1980)
- Stoiber v. Honeychuck, 101 Cal. App. 3d 903 (1980)
- Stoiber v. Honeychuck, 101 Cal. App. 3d 903 (1980)
- Stoiber v. Honeychuck, 101 Cal. App. 3d 903 (1980)
- Stoiber v. Honeychuck, 101 Cal. App. 3d 903 (1980)
- Stoiber v. Honeychuck, 101 Cal. App. 3d 903 (1980)
- Stoiber v. Honeychuck, 101 Cal. App. 3d 903 (1980)
- Stoiber v. Honeychuck, 101 Cal. App. 3d 903 (1980)
- Stoiber v. Honeychuck, 101 Cal. App. 3d 903 (1980)
- Stoiber v. Honeychuck, 101 Cal. App. 3d 903 (1980)
- Stoiber v. Honeychuck, 101 Cal. App. 3d 903 (1980)
- Stoiber v. Honeychuck, 101 Cal. App. 3d 903 (1980)
- Stoiber v. Honeychuck, 101 Cal. App. 3d 903 (1980)
- Stoiber v. Honeychuck, 101 Cal. App. 3d 903 (1980)
- Stoiber v. Honeychuck, 101 Cal. App. 3d 903 (1980)
- Stoiber v. Honeychuck, 101 Cal. App. 3d 903 (1980)
- Stoiber v. Honeychuck, 101 Cal. App. 3d 903 (1980)
- Stoiber v. Honeychuck, 101 Cal. App. 3d 903 (1980)
- Stoiber v. Honeychuck, 101 Cal. App. 3d 903 (1980)
- Stoiber v. Honeychuck, 101 Cal. App. 3d 903 (1980)
- Stoiber v. Honeychuck, 101 Cal. App. 3d 903 (1980)
- Stoiber v. Honeychuck, 101 Cal. App. 3d 903 (1980)
- Stoiber v. Honeychuck, 101 Cal. App. 3d 903 (1980)
- Stoiber v. Honeychuck, 101 Cal. App. 3d 903 (1980)
- Stoiber v. Honeychuck, 101 Cal. App. 3d 903 (1980)
- Stoiber v. Honeychuck, 101 Cal. App. 3d 903 (1980)
- Stoiber v. Honeychuck, 101 Cal. App. 3d 903 (1980)
- Stoiber v. Honeychuck, 101 Cal. App. 3d 903 (1980)
- Stoiber v. Honeychuck, 101 Cal. App. 3d 903 (1980)
- Stoiber v. Honeychuck, 101 Cal. App. 3d 903 (1980)
- Stoiber v. Honeychuck, 101 Cal. App. 3d 903 (1980)
- Stoiber v. Honeychuck, 101 Cal. App. 3d 903 (1980)
- Stoiber v. Honeychuck, 101 Cal. App. 3d 903 (1980)
- Stoiber v. Honeychuck, 101 Cal. App. 3d 903 (1980)
- Stoiber v. Honeychuck, 101 Cal. App. 3d 903 (1980)
- Stoiber v. Honeychuck, 101 Cal. App. 3d 903 (1980)
- Stoiber v. Honeychuck, 101 Cal. App. 3d 903 (1980)
- Stoiber v. Honeychuck, 101 Cal. App. 3d 903 (1980)
- Stoiber v. Honeychuck, 101 Cal. App. 3d 903 (1980)
- Stoiber v. Honeychuck, 101 Cal. App. 3d 903 (1980)
- Stoiber v. Honeychuck, 101 Cal. App. 3d 903 (1980)
- Stoiber v. Honeychuck, 101 Cal. App. 3d 903 (1980)
- Stoiber v. Honeychuck, 101 Cal. App. 3d 903 (1980)
- Stoiber v. Honeychuck, 101 Cal. App. 3d 903 (1980)
- Stoiber v. Honeychuck, 101 Cal. App. 3d 903 (1980)
- Stoiber v. Honeychuck, 101 Cal. App. 3d 903 (1980)
- Stoiber v. Honeychuck, 101 Cal. App. 3d 903 (1980)
- Stoiber v. Honeychuck, 101 Cal. App. 3d 903 (1980)
- Stoiber v. Honeychuck, 101 Cal. App. 3d 903 (1980)
- Stoiber v. Honeychuck, 101 Cal. App. 3d 903 (1980)
- Stoiber v. Honeychuck, 101 Cal. App. 3d 903 (1980)
- Stoiber v. Honeychuck, 101 Cal. App. 3d 903 (1980)
- Stoiber v. Honeychuck, 101 Cal. App. 3d 903 (1980)
- Stoiber v. Honeychuck, 101 Cal. App. 3d 903 (1980)
- Stoiber v. Honeychuck, 101 Cal. App. 3d 903 (1980)
- Stoiber v. Honeychuck, 101 Cal. App. 3d 903 (1980)
- Stoiber v. Honeychuck, 101 Cal. App. 3d 903 (1980)
- Stoiber v. Honeychuck, 101 Cal. App. 3d 903 (1980)
- Section 669
- Section 669
- Section 669
- Section 669
- Section 669
- Section 669
- Section 669
- Section 669
- Section 669
- Section 669
- Section 669
- Section 669
- Section 669
- Section 669
- Section 669
- Section 669
- Section 669
- Section 669
- Section 669
- Section 669
- Section 669
- Section 669
- Section 669
- Section 669
- Section 669
- Section 669
- Section 669
- Section 669
- Section 669
- Section 669
- Section 669
- Section 669
- Section 669
- Section 669
- Section 669
- Section 669
- Section 669
- Section 669
- Section 669
- Section 669
- Section 669
- Section 669
- Section 669
- Section 669
- Section 669
- Section 669
- Section 669
- Section 669
- Section 669
- Section 669
- Section 669
- Section 669
- Section 669
- Section 669
- Section 669
- Section 669
- Section 669
- Section 669
- Section 669
- Section 669
- Section 669
- Section 669
- Section 669
- Section 669
- Section 669
- Section 669
- Section 669
- Section 669
- Section 669
- Section 669
- Section 669
- Section 669
- Section 669
- Section 669
- Section 669
- Section 669
- Section 669
- Section 669
- Section 669
- Section 669
- Section 669
- Section 669
- Section 669
- Section 669
- Section 669
- Section 669
- Section 669
- Section 669
- Section 669
- Section 669
- Section 669
Full Text
1,738 charsFRANSON, J. These consolidated proceedings (three appeals and a petition for writ of mandate) arise from a lawsuit filed by appellant-petitioner Mary Stoiber (hereinafter appellant) against William T. Earley and Ruth V. Earley, owners of the premises which had been occupied by appellant and her family under a month-to-month tenancy. The suit also names Irene Honeychuck, Frank P. Smith Realty and Management, Inc., Ron Perkins and Doe defendants as managing agents of the premises. Appellant seeks to hold the owners and managing agents liable for damages resulting from the dilapidated and unsafe condition of the rented premises.1 Appellant alleged six causes of action based on the following theories: breach of warranty of habitability, nuisance, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent violation of statutory duty, constructive eviction, and injunctive relief from unlawful business practices. The trial court sustained various demurrers and granted defense motions for judgment on the pleadings to the end that all causes of action were stricken from the complaint other than the first cause of action for breach of warranty of habitability against William T. Earley as owner of the premises. The trial court’s rulings were premised on the belief that the action against the landlord for breach of the warranty of habitability constituted appellant’s exclusive remedy as a tenant for damages suffered from the dilapidation and unsafe condition of the premises. As we shall explain, the trial court erred in so holding. Under the law in California today, a tenant, by pleading proper facts, may state a cause of action in tort against his landlord for failure to keep the premises in a lawful state of habitability.