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
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2134128/stoiber-v-honeychuck/ ↗

Full Text

1,451 chars

In reaching a decision whether the tenant’s action sounding in contract for breach of the warranty of habitability is the only remedy available against a landlord for failure to repair and maintain the premises in a habitable condition, we first, should briefly review the origin and development of the warranty of habitability in California. In Hinson v. Delis (1972) 26 Cal.App.3d 62 [102 Cal.Rptr. 661], the Court of Appeal abolished the traditional common law rule that a landlord owed no duty to his tenant to repair and maintain the premises since the possession and control of the premises are vested with the tenant. The Hinson court imposed a warranty of habitability in all residential leases as a matter of law. Hinson arose in the context of a tenant’s action for declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent eviction for nonpayment of rent. The court held the tenant was obliged to make rental payments only after the landlord complied with his duty to substantially obey the housing code and make the premises habitable when defects developed *914which were not caused by the tenant. The court observed, “[t]he implied warranty cases described above permit the most equitable remedy, in that the tenant is not absolved from all liability for rent, but remains liable for the reasonable rental value of the premises, as determined by the trial court, for such time as the premises were in violation of the housing codes.” (Id., at p. 70.)

Other Sections in This Document (161)

Full Text