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

1,157 chars

Respondents again argue that any expansion of the remedies provided by Civil Code sections 1941 and 1942 must come from the Legislature. We again respond by quoting from Green v. Superior Court, supra, 10 Cal.3d: “These limitations [repair and deduct remedy limited to one month’s rent each year] demonstrate that the Legislature framed the section only to encompass relatively minor dilapidations in leased premises. [Citations.]..., in the most serious instances of deterioration, ... section 1942 does not provide, and could not have been designed as, a viable solution.” (Id., at pp. 630-631.) “[T]he statutory framework ... has never been viewed as a curtailment of the growth of the common law in this field.” (Id., at p. 630.) Gustin v. Williams (1967) 255 Cal.App.2d Supp. 929 [62 Cal.Rptr. 838], cited by defendants, must be deemed overruled by the rationale of Green v. Superior Court, supra, 10 Cal. 3d 616, and Rowland v. Christian, supra, 69 Cal.2d 108. (See Minoletti v. Sabini (1972) 27 Cal.App.3d 321 [103 Cal.Rptr. 528]; Brennan v. Cockrell Investments, Inc., supra, 35 Cal.App.3d 796; Evans v. Thomason, supra, 72 Cal.App.3d 978, 984-985.)

Other Sections in This Document (161)

Full Text