Section 669
- Citation
- Section 669
- 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
1,333 charsThis leads to the second point. We do not pass upon any defenses to the action, such as waiver, consent, assumption of risk, estoppel, and laches, which may exist. Though at this stage we must assume all the facts alleged are true, the facts actually proven at trial will undoubtedly cast a different light upon what is alleged. For example, the plaintiff occupied the premises between October 8, 1974, and August 19, 1977, a *933 period of almost three years. A number of serious and patent dilapidations are alleged. The complaint alleges that "These defective conditions were unknown to plaintiff at the time she moved in to the premises, but as she continued to live on the premises, she became increasingly aware of them." Three years to have become aware of dilapidations! Assuming she moved in under cover of darkness, daylight and a few days should have shed more than a little light on the situation. No facts are alleged showing she was restrained from vacating the premises. Indeed, she could have legally done so at any time by giving a 30-day notice or, because of the unheeded dilapidation, she could have simply abandoned the premises without obligation to pay further rent. (See Green v. Superior Court, supra, 10 Cal.3d at pp. 630-631.) The facts proven at trial, not legal theories, are what will be decisive. NOTES