Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Bevis v. Terrace View Partners, LP, 244 Cal. Rptr. 3d 797 (2019)

Citation
Bevis v. Terrace View Partners, LP, 244 Cal. Rptr. 3d 797 (2019)
Parent Document
Bevis v. Terrace View Partners, LP, 244 Cal. Rptr. 3d 797 (2019)
Jurisdiction
California (state)
Effective Date
2019-02-28

Other Sections in This Document (125)

Full Text

1,599 chars
We recognize that "overpayment of rent" could refer to a rented property not being worth the amount of rent being paid because a nuisance created by defendant negatively affects the property's habitability or the tenant's quiet enjoyment of the premises. However, plaintiffs' primary nuisance theory was that defendants failed to maintain the park in good working order and condition and the jury expressly rejected that theory on the special verdict forms. Although the jury found in favor of plaintiffs on their secondary nuisance theory based on defendants' failure to follow their own park rules that required them to maintain their park-owned vacant mobilehomes in good condition, and presumably some percentage of the jury's award is attributable to that claim, it is inconceivable that this secondary nuisance claim was the main basis for the jury's award of $ 1,289,000 in compensatory damages and $ 57 million in punitive damages. The twofold gravamen of plaintiffs' case clearly was that: (1) defendants' failure to maintain the park in good working order and condition created a nuisance that caused them compensable harm and (2) defendants imposed unreasonably high space rent increases that some plaintiffs could not afford and that made it difficult or impossible for plaintiffs to sell their mobilehomes. In light of the jury's rejection of plaintiffs' primary nuisance claim based on failure to maintain the park, it is reasonable to conclude that the main basis for the jury's awards of compensatory and punitive damages was the high rental rates plaintiffs had paid or were paying.