Section 1942

Citation: Section 1942
Parent Document: Drouet v. Superior Court, 73 P.3d 1185 (2003)
Jurisdiction: California (state)
Effective Date: 2003-08-11
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2585536/drouet-v-superior-court/ ↗

Full Text

1,347 chars

In support of its observation that no jurisdiction has sustained a "retaliatory withdrawal defense," the majority relies upon two opinions that are inapposite. (Maj. opn., ante, 3 Cal.Rptr.3d at p. 215, 73 P.3d at p. 1194.) The majority cites the *226 decision in California Livestock Production Credit Assn. v. Sutfin (1985) 165 Cal. App.3d 136, 211 Cal.Rptr. 152, for the proposition that a "claim of retaliation is not a defense in [an] unlawful detainer action based on foreclosure of property." (Maj. opn., ante, 3 Cal.Rptr.3d at p. 215, 73 P.3d at p. 1194.) The decision in California Livestock held that retaliatory eviction is not a defense to eviction following a valid foreclosure sale because "there is no antecedent landlord-tenant relationship between the trustor and the purchaser. There is no lease or rental agreement entitling the trustor to remain in possession of the premises; the trustor's only right to possession is based on his title to the premises, which has been lost at a valid foreclosure sale. Thus, even if the purchaser were precluded from using an `invalid reason' for eviction, the trustor would still have no lawful claim to continued possession." (California Livestock Production Credit Assn. v. Sutfin, supra, 165 Cal.App.3d at p. 143, 211 Cal.Rptr. 152.) This reasoning has no application in the present case.

Other Sections in This Document (188)

Full Text