EDC Associates, Ltd. v. Gutierrez, 153 Cal. App. 3d 167 (1984)

Citation: EDC Associates, Ltd. v. Gutierrez, 153 Cal. App. 3d 167 (1984)
Parent Document: EDC Associates, Ltd. v. Gutierrez, 153 Cal. App. 3d 167 (1984)
Jurisdiction: California (state)
Effective Date: 1984-03-16
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2116822/edc-associates-ltd-v-gutierrez/ ↗

Full Text

1,405 chars

3 Because of the remedial nature of the California statute, landlord's reliance upon the analysis of Maretz v. Apuzzo
(1977) 34 Conn. Sup. 594 [378 A.2d 1082], is unfounded. In that case, the superior court of Connecticut, appellate section, interpreted a Connecticut statute which provided a retaliatory eviction defense for tenants, but which concluded with the language: "`The obligation on the part of the [tenant] to pay rent or the reasonable value of the use and occupancy of the premises . . . shall not be abrogated or diminished by any provision of this section.'" (Id., at p. 1084.) The Connecticut court interpreted the quoted passage as requiring that a tenant subjected to a "summary possession" action have paid his rent before asserting the defense of retaliatory eviction created by the statute. (Id., at pp. 1083-1084.) As pointed out by tenant in her brief on appeal, the Connecticut statute contains a specific reference to rent payment in the same subdivision as the retaliation language, and thus is not entirely parallel to section 1942.5, subdivision (c). More importantly, the Connecticut court specifically held that the legislative intention of the statute being construed was to maintain the tenant's obligation to pay rent or be subject to eviction. (Id., at p. 1084.) The focus of section 1942.5, as identified by Barela, supra, is protection of the tenant, not the landlord.

Other Sections in This Document (170)

Full Text