Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Drouet v. Superior Court, 104 Cal. Rptr. 2d 159 (2001)

Citation
Drouet v. Superior Court, 104 Cal. Rptr. 2d 159 (2001)
Parent Document
Drouet v. Superior Court, 104 Cal. Rptr. 2d 159 (2001)
Jurisdiction
California (state)
Effective Date
2001-05-23

Other Sections in This Document (78)

Full Text

1,298 chars
We strive to construe statutes to reach a reasonable legislatively intended result (see DeYoung v. City of San Diego (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 11, 18, 194 Cal.Rptr. 722, disapproved on another ground in Yamaha Corp. of America v. State Bd, of Equalization (1998) 19 Cal.4th 1, 15, 78 Cal.Rptr.2d 1, 960 P.2d 1031), and to harmonize competing statutes to effectuate the legislative policy. "[I]f a court can by any fair interpretation find a reasonable field of operation for two allegedly inconsistent statutes without destroying or preventing their intent or meaning from being operative, the court should do so." (2A Sutherland, Statutory Construction (5th ed. 1992) Criteria of Interpretation, § 45.12, pp. 61-62, footnote omitted.) It is unreasonable to conclude that in the process of making broad references to entire systems of statutes in the Ellis Act, the Legislature intended the defense of retaliatory eviction to apply to unlawful detainer proceedings under the Act—after the landlord has ceased to use the property as an income-generating asset. To conclude otherwise would erect an unintended, massive and daunting barrier between the right to go out of the landlord business and the practical ability to bring that right *172 to fruition in accordance with the purpose of the Ellis Act.