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

1,475 chars
We find further evidence of legislative intent in the 1992 amendment to Civil Code section 1942.4, a companion to section 1942.5. Section 1942.4, in essence, permits an action for damages against a landlord who "demands or collects rent" when the premises are untenantable within the meaning of Civil Code section 1941.1; the landlord has been so informed by the housing authorities; the landlord has not repaired the property within 60 days of notice without good cause for the delay; and the condition of the property is not the doing of the tenant. (Civ.Code, § 1942.4, subd. (a).) The statute also permits a court to require the landlord to repair any condition of untenantability which significantly affects the health or safety of the tenants. (Civ.Code, § 1942.4, subd. (c).) In 1992 the Legislature added the provision mat "Nothing in this section shall require any landlord to comply with this section if he or she pursues his or her rights pursuant to [the Ellis Act]." Thus, the Legislature obviously intends that a landlord who has gone out of the rental business pursuant to the Ellis Act will no longer be liable for statutorily imposed repairs to untenantable buildings. The Legislature did not intend for a landlord to suffer an eviction defense based on tenant complaints about untenantability when the landlord no longer is required to restore the Ellis Acted property to a condition suitable for tenants—tenants whom the landlord no longer expects to have.