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

1,316 chars
The competing policies of the Ellis Act and the tenant's right against retaliatory eviction can be protected, promoted, and harmonized by interpreting the Ellis Act to disallow retaliatory eviction as an affirmative defense in an unlawful detainer proceeding, while allowing an independent damage action under Civil Code section 1942.5, subdivisions (f) and (g). This reasonable solution resolves the tension between the landlord's rights under the Ellis Act and the tenant's rights under the retaliatory eviction statute by giving effect to the legislative intent and policies of each, and also reconciles Government Code sections 7060.1, subdivision (d), 7060.6, and 7060.7. "`"[S]tatutes must be given a reasonable and common sense construction in accordance with the apparent purpose and intention of the lawmakers—one that is practical rather than technical, and that will lead to a wise policy rather than to mischief or absurdity." [Citation.]'" (City of Costa Mesa v. McKenzie, supra, 30 Cal.App.3d at 770.) While the landlord's right to go out of business hinges on the ability to evict holdover tenants without undue delay, nothing in the Ellis Act or in its underlying policies excuses the landlord from subsequent liability for statutory damages for acting with retaliatory motives during the tenancy.[9]