Section 1950
- Citation
- Section 1950
- Parent Document
- Granberry v. Islay Investments, 889 P.2d 970 (1995)
- Jurisdiction
- California (state)
- Effective Date
- 1995-03-06
Other Sections in This Document (169)
- Granberry v. Islay Investments, 889 P.2d 970 (1995)
- Granberry v. Islay Investments, 889 P.2d 970 (1995)
- Granberry v. Islay Investments, 889 P.2d 970 (1995)
- Granberry v. Islay Investments, 889 P.2d 970 (1995)
- Granberry v. Islay Investments, 889 P.2d 970 (1995)
- Granberry v. Islay Investments, 889 P.2d 970 (1995)
- Granberry v. Islay Investments, 889 P.2d 970 (1995)
- Granberry v. Islay Investments, 889 P.2d 970 (1995)
- Granberry v. Islay Investments, 889 P.2d 970 (1995)
- Granberry v. Islay Investments, 889 P.2d 970 (1995)
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
Full Text
1,071 charsBy permitting a landlord who has retained the entire security without timely asserting any claims to the tenant to nonetheless set off claims in an *759action by the tenant to recover the security, the majority’s holding will render section 1950.5(f) a flimsy barrier against the evil it is designed to address—landlords who do not promptly account for any claims against the security and refund whatever security is due their tenants without the necessity of legal action by the tenant. The statutory requirements that the landlord “shall” assert claims against the security within two weeks by notifying the tenant and “shall” refund any remaining portion within two weeks are meaningless, and the purpose of the statute is frustrated, if the landlord who fails to do so can nonetheless assert those claims as setoff years later in an action by the tenant to recover the security. The carefully balanced incentives of section 1950.5, designed to ensure that landlords refund security routinely and without the necessity of court action, will accordingly be defeated. IV