Monumental cases that have impacted landlord-tenant law in California
The legal relationship between landlords and tenants has been shaped by an abundance of case law. Here are but a few decisions that govern these relationships.
Green v. Superior Court (1974): This case established the implied warranty of habitability, which requires landlords to maintain rental properties in a habitable condition. The court ruled that landlords have an obligation to provide safe and sanitary housing, and that tenants have the right to withhold rent if the landlord fails to meet this obligation.
Costa Hawkins v. City of Los Angeles (2018): In this case, the California Supreme Court upheld the Costa Hawkins Rental Housing Act, which limits rent control in the state. The court ruled that cities and municipalities cannot impose rent control on properties built after 1995, or on single-family homes and condos.
Gonzalez v. Downtown LA Motors (2019): This case dealt with the issue of whether employees who are required to stay on an employer's premises during their breaks must be paid for that time. The court ruled that employers must provide employees with a duty-free and uninterrupted break period, but need not require that they be relieved of all duties.
Watts v. Oak Shores Community Association (2021): In this case, the court clarified the scope of the state's COVID-19 eviction protections. The court ruled that the protections applied to all residential tenants, including those in non-traditional housing such as RV parks and mobile homes.
City of San Jose v. Superior Court (2021): This case dealt with the constitutionality of a San Jose ordinance requiring landlords to provide a "just cause" for eviction. The court upheld the ordinance, ruling that it did not violate the state's Ellis Act, which allows landlords to evict tenants in order to exit the rental business.
Munoz v. MacMillan (1999): In this case, the court clarified the landlord's duty to repair rental properties. The court held that landlords have a duty to repair conditions that affect the tenant's safety and health, and that tenants have the right to seek a court order to compel the landlord to make necessary repairs.
Mendoza v. City of Los Angeles (2011): This case dealt with the issue of whether landlords can be held liable for the illegal activities of their tenants. The court ruled that landlords can be held liable if they have actual knowledge of the illegal activity and fail to take action to stop it.
Yuzon v. Collins (2015): This case clarified the requirements for serving a notice to terminate a tenancy. The court held that the notice must be served in a way that is reasonably calculated to reach the tenant, and that it is not sufficient to simply mail the notice to the tenant's last known address.
Park v. Morgan (2019): This case dealt with the issue of whether a landlord can use a 3-day notice to pay or quit to evict a tenant who has paid rent but violated other lease terms. The court ruled that a landlord can only use a 3-day notice to pay or quit if the tenant has failed to pay rent, and that a separate notice is required for other lease violations.
Of course, the law is always cleaner on the page than in real life. For guidance, contact the firm built for rental property owners.
Questions?
Contact Daniel Bornstein and his team for informed advice on managing landlord-tenant disputes, cauterizing risk, and future-proofing your real estate business.