Legal Question in Landlord & Tenant Law in California
California - Tenant is accused by landlord of causing room to be uninhabitable, and landlord refused fix even at tenant's cost, causing constructive eviction from portion of rental.
Leaseholder was in property for 20 1/2 years, with carpet & pad being 25+ years old. Landlord accused tenant of causing the bedroom to be severely odorous - blaming it wrongly but conveniently on dog (tenant states reason was 25 years wear & tear, with photos of backside of carpet showing it severely and broadly soiled). Landlord was unwilling to fix it at a cost of $500 WHICH TENANT OFFERED TO PAY. I repeatedly pleaded for needed repair (after old tenant and dog moved out), including for new housemate's (financ�'s) safety (had asthma attack reactions to it). Landlord admitted in court that carpet made room uninhabitable, but asserted right not to repair it, and to repair it only if and when he wanted to.
Tenants lost 7 months use of the room before moving, valued conservatively at $425 per month ($2,975) when tenant could have had it repaired for far less than the value of that loss. Therefore, tenants were constructively evicted from room by landlord's refusal to make room habitable, and subjected to full cost of 3 bedroom rental that could only be used as a 2 bedroom.
Tenant lost in small claims court, and plans to file Form 108 where he can state judge did not apply law correctly and therefore issue should be reconsidered for back payment of loss of rental value to tenant. Because it is being contested now post-hearing on the judge's wrong application of law (instead of reasoned argument in court), I feel I need to state renter's rights and laws very specifically.
Because 'Warranty of Habitablity' Law seems to be worded as to not require landlord to repair something of tenant's fault, is there a way to state tenant's rights law was violated and wrongly applied in constructively evicting the tenant from this one room? After reading deeply into law resources, I'm not sure how to apply habitability law to this, or if it even covers me at all.
So far, I am suggesting at 25 years of age, carpet was well beyond expected lifespan. As reasonable behavior is a point of landlord tenant law, I am stating it was highly unreasonable behavior by the landlord to charge full rent tenant for 7 months while refusing a pathway to make room safely habitable, forcing far excessive value due to loss of habitability upon the tenants than it would have cost the tenants to pay to fix I am also restating Disability Law that requires landlord allow tenant reasonable improvements to property to allow them use and accessibility. Any other strengths I can state in asking for more lawful judgement?
1 Answer from Attorneys
Habitability law does not apply. You can't be constructively evicted from one room of a multi-room premises. Furthermore, no matter how worn, dirty or stinky carpeting may be, the condition of flooring, as long as the building is structurally sound, is not a habitability issue. Disability law also does not apply. Even if the condition actually came under disability law, which is doubtful, the right of the tenant to make improvements is the right of the TENANT to make improvements, not to require the landlord to do it, not to offer to pay and make the landlord do it. If you wanted to come under disability rights you had to make the repairs, not try to get your landlord to do it and then move out. Lastly, the room was in that condition when you moved in. Since the condition did not make the room, much less the unit legally uninhabitable, you are deemed to have accepted the condition at the time you agreed on the amount of rent, unless the landlord specifically agreed to replace the flooring when you rented the place. Therefore you have no rights under any law to claim any kind of rent rebate.
Related Questions & Answers
Looking for something else?
10,200 active attorneys ready to answer your legal questions today.
Featured Attorneys
Earn additional revenue and grow your business.
