Legal Question in Landlord & Tenant Law in California

There is no requirement that a plaintiff must sue everyone who might be liable. In many cases there is joint and several liability [all the defendants are at fault] and the plaintiff can go after as many of the defendants as she wants for as much as she wants from that defendant, who would then have to sue the others for contribution. You can cross-complain against your husband and bring him in that way.

Although he made the agreement with her, you may have by implication ratified the agreemnet by letting her stay there. If, on the other hand, he gave you no choice, she paid him all the rent which did not go to community expenses, you did not object because he had joint ownership with you of the house, then there was no approval by you. If you can show, which is a weak argument, that she was actually living there as a relative and she had agreed to cover some of the addlitional expenses caused by her beling there, then she is not a tenant and is not entitled to any notice.

If she was a tenant, and she paid no rent while in Europe for the month, she breached the rental agreement [tenants are not allowed to stop paying rent while on vacation; people who are "boarders" do pay rent only when physically present but they are excluded from the landlord/tenant laws although most people do not know that]. You probably had no idea if she was going to return to your home or not [if you knew for certain, you would have added her to the restraining order because shewould be harassing you about what you did to her father]. If you got none of the rent money, cross-complain against her for 50% of the money owed and paid in rent.

Before she presents her case, ask the SCC commissioner to dismiss it because "broken laws" is too vague for it to be a required statement of the basis of a suit and did not allow you to prepare a proper defense. "Inconvenience" is not a legal basis of a suit but merely a vague description of the type of damages caused. Normally it is not allowable as a measure of damages because it is too vague and not unique to what occurs to most people from everyday living.

Under the circumstances, no notice was required. Lack of notice where required results in damages only when there is an actual loss; one is not separately compensated for it. Moreover, you had no way of giving her notice since she was in Europe. Even if she is entitled to compensation for the time spent finding a new place to live, it would be based upon what she actually had to pay for different living arrangements or what a reasonable person would have had to pay.

It is best if you prepare a summary of your argument and had a copy to the jusge and to her at the beginning of the hearing, since you will not be given the time to say all of the above. Watch out to see if your husband is there near enough to be in violation of the restraining order; if he is tell the baliff.

Good luck.

Yes she can sue you for wrongful eviction. Even though your husband made the deal he either had your authority, apparent authority or you ratified his conduct by no objecting.

You had no right to kick her out. You probably should have gotten a restraining order to include her and told got someone to tell her Dad that she could not could not come back.

She doesn�t need to sue her dad because he didn't do anything you are the one who wrongfully evicted her.

Hopefully she doesn't find a way to better articulate her claims against you or the local legal aid society.