Breach of Warranty of Habitability in California

What Is a Breach of Warranty of Habitability?

Purpose and Scope

A warranty of habitability is implied in all residential leases. (Green v. Superior Court (1974) 10 Cal.3d 616, 619.) A breach of this warranty may be alleged as an affirmative claim. Erlach v. Sierra Asset Servicing, LLC (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 1281, 1297. A dwelling is untenantable if, inter alia, it lacks “[e]ffective waterproofing and weather protection of roof and exterior walls.” Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. §1941.1(a)(1). A claim for breach of the warranty of habitability can be based on a violation of §9141.1 or under a common-law theory. (Hyatt v. Tedesco (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th Supp. 62, 67.)

The implied warranty imposes upon the landlord the obligation to maintain leased dwellings in a habitable condition throughout the term of the lease. The standard for breach is a substantial defect or statutory noncompliance. (Smith v. David (1981) 120 Cal.App.3d 101, 109.) The landlord’s actual or constructive notice of the alleged uninhabitable condition is an essential prerequisite to an actionable breach of warranty claim. (See Peterson v. Superior Court (1995) 10 Cal.4th 1185, 1205-1206.)

Statutory Provision

Code Civ. Sec. 1942.4 provides in relevant part:

A landlord of a dwelling may not demand rent, collect rent, issue a notice of a rent increase, or issue a three-day notice to pay rent or quit . . . if all of the following conditions exist prior to the landlord’s demand or notice: (1) [t]he dwelling substantially lacks any of the affirmative standard characteristics listed in Section 1941.1 or violates Section 17920.10 of the Health and Safety Code, or is deemed and declared substandard as set forth in Section 17920.3 of the Health and Safety Code because conditions listed in that section exist to an extent that endangers the life, limb, health, property, safety, or welfare of the public or the occupants of the dwelling. (Code Civ. Sec. 1942.4)

Elements for Cause of Action

The elements of the cause of action for breach of the implied warranty of habitability are:

a material defective condition affecting habitability of the premises;
notice to the landlord within a reasonable time after the tenant’s discovery of the substandard condition;
that the landlord was given a reasonable time to remedy the condition; and
resulting damages.

(Erlach v. Sierra Asset Servicing, LLC (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 1281, 1297; Quevedo v. Braga (1977) 72 Cal.App.3d Supp. 1, 7-8.)

Judicial Interpretation and Precedent

“In Green v. Superior Court (1974) 10 Cal.3d 616, our Supreme Court adopted the Hinson warranty theory and held that a breach of the warranty could be asserted as an affirmative defense in a landlord's action for unlawful detainer for nonpayment of rent.” (Stoiber v. Honeychuck (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 903, 914. citing Green, at 635.) “The court rejected the long established rule that a landlord's failure to perform any duty to maintain the premises was independent of the tenant's duty to pay rent.” (Id.) ”In the modern residential lease, governed by contract principles, the tenant's duty to pay rent is mutually dependent upon the landlord's fulfillment of his implied warranty of habitability.” (Id.) “Since the landlord's breach may be directly relevant to the issue of possession, the tenant may be able to prove that no rent is in fact due and owing.” (Id.)

Judicially Held Public Policy

“In approving the implied warranty doctrine, Green noted that under the comprehensive housing codes of today, public policy requires landlords to bear the primary responsibility for maintaining safe, clean and habitable housing. The court defined the scope of the warranty as follows: ‘Under the implied warranty which we recognize, a residential landlord covenants that premises he leases for living quarters will be maintained in a habitable state for the duration of the lease. This implied warranty of habitability does not require that a landlord ensure that leased premises are in perfect, aesthetically pleasing condition, but it does mean that `bare living requirements' must be maintained. In most cases substantial compliance with those applicable building and housing code standards which materially affect health and safety will suffice to meet the landlord's obligations under the common law implied warranty of habitability we now recognize.’” ( Id., citing Green at 637, fn. omitted.)

Of great importance to the decision which we reach today is the express holding in Green that the statutory remedies provided a tenant under Civil Code section 1941 et seq. were not intended by the Legislature as the tenant's exclusive remedy for the landlord's failure to repair. "Although past cases have held that the Legislature intended the remedies afforded by section 1942 to be the sole procedure for enforcing the statutory duty on landlords imposed by section 1941 [citations], no decision has suggested that the Legislature designed these statutory provisions to displace the common law in fixing the respective rights of landlord and tenant. On the contrary, the statutory remedies of section 1942 have traditionally been viewed as additional to, and complementary of, the tenant's common law rights." (10 Cal.3d at pp. 629-630, italics added.) Thus, ". . . the statutory framework of section 1941 et seq. has never been viewed as a curtailment of the growth of the common law in this field." (10 Cal.3d at 630, italics added.)

Measure of Damages Under Green

Green recognized that the ascertainment of damages for breach of the warranty would be difficult, but no more so than in other tort and contract situations, and the courts must do the best they can. The measure of damages should be the difference between the fair rental value of the premises if they had been as warranted, and the fair rental value as they were during the occupancy in the unsafe or unsanitary condition (10 Cal.3d 638). Another reasonable approach is a percentage reduction of use: reducing the tenant's rental obligation by a percentage corresponding to the relative reduction of use of the leased premises caused by the landlord's breach (10 Cal.3d 639, fn. 24). Green, however, did not address the issue of damages for tortious injury such as discomfort, annoyance or mental anguish resulting from the breach of warranty. The importance of this type of damage is forcefully explained by Professor Moskovitz: "Generally, the residential tenant who has suffered a breach of the warranty does not lose money. He instead cannot bathe as frequently as he would like or at all if there is inadequate hot water; he must worry about rodents harassing his children or spreading disease if the premises are infested; or he must avoid certain rooms or worry about catching a cold if there is inadequate weather protection or heat. Thus discomfort and annoyance are the common injuries caused by each breach and hence the true nature of the general damages the tenant is claiming." (62 Cal.L.Rev. at 1470-1471.)

Documents for Breach of Warranty of Habitability in California

Sort By

Tinnin, Taft et al vs. Dakin, John A et al document preview

Complaint - Case Management Conference

5 pages

PLD-PI-001 ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Name, State Bar number, and address): FOR COURT USE ONLY Sharona Eslamboly Hakim, Esq. SBN: 180998 Law Offices of Sharona Eslamboly Hakim 8730 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 500 Beverly Hills CA 90211 TELEPHONE NO: (310) 289-9100 FAX NO. (Optional):…