Defense of constructive eviction in California

The defense of constructive eviction in California is the topic of this blog post. The affirmative defense of constructive eviction is essentially a breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment that is implied in every rental agreement.  Tenants in California may assert constructive eviction as an affirmative defense to an unlawful detainer (eviction) complaint when the actions or omissions of the landlord interfere so much with the right of the tenant to peaceful and beneficial possession of the rental unit that the unit or a portion of it becomes uninhabitable. 

Examples from published California cases include cases where extreme rain damage to one or more rooms of a unit was caused by a leaky roof that the landlord refused to repair;  very noisy renovations at the premises at unreasonable hours; and persistent harassment of the tenant by the landlord.

And constructive eviction may be asserted as an affirmative defense by all California tenants including commercial tenants.

In a California Court of Appeal case that involved the issue of parking spaces being necessarily useful for occupancy by the lessee and were expressly or by implication included in the lease, the Court held that, “It is well established that the intention of the parties as to just what property was to be occupied as essential to the use and enjoyment of the described premises is to be ascertained from the circumstances at the time the lease is entered into.” Seirad v. Lilly (1962) 204 Cal.App. 2d 770, 773. (citing text).

Seirad v. Lilly, supra involved a case where parking spaces adjacent to front of motel office and in private driveway on north side of lessee's liquor store, space for lessee's compressor plant in the rear and free water and additional storage space in rear for liquor stock, were reasonably necessary for useful occupancy by lessee and were expressly or by implication included in lease, the Court found that the lessee was constructively evicted from leased premises when the lessor sold motel premises without any reservation of the parking space and without providing water and additional storage space and without reservation of space for compressor.

In Clark v. Spiegel (1971) 22 Cal.App.3d 74, 78, a continued breach of a covenant to maintain parking lot lights constituted a constructive eviction of a tenant whose Laundromat business was adversely affected by a dark parking lot.      

Attorneys or parties in California who would like to view a portion of a sample answer to a California eviction complaint that contains 15 affirmative defenses including constructive eviction that is sold by the author can use the link shown below.

Sample answer to eviction complaint for California

The author of this blog post, Stan Burman, is an entrepreneur and freelance paralegal who has worked in California and Federal litigation since 1995 and has created over 235 sample legal documents. Visit his website at LegalDocsPro website
and his Facebook page at Facebook page

If you enjoy this blog post, tell others about it. They can subscribe to the author’s weekly California legal newsletter by visiting the following link:
Subscribe to FREE weekly newsletter

Copyright 2013 Stan Burman. All rights reserved.

DISCLAIMER:

Please note that the author of this blog post, Stan Burman is NOT an attorney and as such is unable to provide any specific legal advice. The author is NOT engaged in providing any legal, financial, or other professional services, and any information contained in this blog post is NOT intended to constitute legal advice.

The materials and information contained in this blog post have been prepared by Stan Burman for informational purposes only and are not legal advice. Transmission of the information contained in this blog post is not intended to create, and receipt does not constitute, any business relationship between the author and any readers. Readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel.