If you lose the lawsuit and don't move, the landlord may get a
"writ of possession." If you haven't moved within five day after this
document is given to you or posted on the property, the sheriff or
county marshal will evict you. This is the only way the landlord can
have you and your belongings physically removed from the
property. (Jordan v. Talbot (1961) 12 Cal Reptr. 488)
If you move without taking your belongings, you have 15 days
(as described in the writ of possession) to reclaim your property.
Your landlord may charge you reasonable storage costs, even if your
belongings are kept on the premises. (Sec. 1174 of CCP)
If the judgment required you to pay back-rent, your landlord
may, with a court judgment, garnish up to 25 percent of your wages
or force the sale of your property that is not exempt from such
procedures (for example, household furnishings and up to $1,200
value from an automobile). After you have paid the amount of the
judgment, you should be sure that a "notice of satisfaction of
judgment" is filed by the landlord, which formally ends the dispute.
(Secs, 704.010-704.210 of CCP)
Retailiatory Eviction
If you have complained about the uninhabitable condition of your
place or have given notice requesting the landlord to make repairs or
you will deduct their costs from the rent, your landlord cannot evict
you, increase your rent, decrease your service or force you to leave
involuntarily within 180 days of your action if his/her purpose is to
punish you for exercising your rights. This 180-day protection can
only be used once in any 12 month period. However, if you feel that
you have been unfairly treated after the 180 days, you should talk to
a lawyer because in some cases you may be protected for a longer
period of time. (Sec. 1942.5 of CC)
Overlapping remedies
between California Civil Code 1940.2 and Civil Code
1942.5.
Asked
about 1 year ago - San Diego, CA
California
Civil Code 1940.2 prohibits a landlord's use of unlawful conduct to influence a
tenant to vacate a dwelling, cites different forms of such conduct, and allows
civil penalties up to $2,000 for each violation. Civil Code 1942.5 prohibits a
landlord's retaliatory acts and eviction in response to a tenant's exercise a a
legal right, cites several forms of retaliation, including to "cause the lessee
to quit involuntarily," and allows punitive damages up to $2,000 for each
violation. In addition, 1942.5 (h) allows its own remedies in addition to other
statutory or decisional law remedies. Therefore, if a landlord can be shown to
have retaliated under 1942.5 by using unlawful conduct under 1940.2, then a
tenant can obtain duplicate statutory remedies, that is, up to $4,000 for a
single such act.
Additional
information
A
more general question is whether ANY unlawful conduct to influence a tenant to
vacate proven under Civil Code 1940.2, if also proven to be retaliatory under
1942.5, can also lead to the duplicate remedies. It would appear so. 1942.5 (a)
refers to a tenant’s “rights under this chapter” and 1942.5 (c) refers to “or
threaten to do any of those acts” as possible retaliatory acts, even if the
landlord does not follow through, which could include conduct under 1940.2, such
as to threaten to decrease services. 1940.2 does not require that a tenant “quit
involuntarily” but only that the landlord acted with intent to influence a
tenant to vacate. Are the above conclusions correct?
Answered about a year
ago. No.
You omitted this language from 1942.5: "where the lessor or agent has been
guilty of fraud,
oppression, or
malice with respect to that act." If you can show malice, then the 1942.5
remedies would kick in above and beyond 1940.2. But understand that the
statutory remedies are small potatoes compared to rent abatement, relocation
costs, emotional distress, constructive eviction,
etc.
..........................................................................................
(4) "Harass" means a knowing and willful course of conduct
directed at a specific person which seriously alarms, annoys,
torments, or terrorizes the person, and which serves no legitimate
purpose. The course of conduct must be such as would cause a
reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress, and must
actually cause substantial emotional distress to the person.
CIVIL CODE
SECTION 1708-1725
code
338 Civil Code Section 1942.5.
339 Civil Code Section 1942.5.
340 Civil Code Section 1945.2 (a),(b); see
California Practice Guide, Landlord-Tenant, Paragraphs 7:368-7:380 (Rutter Group
2011).
341 Moskovitz et al., California Landlord-Tenant
Practice, Section 12.38 (Cal. Cont. Ed. Bar 2011).
342 Civil Code Section
1942.5(c).
343 Government Code Section 12955(f),
12955.7.
344California Practice Guide, Landlord-Tenant,
Paragraphs 7:205, 7:391-7:394 (Rutter Group
2011).
In
order for the tenant to defend against eviction on the basis of retaliation, the
tenant must prove that he or she exercised one or more of these rights within
the six-month period, that the tenant's rent is current, and that the tenant has
not used the defense of retaliation more than once in the past 12 months. If the
tenant produces all of this evidence, then the landlord must produce evidence
that he or she did not have a retaliatory motive.340 Even if the landlord proves that he or she
has a valid reason for the eviction, the tenant can prove retaliation by showing
that the landlord's effort to evict the tenant is not in good faith.341 If both sides produce the necessary
evidence, the judge or jury then must decide whether the landlord's action was
retaliatory or was based on a valid
reason.
No comments:
Post a Comment