Source: https://trellis.law/ca/issue-type/breach-of-covenant-of-quiet-enjoyment-443
Timestamp: 2020-07-15 06:06:39
Document Index: 648440347

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 430', '§ 800', '§430', '§ 1941', '§ 17920', '§ 1927', '§ 1950', '§ 1941', '§ 1940', '§ 1940']

What is a breach of covenant of quiet enjoyment?
In the absence of language to the contrary, every lease contains an implied covenant of quiet enjoyment, whereby the landlord impliedly covenants that the tenant shall have quiet enjoyment and possession of the premises. The covenant of quiet enjoyment insulates the tenant against any act or omission on the part of the landlord, or anyone claiming under the landlord, which interferes with a tenant's right to use and enjoy the premises for the purposes contemplated by the tenancy. (Andrews v. Mobile Aire Estates (2005) 125 Cal.App.4th 578, 588.)
Minor inconveniences and annoyances are not actionable breaches of the implied covenant of quiet enjoyment. To be actionable, the landlord's act or omission must substantially interfere with a tenant's right to use and enjoy the premises for the purposes contemplated by the tenancy. Substantial interference of the tenant’s right to use and enjoy the premises for the purposes contemplated by the tenancy (as opposed to minor inconveniences and annoyances) is required to establish a breach of quiet enjoyment. (Andrews v. Mobile Aire Estates (2005) 125 Cal.App.4th 578, 589.)
Civil Code Sec. 1927 partially codifies the implied covenant of quiet enjoyment: “An agreement to let upon hire binds the letter to secure to the hirer the quiet possession of the thing hired during the term of the hiring, against all persons lawfully claiming the same.” (Andrews v. Mobile Aire Estates (2005) 125 Cal.App.4th 578, 588-89.) “To be actionable, the landlords act or omission must substantially interfere with a tenants right to use and enjoy the premises for the purposes contemplated by the tenancy.” (Id. at 839.) “The perpetrator of the interference with the tenants quiet enjoyment need not be the landlord personally. There may be an actionable breach where the interference is caused by a neighbor or tenant claiming under the landlord.” (Id. at 839-840.)
Causes of Action Under Contract
“The implied covenant of quiet enjoyment implies a term in a contract, and a breach of the covenant gives rise to an action in contract.” (Ginsberg v. Gamson (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 873, 896.) The implied covenant of quiet enjoyment is breached when there is an eviction, actual or constructive, of the tenant. (Marchese v. Standard Realty & Development Co. (1977) 74 Cal.App.3d 142, 148.)
Actual eviction occurs when there is an expulsion or ouster of the tenant by the landlord. (Giraud v. Milovich (1938) 29 Cal.App.2d 543.)
Constructive eviction occurs when there is a substantial and material interference with the tenant’s beneficial use and enjoyment of the premises, causing the tenant to vacate. (Stoiber v. Honeychuck (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 903.) An interference by the landlord amounts to a constructive eviction if the tenant so elects and surrenders possession, and the tenant will not be liable for rentals following his eviction. Upon surrendering possession of the premises, the tenant is relieved of the obligation to pay rent and may sue for damages, or may plead damages by way of offset in an action brought by the landlord to recover any unpaid rent that accrued prior to surrender. (Andrews v. Mobile Aire Estates (2005) 125 Cal.App.4th 578, 590.) Alternatively, a tenant may elect to stand upon the lease, remain in possession and sue for breach of contract damages as well as for injunctive relief. (Id.) Minor inconveniences and annoyances are not actionable. (Id., at 589-590.)
Nature of the Claims as Contractual via Lease Agreement
"A lease is both a contract and a conveyance; under such an agreement there are rights and obligations based upon the relationship of landlord and tenant as well as upon the contractual promises." ( Beckett v. City of Paris Dry Goods Co. (1939) 14 Cal.2d 633, 636.) "This dual character serves to create two distinct sets of rights and obligations — `one comprising those growing out of the relation of landlord and tenant, and said to be based on the "privity of estate," and the other comprising those growing out of the express stipulations of the lease, and so said to be based on "privity of contract."" (Medico-Dental etc. Co. v. Horton Converse (1942) 21 Cal.2d 411, 418; see also, e.g., Ellingson v. Walsh, O'Connor Barneson (1940) 15 Cal.2d 673, 675.) "Because of the dual aspects of the relationship . . ., landlord-tenant rights, obligations and remedies turn on both real property and contract law. Many times, the two bodies of law produce conflicting results... ”(Spinks v. Equity Res. Briarwood (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 1004, 1031-32 citing Friedman et al., Cal. Practice Guide: Landlord — Tenant (The Rutter Group 2008) ¶ 2:3, 2A-5 (rev. #1, 2007).)
“Because plaintiff's claims depend on her asserted status as a contract beneficiary, it is the lease's contractual features that concern us here. Conversely, at least at this point in our analysis, the "rights and obligations based upon the relationship of landlord and tenant" are not called into play.” (Beckett v. City of Paris Dry Goods Co., supra, 14 Cal.2d at p. 636.) “In other words, plaintiff's claimed status as an intended beneficiary of the lease — in and of itself — does not necessarily create any privity of estate between her and defendants.” (Id.) “Rather, it creates privity of contract, entitling plaintiff to sue "upon the contractual promises.” (Id. at 636.)
Limit to Causes of Action for Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment
The implied covenant of quiet enjoyment runs between the tenants and the landlord from whom they are renting the property. Therefore, while nuisance activities on neighboring premises, not owned or controlled by the aggrieved tenant's landlord, may interfere with a tenant's quiet enjoyment, such conduct does not amount to a breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment as between tenant and landlord. (Andrews v. Mobile Aire Estates (2005) 125 Cal.App.4th 578, 590)
Useful Rulings on Breach of Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment
Sagaser v. Arabian Villa, L.P. et al.
Motion: Demurrer to ComplaintTentative Ruling:To overrule the demurrers to the first, second and third cause of action. To sustain the demurrer to the fourth cause of action with leave to amend, with plaintiff granted 10 days’ leave to file a first amended complaint. (Code Civ. Proc. § 430.10(e).) All new allegations in the amended complaint shall be set forth in boldface type. Explanation:First C...
..enant of quiet enjoyment. (Complaint ¶ 41.)Defendants first contend that this allegation is false because defendants filed an eviction action on 9/21/15, and obtained a judgment for possession against the tenants of Space 27. (See RJN...
LEO CHI HONG WANG VS STELLA YEH
Wang, et al. v. Yeh, et al. (KC069679) Defendants Yeh and Sootodeh’s DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT and MOTION TO STRIKE Respondent: Plaintiffs Leo and Jean Wang Defendants Yeh and Sootodeh’s MOTION TO STRIKE Respondent: Plaintiffs Leo and Jean Wang TENTATIVE RULING Demurrer Defendants Yeh and Sootodeh’s demurrer to plaintiff’s first amended complaint is SUSTAINED the 2nd a...
..ach; and 4) causation of damages. (E.g., Smith v. San Francisco (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 38, 49; 1 Witkin Sum. Cal. Law (10th ed. 2005) Contracts § 800.) Where breach of an actual term is alleged, a separate implied covenant claim, based on the same breach, is superfluous. (Guz v. Bechtel National, Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 317, 327.) Here, Pars. 21 and 28 allege the same breach and the same damages....
LUPE MARTINEZ ET AL VS STARLIGHT MANAGEMENT 17 LP
MARTINEZ v. STARLIGHT MANAGEMENT-17 LP CASE NO.: BC666901 HEARING: 12/05/17 JUDGE: LORI ANN FOURNIER #2 TENTATIVE ORDER Defendant STARLIGHT MANAGEMENT-17 LP’s demurrer to Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint is OVERRULED. CCP §430.10(e). Opposing Party to give notice. This is a habitability action in which Defendant purportedly failed to maintain Plaintiffs’ residence in accordance with mai...
..Plaintiffs’ first, second, and third causes of action. First Cause of Action – Breach of Implied Warranty of Habitability Claims for breach of implied warranty of habitability may be tortious as well as contractual, and damages may be recovered for intentional misconduct that accompanies a negligence claim. (See Stoiber v. Honeychuck (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 903, 918-919.) A tenant may state a ca...
Aleta Reese vs. Janis Susan Fagan
(1) DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT by defendant Janis Susan Fagan is SUSTAINED. (2) MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT by defendant Janis Susan Fagan is GRANTED. Request for Judicial Notice is granted. Moving defendant Fagan is the alleged lessor of property leased to plaintiff. Plaintiff seeks to hold her liable for construction and other activities on property adjacent to th...
..st Corp. v. Rossmoor Corp. (1995) 34 Cal.App.4th 93, 100) The cause of action for breach of the implied covenant of quiet enjoyment fails to alleged sufficient facts. The implied covenant of quiet enjoyment runs between the tenants and the landlord from whom they are renting the property. Therefore, while nuisance activities on neighboring premises, not owned or controlled by the aggrieved tenant...
DAVID ESPINOZA VS MIRACLE MILE PROPERTIES LP ET AL
Re: David Espinoza v. Miracle Mile Properties, LP, etc., et al. (BC586161) DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFF’s FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Moving Parties: Defendants Miracle Mile Properties, L.P. and Century Quality Management, Inc. Respondent: Plaintiff, David Espinoza POS: Moving OK; Opposing OK; Reply served by regular mail contrary to CCP...
..verruled in part on 5/10/16; their motion to strike was granted in part, denied in part, and deemed moot in part on that date. The First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), filed on 5/25/16, asserts causes of action for: 1. Breach of Warranty of Habitability (Violation of Civil Code § 1941.1) 2. Breach of Warranty of Habitability (Health & Safety Code § 17920.3) 3. Negligence—Premises Liability 4. Nuisan...
Recent Rulings on Breach of Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment
Civil Case Management Conference (15)
Demurrer / Motion To Strike (25)
Motion Hearing (Civil) (17)
Colleen Sterne (11)
John P. Doyle (6)
Mark C. Kim (11)
Michael J. Raphael (17)
Patricia D. Nieto (16)
Ralph C. Hofer (17)
Robert S. Draper (26)
Teresa A. Beaudet (13)
Timothy M. Casserly (17)
William D. Stewart (45)
Yolanda Orozco (15)
Los Angeles County, CA (578)
Santa Barbara County, CA (44)
SHELDON WIDUCH VS ANCHETA HOLDINGS LLC,, ET AL.
Defendant Laura Ancheta filed a Cross-Complaint alleging that Plaintiff breached an agreement to undertake certain property management duties, engaged in conduct which violated other boarders’ rights to quiet enjoyment of the property, threatened Defendant, damaged Defendant’s property, and failed to pay rent. Plaintiff moves for leave to file a first amended complaint. TENTATIVE RULING: Plaintiff Sheldon Widuch’s motion for leave to file a first amended complaint is GRANTED.
TAJSHA JORDAN, AN INDIVIDAUL, ET AL. VS BURBANK-CANTALOUPE ASSOCIATES, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.
Punitive damages are not available for the breach of the breach of the quiet enjoyment covenant in the absence of an eviction. (Ginsberg v. Gamson (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 873, 898-99.) Plaintiffs seek punitive damages for their intentional breach of the warranty of habitability, nuisance, negligent and intentional breach of quiet enjoyment, and constructive eviction. In opposition, Plaintiff cites to Bommareddy v. The Superior Court of Merced County (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1017.
Additionally, Chateau argues that Plaintiffs had exclusive control and possession of the premises, and that it was prohibited from entering the apartment because of the covenant of quiet enjoyment. Lastly, as to the negligence cause of action, Chateau argues that it did not owe a duty of care to Plaintiffs in this case because Chateau could not foresee, and did not know, that Plaintiffs were storing pots and pans in the oven, which would cause the subject fire.
The TAC asserts causes of action for (1) breach of warranty of habitability, (2) negligence, (5) forcible detainer, (6) failure to return security deposits, (9) covenant of peaceful and quiet enjoyment, (10) constructive eviction, (11) retaliatory eviction, (12) abuse of process and frivolous filings, (13) breach of warranty of suitability, (14) illegal collection of rent, (15) violation of the Los Angeles Municipal Code – Relocation Benefits, (16) breach of written contract, (17) breach of oral contract, (18
GILBERT VALDEZ, ET AL. VS DARSHANA GARG, ET AL.
The Complaint asserts causes of action for (1) fraudulent concealment, (2) retaliatory eviction, (3) violation of Civil Code section 1942.4, (4) breach of warranty of habitability, (5) breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment, (6) nuisance, and (7) unfair business practices. Plaintiffs’ claims arise from their rental of Defendants’ apartment unit located at 4110 Elrovia Avenue, El Monte, California (Premises).
ERIK BERGMAN-AVNER VS ESPLANADE REDONDO BRE, LLC, ET AL.
Third Cause of Action for Breach of the Implied Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment As to Defendants Rivera and Esplanade Redondo, the Demurrer to the third cause of action is sustained with 20 days leave to amend. Plaintiff fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.
JULIE GUILBAULT VS TWC ADMINISTRATION LLC ET AL
For the same reason, KB argues that Amended Easement B was itself violated, particularly the provision requiring Godzik to maintain the easement in such a way as not to interfere with KB’s quiet enjoyment of their own property. (Motion at pp. 7–10.) Triable issues of fact prevent adjudication of these issues as well.
JOHNNY GALLO VS JAY HERGOT
On March 26, 2017, Plaintiff Johnny Gallo filed a third amended complaint against Defendant Jay Hergot alleging (1) nuisance, (2) breach of quiet enjoyment and possession of the property, (3) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, (4) promissory fraud, (5) retaliatory eviction; (6) violation of civil code section 1950.5, and (7) conversion. This case was dismissed on a motion for terminating sanctions.
ROY SILVER, ET AL. VS A.G. PROPERTIES, INC., ET AL.
Defendant also contends that the cause of action “appears to be little more than an unnecessary duplication of the first and second causes of action for breach of the warranty of habitability and breach of the implied covenant of quiet enjoyment.” (Demurrer at p. 8.) Although the alleged misconduct appears to be the same, the legal theories are different. Accordingly, the Court overrules the demurrer to the sixth cause of action.
RICHARD S HIRSCHFIELD VS TANYA COHEN
Cohen further alleges that “Cross-Complainant has been subjected to Cross-Defendants’ use, or threats to use, force, willful threats, or menacing conduct constituting a course of conduct that interferes with the Cross-Complainant’s quiet enjoyment of the premises in violation of Civil Code § 1927 that would create an apprehension of harm in a reasonable person.” (Id. ¶ 12.)
SHILLETTE BUSBY, ET AL. VS RICHARD VAUGHN, ET AL.
The Complaint alleges seven causes of action for: 1) denial of civil rights; 2) disability discrimination – Unruh Civil Rights Act; 3) breach of the warranty of habitability; 4) negligence; 5) unfair business practices; 6) breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment; and 7) breach of contract. On July 8, 2019, the Court sustained the Vaughn Defendants’ demurrer to the Complaint as to the first cause of action and granted their motion to strike with leave to amend as to punitive damages.
TKH Zuma, LLC (19STCV11326) On April 2, 2019, Christopher Thannhaeuser filed an unlimited civil complaint against TKH Zuma, LLC and Mary Anne Keshen asserting causes of action for: (1) breach of written contract; (2) conversion; (3) violation of Civil Code § 1950.5; (4) violation of Civil Code § 1941.1; and (5) breach of the warranty of quiet enjoyment arising out of Plaintiff’s lease of real property located in Malibu, California. Plaintiff dismissed Defendant Keshen on September 25, 2019.
BRAZIL A. ALLEN VS WARREN W. VALDRY, ET AL.
Punitive damages are asserted in connection with the causes of action for nuisance and breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment and again in the prayer for relief. Because Defendants’ demurrer to the nuisance and breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment causes of action is sustained, the Court denies the motion to strike as to those portions of the Complaint (paragraphs 94 and 128) as moot.
DAVID ELISHKOV VS THE SMEE TRUST, ET AL.
On December 19, 2019, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendants asserting various causes of action including breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, quiet enjoyment, abuse of process, malicious prosecution, and declaratory relief. Defendants filed an unlawful detainer case against Plaintiff on December 30, 2019 (19VECV01843). In that case, Defendant filed an unlawful detainer action against Plaintiff involving the same commercial property in Canoga Park.
CESAR A. BON, ET AL. VS AZHER MALIK
Civil Code § 1940.2 forbids a landlord from making threats to interfere with a tenant’s quiet enjoyment of property or engaging in menacing conduct for the purposes of influencing a tenant to vacate a dwelling. Cal. Civ. Code § 1940.2. Again, Plaintiffs have not alleged that Hocker is a landlord for this section to apply. The court, therefore, sustains the demurrer to the ninth cause of action with leave to amend. 8.
DEMETRIO HARO, ET AL. VS C&P PROPERTIES #1, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
The complaint was filed on January 8, 2020 and alleges five causes of action sounding in: (1) Breach of Warranty of Habitability; (2) Negligent Maintenance of Premises; (3) Nuisance; (4) Breach of Quiet Enjoyment; (5) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress. PRESENTATION: On March 27, 2020, C&P filed the instant pleading. Opposition was filed on May 12, 2020, and a reply was filed on June 25, 2020. The original hearing date was May 29, 2020.
ORTON V. CISARIA, ET AL.
Cross-complainants were awarded nothing on their cross-complaint, as the court concluded the written lease agreement was valid and enforceable, and the quiet enjoyment cause of action was, among other defects, not proven. All costs were awarded to plaintiff/cross-defendant as the prevailing party. Notice of entry of judgment was sent on March 30, 2020.
AIMCO VENEZIA LLC VS ANGEL ZAPATA
Plaintiff alleges this conduct caused disruption at the apartment building, as the guests were not subjected to Plaintiff’s criminal history check, Airbnb and VRBO short-term renters frequently hosted parties in the unit and at the pool and other recreational facilities at the building, thereby diminishing the safety and quiet enjoyment of other residents’ use of the building, thereby affecting Plaintiff’s business practices. (Compl. ¶¶ 22, 24.)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 35 next last »