Source: http://www2.courtinfo.ca.gov/protem/courses/ud/04_402.htm
Timestamp: 2015-04-28 14:24:12
Document Index: 559011153

Matched Legal Cases: ['§4', '§4', '§1174', '§1941', '§1941', '§1942', '§1174']

§4.02 Breach of the Warranty of Habitability || Unlawful Detainer
CJER Online Your browser does not support scripts. Reviews and other interactions will not function unless you enable Javascript. See the "Help" page. Use the "Contents" page for more specific navigation.
Strict Notice Requirements
Landlord's Reasons for Terminating Tenancy
Tenant's Defenses
Pretrial Through Posttrial Procedures
Tenant's Defenses Contents
Summary Procedures ChartPublications ListWeb Links
§4.02 Breach of the Warranty of Habitability Every residential rental agreement has an implied warranty of habitability that is independent of the tenant’s obligation to pay rent. [See CCP §1174.2; CC §§1941–1942.5; Green v Superior Court (1974) 10 C3d 616, 631–632; Fairchild v Park (2001) 90 CA4th 919, 927–928.] This means that a landlord of residential premises must put the premises in a condition fit for human occupancy and must repair all subsequent dilapidations that render the premises untenantable. [CC §1941.]
The landlord’s duty to the tenant to provide habitable premises is nonwaivable. CC §1942.1. This implied warranty 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. [Green v Superior Court, supra, 10 C3d at 637.]
A breach of the warranty of habitability is available as an affirmative defense for a tenant in a UD action for nonpayment of rent. But it is not available in a UD action based on a 30-day notice to quit. [CCP §1174.2; Green v Superior Court, supra, 10 C3d at 631; Knight v Hallsthammar (1981) 29 C3d 46, 57.] This defense is item 3a on the UD answer form [see form UD-105].
page 37 of 83 © 2006 by Judicial Council of California