Court Opinion

ID: 9943809
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-26 14:42:08.274639+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:45:16.146403
License: Public Domain

I concur, but cannot do so without recommending to the Legislature that it redraft Civil Code section 1950.5 The majority's observation that this statute is "no model of clarity" is a gross understatement. As Justice Gilbert said in Granberry
v. Islay Investments (1984) 161 Cal.App.3d 382 [207 Cal.Rptr. 652], this statute "teeter[s] on the brink of unintelligibility." The only reason it still teeters is because of judicial efforts to keep it alive, and these efforts have been considerable.
When Justice Gilbert must begin an opinion by saying "here we attempt to make sense out of Civil Code section 1950.5," the Legislature should realize there is a problem. When our colleague uses such language as "to further confound anyone trying to make sense out of the statute" and states that a literal reading of the statute would lead to "an absurd result," it becomes clear the Legislature has a mandate to redraft the statute.
This is not a statute that is infrequently utilized. With the possible exceptions of relationships between husbands and wives and employees and employers, *Page 694 
no relationship occurs more frequently in California than that of landlords and tenants. For this reason, the Legislature has a duty to provide statutory language governing this relationship which can be clearly understood by the affected persons. In its present form, laymen trying to read and understand this statute must easily identify with the experiences Alice found in Wonderland.
A petition for a rehearing was denied March 10, 1988, and appellants' petition for review by the Supreme Court was denied May 19, 1988. Kaufman, J., was of the opinion that the petition should be granted. *Page 695