Guttman v. Chiazor, JAD17-15

Background

Landlord Phillip Guttman filed unlawful detainer actions against tenants Charles Chiazor and Hyacinth Pascascio (2014 case and a later 2015 case) based on nonpayment of rent. Tenants asserted breach of the implied warranty of habitability as an affirmative defense.
In the 2014 action a jury initially found a habitability breach, awarding tenants reduced reasonable rental value; the trial court later (after a new-trial motion and retrial) entered judgment for tenants and corrected the clerk’s unconditional judgment to a conditional judgment complying with CCP §1174.2.
Plaintiff appealed various evidentiary and procedural rulings from the 2014 proceedings (videos excluded; amendment of answers); the appellate court affirmed the corrected 2014 judgment.
In the 2015 unlawful detainer action (for March 2015 rent) the parties agreed the sole triable issue was whether tenants established a substantial breach of the warranty of habitability.
The trial court, over tenants’ objection, refused to submit the habitability issue to a jury, held a bench trial, found no substantial breach, and entered judgment for the landlord; tenants appealed.
The appellate court held (published portion) that tenants had a statutory right to a jury trial on the factual issues of breach of the warranty of habitability and reasonable rental value; denial of that right requires reversal of the September 16, 2015 judgment.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a tenant has a right to a jury trial on the factual issue of breach of the warranty of habitability in an unlawful detainer proceeding	"The statute (CCP §1174.2) says ‘the court’ shall determine breach and rental value, so no jury right on these issues"	CCP §1174.2(d) and general jury statutes preserve a tenant’s right to a jury trial on factual issues; statute not intended to deny jury trial	Tenants have a statutory right to a jury trial on the factual issues of substantial breach and reasonable rental value; bench trial denial is reversible per se
Whether the trial court properly excluded landlord’s privately recorded videos taken inside the unit	Videos were relevant to show condition/heater functioning	Tenants argued landlord abused right of access and harassed them in recording; exclusion was proper	Exclusion was not an abuse of discretion; court could exclude to remedy abuse of access/harassment under Civ. Code §1954 and inherent authority
Whether the court erred in allowing tenants to amend answers to specify habitability defects	Amendment unfairly added issues	Tenants argued original answers already pled breach and listed examples; amendment clarified matters	Even if amendment were error, landlord did not show prejudice; amendment permissible and not reversible error
Whether the trial court could correct its prior unconditional judgment nunc pro tunc while an appeal was pending	Landlord argued correction while appeal pending was void	Tenants argued the change corrected a clerical error and was authorized under CCP §916 and related precedent	Correction was proper: error was clerical (recording error), so court retained authority to correct judgment; corrected judgment affirmed

Key Cases Cited

Green v. Superior Court, 10 Cal.3d 616 (recognizes implied warranty of habitability and its use as a defense in unlawful detainer)
Continental Ins. Co. v. Superior Court, 32 Cal.App.4th 94 (trial court may exclude evidence to cure invasion of privacy/harassment)
In re Candelario, 3 Cal.3d 702 (limits on court’s authority to alter judgments under clerical-error doctrine)
Rochin v. Pat Johnson Manufacturing Co., 67 Cal.App.4th 1228 (distinguishes clerical vs. judicial error in judgment correction)
People v. Blackburn, 61 Cal.4th 1113 (deprivation of statutory jury right is reversible per se)