Scott v. Kaiuum
JAD17-1
| Cal. Ct. App. | Feb 14, 2017Background
- Tenant Candy Scott signed a one-year lease at $700/month; $684 was to be paid by Fresno County Housing Authority under a Section 8 HAP contract and tenant owed $16/month.
- Housing Authority inspections (Oct and Nov 2015) found multiple HQS/habitability violations, attributed to the owner (respondent); it warned of abatement of Section 8 payments effective Dec 1 and cancellation of the HAP contract Dec 17 if not cured.
- Housing Authority’s notice informed the owner it was “not permitted to recover monies from the resident.” The owner nevertheless demanded the full $700 rent and served a 3-day pay-or-quit notice Dec 4, 2015.
- Owner filed unlawful detainer Dec 16, 2015; trial court found violations but concluded the HAP contract had terminated and entered judgment for owner, awarding past-due rent and holdover damages.
- On appeal the court reversed, holding the owner caused the subsidy abatement, could not collect the abated subsidy from the tenant, and could not validly serve a 3-day notice demanding the full market rent while violations remained unremedied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether owner could recover full market rent after PHA abated Section 8 payments for owner-caused HQS violations | Owner: tenant must pay full lease rent once subsidy is abated/contract terminated | Tenant: tenant not liable for the subsidy portion when PHA abates for owner violations; only owes tenant share ($16) | Tenant prevailed — owner may not collect abated subsidy from tenant when abatement is due to owner’s failure to maintain HQS |
| Whether a 3-day notice stating an overstated amount (full $700) supports unlawful detainer | Owner: notice/complaint valid; contract termination allows demand for full rent | Tenant: three-day notice must state precise amount due; overstating amount invalidates notice | Notice invalid because it demanded more than tenant was legally obligated to pay; cannot support unlawful detainer |
| Effect of timing of HAP contract cancellation on eviction | Owner: HAP contract termination allowed full rent demand by the time of eviction action | Tenant: PHA letter set abatement Dec 1 and cancellation Dec 17; notices and complaint filed before cancellation | Held that at time of the 3-day notice and complaint the HAP contract had not been cancelled, so owner could not demand full market rent |
| Whether state statute barred rent demand during unremedied substandard conditions | Owner: statutory protections inapplicable or satisfied | Tenant: Civil Code §§ 1941.1, 1942.4 bar rent demand/3-day notice where public officer notified owner and owner failed to cure within 35 days | Held Civil Code barred owner from demanding/collecting rent while owner-caused substandard conditions remained uncorrected |
Key Cases Cited
- Werner v. Sargeant, 121 Cal.App.2d 833 (Cal. Ct. App.) (demand must state the precise sum due; excess demand will not support forfeiture)
- Gallman v. Pierce, 639 F. Supp. 472 (N.D. Cal. 1986) (state unlawful detainer proceedings proceed subject to HUD/Section 8 framework)
- Soliman v. Cepeda, 269 N.J. Super. 151 (N.J. Super. Ct.) (landlord who causes subsidy termination cannot evict for nonpayment of abated subsidy)
- Sunflower Park Apartments v. Johnson, 23 Kan. App. 2d 862 (Kan. Ct. App.) (owner cannot evict Section 8 tenant when owner's failure to cure defects caused subsidy termination)