213 Cal. Rptr. 3d 757
Cal. App. Dep’t Super. Ct.2017Background
- Tenant Candy Scott rented a unit under a one-year lease with $700/month rent; a Section 8 HAP contract obligated the Fresno Housing Authority to pay $684 of that rent and limited tenant charge to $16/month.
- Housing Authority inspections (Oct–Nov 2015) found multiple habitability violations attributable to the owner (respondent), warned of abatement of Section 8 payments effective Dec 1 and possible HAP contract cancellation Dec 17.
- Housing Authority informed owner it was not permitted to recover abated subsidy from the tenant. Owner did not cure defects within the specified period.
- Owner served a three-day pay-or-quit notice on Dec 4, 2015 demanding the full $700 and filed unlawful detainer Dec 16, 2015. Tenant defended based on habitability violations and HUD/HAP rules.
- Trial court found HAP contract terminated and entered judgment for owner, awarding unpaid rent and holdover damages; tenant appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Scott) | Defendant's Argument (Kaiuum) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether tenant owed full market rent after PHA abated Section 8 payments | Tenant: she remained liable only for $16; owner cannot collect abated subsidy | Owner: HAP terminated so tenant must pay full $700 under lease | Tenant not liable for full rent; owner could not collect abated subsidy from tenant |
| Validity of three-day notice that demanded full rent | Tenant: notice overstated amount due and thus is defective | Owner: notice reflected lease terms and justified eviction | Notice was inaccurate (demanded excess) and cannot support unlawful detainer |
| Whether owner could evict for nonpayment when PHA suspended payments for owner’s failures | Tenant: HUD regs prohibit eviction/collection from family for PHA nonpayment caused by owner | Owner: contract termination relieved tenant of subsidy protections | HUD regs and HAP terms prevent owner from terminating tenancy or collecting subsidy portion when owner caused abatement |
| Whether California habitability statutes barred rent demand/eviction | Tenant: Civil Code §§1941.1, 1942.4 bar rent demands after public-officer notice and 35-day uncured period | Owner: argued shared responsibility or HAP termination altered obligations | Conditions met statutory elements; owner violated Civil Code; rent demand/three-day notice improper |
Key Cases Cited
- Werner v. Sargeant, 121 Cal.App.2d 833 (demand in excess of amount due cannot support forfeiture)
- Naylor v. Superior Court, 236 Cal.App.4th 1 (standard of review: de novo for statutory construction when facts undisputed)
- Gallman v. Pierce, 639 F.Supp. 472 (state unlawful detainer proceedings can proceed under Section 8 framework)