In our prior two (2) articles, we discussed the prospect of inoperable or malfunctioning sanitary fixtures that might lead to a California tenant to become displaced from their home and, potentially, into a hotel room lacking many of the amenities their rental unit afforded, such as a full kitchen. Where the California tenant is only displaced for a few days, the evacuation, while discomforting and stress inducing, is unlikely to cause monumental disruption to the California tenant’s life or tenancy. However, what happens when the displacement lasts for a protracted duration?
The typical fact pattern here is quite simple. A tenant is forced from their rental home due to a malfunctioning sanitary fixture, such as a leaking toilet. The landlord responds by sending a vendor who states that the work will leave the California tenant without a functional bathroom for a specific period, for instance two (2) weeks. The landlord elects to go ahead with the repairs. And, the landlord complies with California law by providing the California tenant with a hotel stipend that is expected to cover their stay at the Marriott down the road for three (3) weeks. The tenant vacates and the vendor commences the repair work.
However, while the California tenant is displaced, the vendor discovers that the entire plumbing system is dilapidated and must be substantially rehabilitated. The vendor also suggests that the landlord hire an electrician to inspect the electrical system as it likely came into contact with water at several points throughout the rental unit. The landlord retains the services of an electrician and, sure enough, it too must be substantially repaired. Now, the landlord has changed their tune. They are now reporting to the California tenant that the two (2) week displacement will last for, minimally, nine (9) months. And, they will not provide alternative accommodations. That means the California tenant must remain in a California hotel for nearly a year. What are the California tenant’s options?
When faced with this scenario, the California tenant has several options that they may attempt, including but not limited to:
- Express their desire to return to their unit as quickly as possible and implore the landlord to have their vendors perform the work as quickly as possible;
- Express their desire to return to the rental property as quickly as possible and request that the landlord provide them with comparable alternative accommodations at the rental property as quickly as possible;
- Remain in the hotel until the rental unit is habitable while remaining in constant contact with the landlord but face the risk of remaining in inadequate accommodations for a grossly excessive period;
- Request that the landlord provide them with extended stay accommodations that include all of the trappings of their rental unit such as a bathroom and a kitchen; or,
- Terminate their tenancy with the landlord and take occupancy elsewhere i.e. a new rental (private market, affordable housing, Section 8, etc. – either in or out of state), a friend or family member’s spare bedroom, or purchase residential property.
In the event that the California tenant elects to take the fifth option, they will have a claim for constructive eviction. Stoiber v. Honeychuck, (1980) 101 Cal. App. 3d 903, 925-926 (A constructive eviction occurs when there is a substantial and material interference with the tenant’s beneficial use and enjoyment of the premises, causing the tenant to vacate.). Where the landlord, or their property manager, leaves the California tenant in a hotel without a kitchen. The landlord substantially and materially interferes with the California tenants beneficial use and enjoyment of their rental home. They also violate California statutory law. California Civil Code § 1941.1(a)(10), (11). Therefore, the California tenant is likely justified in vacating. Should they be forced from their rental home, they will also likely have a claim for constructive eviction, to boot.