Can I Sue My Landlord For Not Making Repairs?

After years of ignored complaints, deferred maintenance, and several emergency events, you’ve had enough of your landlord’s failure to repair your dilapidated rental home. You’ve made more complaints – oral and written – than you can count, you’ve reported them to the government and obtained notices of violation from your local code enforcement agency, and you’ve attempted to mediate the matter, possibly even through your local Rent Board. But, these efforts proved fruitless. Your home remains plagued by actionable habitability defects that render it uninhabitable to the point it endangers your health, safety, and body. You begin to wonder; Can I sue my landlord for not making repairs?

Yes, you can sue your landlord, and property manager, for not making repairs. Green v. Superior Court, (1974) 10 Cal. 3d 616 (A breach of the warranty of habitability exists in California and can be asserted as an affirmative defense in an unlawful detainer action for nonpayment of rent.); Stoiber v. Honeychuck, (1980) 101 Cal. App. 3d 903, 911-915 (“[A] warranty of habitability [exists] in all residential leases as a matter of law.”); Andrews v. Mobile Aire Estates, (2005) 125 Cal. App. 4th 578, 588 (California tenants may commence civil lawsuits for breach of the implied warranty of habitabitly against their landlord and property managers.). When requests for repairs go unanswered, a lawsuit may provide you a means to hold your landlord and property manager responsible for their legal violations.

To assert this cause of action, the California tenant must prove the following:

1. A materially defective condition exists. Hinson v. Delis, (1972) 26 Cal. App. 3d 62, 70;
2. The defective condition was unknown to the California tenant at the time of occupancy. Quevedo v. Baraga, (1977) 72 Cal. App. 3d Supp. 1, 7-8 (overruled on other grounds by Knight v. Hallsthammar, (1981) 29 Cal. 3d 46, 53, 55;
3. The effect on habitability of the defective condition was not apparent on reasonable inspection;
4. Either:
   1. Notice given to the landlord within a reasonable time after the tenant discovered, or should have discovered the habitability defect; or,
   2. Where landlord already has notice of uninhabitable conditions not caused by the tenants a landlord’s breach of the implied warranty exists whether or not he or she has had a reasonable time to repair. Knight v. Hallsthammar, (1981) 29 Cal. 3d 46, 54-55; and,
5. Damages, such as overpayment of rent, property loss, property damage, or loss of the California tenant’s rental home (constructive eviction or wrongful eviction). Quevedo v. Braga, (1977) 72 Cal. App. 3d Supp, 1, 7-8 (Overruled on other grounds by Knight v. Hallsthammar, (1981) 29 Cal. 3d 46, 53, 55); Erlach v. Sierra Asset Servicing, LLC, (2014) 226 Cal. App. 4th 1281, 1298.

Stated plainly, repeated complaints and broken promises should not define your experience at home. When substantial habitability defects persist and requests for repairs go unanswered, pursuing a habitability claim may be an important step toward holding those responsible accountable and seeking compensation for the harm you have suffered. Your complaints, photographs, inspection reports, and records of losses can help tell that story, and help you as you litigate your breach of the implied warranty of habitabitly claim (not making repairs) in a court of law.