Cal. Civ. Code Secs. 789.3 concerns Acts by landlord with intent to terminate occupancy and relates only to residential leases. It states in relevant part:
(Civ. Code § 789.3)
“The damages recoverable for wrongful eviction, actual or constructive, include whatever amounts are necessary to compensate the tenant for the detriment proximately caused by the eviction or likely to result therefrom....[I]f the tenant wrongfully evicted elects to sue in tort, damages may be awarded for mental anguish and pain or physical injury; exemplary damages may also be recovered when the landlord’s conduct justifies the award.” (Stoiber v. Honeychuck (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 903, 926.)
Kinney v. Vaccari (1980) 27 Cal.3d 348, involved a landlord’s willful failure to pay a utility bill. Distinguishing “Hale v. Morgan (1978) 22 Cal.3d 388, 397, 404 where the court declared that "section 789.3 permits the assessment of arbitrary, excessive and unreasonable penalties" and in certain situations the imposition of the $100 daily penalty can be "clearly, positively, and unmistakably' unconstitutional, " the Kinney court stated, “as will appear, the present action is not such a case.” (Id. at 352.)
The court went on to state in relevant part:
“An equally notable aspect of the Hale opinion...is its recognition that in the proper factual context application of the penalty formula of section 789.3 could withstand constitutional challenge: ‘The imposition of the $100 daily penalty over a limited period may indeed, in a given case, be a perfectly legitimate means of encouraging compliance with law. Furthermore, there are doubtless some situations in which very large punitive assessments are both proportioned to the landlord's misconduct and necessary to achieve the penalty's deterrent purposes.’ (Hale at 404.) We are faced here with such a case; indeed, if the penalty provided in section 789.3 is not justified under these circumstances, it is difficult to conceive of a case in which it would be applicable.”
”The distinctions between this case and Hale begin with the landlord's apparent motivations for his actions. Here, unlike Hale, the landlord had little or no provocation for his conduct; some of the plaintiffs were tenants of long standing, having lived in the units for several years. Although two tenants were in arrears when the utilities were terminated, the total amount of rental payments received in January was nearly twice that owed to the gas company. Furthermore, of the $925 then collected, some $300 was diverted by Junior for his personal use. There was also undisputed testimony at trial that Junior had informed at least one tenant that he would reinstate utility service if this lawsuit was dropped. Thus it is clear that Junior's failure to pay the utility bill was not occasioned by lack of funds, but rather by his determination to terminate plaintiffs' occupancy. Also, in addition to the gas service Junior disconnected the electrical service to plaintiffs' premises, temporarily depriving them of that utility as well.” (Kinney, supra, 27 Cal.3d at 353.)
Remedies under Civil Code section 789 are “not exclusive” and do not “preclude the tenant from pursuing any other remedy which the tenant may have.” Accordingly, punitive damages are available. (Fernandes v. Singh (2017) 16 Cal.App.5th 932, 944.)
Aug 13, 2020
San Francisco County, CA
Aug 13, 2020
San Francisco County, CA
Aug 12, 2020
San Francisco County, CA
Aug 11, 2020
San Francisco County, CA
Aug 10, 2020
San Francisco County, CA
Aug 10, 2020
San Francisco County, CA
Aug 06, 2020
San Francisco County, CA
Aug 05, 2020
San Francisco County, CA
Aug 05, 2020
Placer County, CA
Aug 05, 2020
San Francisco County, CA
Aug 03, 2020
Sacramento County, CA
Jul 31, 2020
San Francisco County, CA
Jul 31, 2020
San Francisco County, CA
Jul 29, 2020
San Francisco County, CA
Jul 29, 2020
San Francisco County, CA
Jul 29, 2020
San Francisco County, CA
Jul 29, 2020
San Francisco County, CA
Jul 28, 2020
San Francisco County, CA
Jul 22, 2020
San Francisco County, CA
Jul 22, 2020
San Francisco County, CA
Jul 22, 2020
San Francisco County, CA
Jul 21, 2020
San Francisco County, CA
Jul 21, 2020
San Francisco County, CA
Jul 21, 2020
San Francisco County, CA
Jul 20, 2020
San Francisco County, CA
Please wait a moment while we load this page.