BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
Martha M. Escutia, Chair
2003-2004 Regular Session
AB 647 A
Assembly Member Nunez B
As Amended April 8, 2003
Hearing Date: June 24, 2003 6
Civil/Civil Procedure Codes 4
GWW:cjt 7
SUBJECT
Landlord-Tenant Law: Remedy for Substandard Housing
DESCRIPTION
This bill would penalize a landlord who is renting a
dwelling unit that is substandard or in violation of
habitability requirements, and who has failed to make
repairs after being notified by a housing official of the
defects, by:
Prohibiting the landlord from issuing any notice to
increase rents or a 3-day notice to pay delinquent rents
or quit, during the period of violation;
Making the landlord liable for up to $5,000 in special
damages (instead of $1,000) for a violation; and
Making a landlord who files an unlawful detainer action
based on a tenant's nonpayment of rent, when the landlord
is in violation of his obligation to provide an habitable
dwelling, liable for the tenant's reasonable attorney's
fees and costs of suit.
The bill would also decrease the time for a landlord to
comply with a deficiency notice issued by a housing
enforcement agency from 60 days to 35 days.
(This analysis reflects author's amendments to be offered
in Committee.)
BACKGROUND
(more)
AB 647 (Nunez)
Page 2
In Green v. Superior Court (1974) 10 Cal.3d 616, the
California Supreme Court ruled that there is an implied
warranty of habitability in residential rental contracts,
and that this implied warranty may be raised as an
affirmative defense in an unlawful detainer action based
upon the tenant's nonpayment of rent for the period during
which the warranty was breached.
Civil Code Section 1941.1 establishes standard
characteristics necessary for habitation as a dwelling,
such as hot and cold running water, plumbing and
electricity in good working order, etc.
Several Health and Safety Code sections, e.g., Sections
17920.10 and 17920.3, also lists conditions making a
dwelling substandard where the condition endangers the
life, limb, health, property, safety, or welfare of the
occupants.
According to the sponsors, renters make up a majority of
households in California and constitute 44% of all
Californians.
CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW
1. Existing law provides that a landlord is liable to a
tenant for actual damages and $100 to $1,000 in special
damages when the landlord demands or collects rent on a
rental dwelling that has been found to be in violation of
habitability requirements by a housing enforcement
officer, where the substandard conditions have remained
unabated (without good cause) for 60 days after receipt
of the notice of deficiency. (Civil Code Section
1942.4.)
This bill would amend Section 1942.4 to:
Provide that a landlord is liable also when the
landlord issues a notice of rent increase or issues a
3-day notice to pay rent-or-quit.
Add certain Health and Safety Code violations that
endanger the life, limb, health, property, safety or
welfare of the dwelling occupants to the list of
characteristics of a dwelling that may result in
AB 647 (Nunez)
Page 3
liability.
Increase the maximum liability for special damages
to $5,000.
Reduce the period of time for a landlord to correct
noticed deficiencies from 60 days to 35 days after
service of the notice. (The service would be deemed
complete at the time of deposit in the United States
mail.)
Provide that in order for the landlord's liability
to attach, the substandard condition must exist prior
to the landlord's issuance of a rent increase notice
or a 3-day notice to pay delinquent rents.
2. Existing law permits a tenant to assert as an affirmative
defense in an unlawful detainer action that the landlord
has failed in his or her obligation to provide a
tenantable dwelling or has breached any other warranty of
habitability.
This bill would provide that a landlord who institutes an
unlawful detainer proceeding based upon the tenant's
nonpayment of rent, and who is liable for a violation of
Civil Code Section 1942.4 (described above), is liable to
the tenant or lessee for reasonable attorneys' fees and
costs of the suit, in an amount to be fixed by the court.
COMMENT
1. Stated need for bill
The author's office asserts that AB 647 is necessary to
create fairness and equity for tenants when they assert
their rights in unlawful detainer cases involving
substantial code violations reported to a government
agency that are not caused by fault of the tenant. His
office also states that "tenants are living with
substandard conditions yet their landlords refuse to make
repairs, even though landlords continue to collect full
rent," that "many times rents are raised without those
conditions being remedied," and that "tenants need to be
able to assert their rights through court action and get
the court to order repairs in order to deter landlords
who do not properly maintain their rental units."
Proponents in support also argue that current law is
insufficient to protect tenants whose rental dwellings
AB 647 (Nunez)
Page 4
have substantial habitability violations that threaten
the occupants' health and safety. A particular problem
is that low-income and immigrant tenants are not usually
able to enforce existing rights because of their
inability to obtain legal counsel. In fact, argue
proponents, many slumlords have continued to demand rent
(and even increase the rent) from low-income and
immigrant tenants living in substandard housing, and have
evicted the tenants when they do not pay the rent. While
the law, Green v. Superior Court, (1974) 10 Cal.3d 616,
provides a tenant with the affirmative defense of "breach
of the warranty of habitability" in such unlawful
detainer actions, low-income and immigrant tenants who
overwhelmingly appear without counsel are often unaware
of their rights or, if aware, cannot effectively argue
their case to the court.
Section 1 of the bill, proponents argue, seeks to remedy
the problem by making it easier for a tenant to enforce
his or her right to a habitable rental dwelling. It does
so by imposing civil liability upon a slum landlord who
tries to raise the rent or issues a 3-day notice to pay
delinquent rent-or-quit (which is a prerequisite to an
unlawful detatiner action) when the rental dwelling
suffers from substantial habitability requirements and
the landlord has failed to cure the defects within a
reasonable period of time after receiving notice of the
defects.
Section 2 of the bill would make a slumlord liable for
the tenant's reasonable attorneys' fees and costs when
the landlord commences an unlawful detainer action based
on a tenant's default in rent and the landlord is in
violation of Section 1942.4 (which includes being in
violation of habitability standards). Proponents argue
that this provision is necessary to enable tenants to
obtain legal counsel to assert their rights under Section
1942.4 and to habitable housing.
2. New condition on tenant's remedy: substandard condition
must exist prior to the landlord's demand or notice
While most of the provisions in AB 647 can fairly be
characterized as "pro-tenant," there is one mitigating
provision in the bill that may be "pro-landlord." At the
request of the California Apartment Association, the
AB 647 (Nunez)
Page 5
Section 1942.4 remedy would be applicable only where the
substandard housing conditions (as well as the other
prerequisite conditions) existed "prior to the landlord's
demand or notice."
This is a significant condition that does not exist in
current law. However, the limitation appears to be a
fair one, and would preclude the tenant from seeking to
invoke the statute when habitability defects are
discovered or noticed during the course of an unlawful
detainer action, but not before.
3. Measure would shorten time to cure from 60 days to 35
days
This change tracks the time period (30 days) usually
given by housing enforcement officials to landlords to
correct a noticed violation. 5 days is added to the 30
days to account for the delay in receipt caused in the
mailing of the notice. (Adding 5 days is consistent with
the policy of Code of Civil Procedure Section 1013 to add
5 days to the time of performance when the notice is sent
by mail.)
Proponents argue that 30 days is a reasonable timeframe
for landlords to correct substandard housing conditions.
They point out that, as under existing law, the bill
provides an exception for any delay with good cause.
4. Author's amendments to be offered
a) On page 3, line 1, after "not" insert: "less than one
hundred ($100) dollars nor"
This amendment restores the minimum $100 special damages
assessment in existing law.
b) On page 3, line 4, strike out "cost" and insert:
"costs"
This technical amendment corrects an improper word
choice.
c) On page 3, line 20, strike out "and"
AB 647 (Nunez)
Page 6
This technical amendment deletes a superfluous word.
d) On page 3, line 30, strike out "or another action to
collect rent" and insert: "based upon a tenant's
nonpayment of rent"
This substantive amendment accomplishes two purposes.
First, it specifies that the unlawful detainer action
must be one based on nonpayment of rent (where breach of
the warranty of habitability applies as an affirmative
defense). Second, it deletes from the bill the ability
of the tenant to obtain attorney's fees where the
landlord's action is a simple contract action to collect
rent. Statutes very rarely, if ever, provide a party the
right to collect attorney's fees from the opposing party
in a simple breach of contract action.
5. No known opposition
There is no known opposition to AB 647. The former
opponents negotiated a series of amendments with the
sponsors that removed their opposition. One amendment is
described above in Comment 2. Another amendment
specified that the Health and Safety Code violation must
be to "an extent that endangers the life, limb, health,
property, safety, or welfare of the public or the
occupants of the dwelling."
Support: California Labor Federation, AFL-CIO; California
Legislative Council for Older Americans; Congress
of California Seniors; Fair Housing Council of
the San Fernando Valley; Fremont Fair Housing
Services; Housing Rights Committee of San
Francisco; City of Santa Monica; Barbara Sanders
Associates; Burbank Housing Development Corp.;
Cabrillo Economic Development Corporation;
California Church IMPACT; Center for Community
Advocacy; Civic Center Barrio Housing Corp.;
Coachella Valley Housing Coalition; Community
Interface Services; Community Resource
Associates, Inc.; Council of Churches of Santa
Clara County; East Bay Community Law Center;
Esperanza Community Housing Corp.; First
Community Housing Inc.; Foundation for Quality
AB 647 (Nunez)
Page 7
Housing Fremont Fair Housing Services; Gray
Panthers of California; Herman & Coliver
Architecture; Hermandad Los Angeles Economic and
Community Development Corporation; Homes for Life
Foundation; La Raza Centro Legal Inc.; Latin
American Civic Association; Loaves and Fishes;
Los Angeles Community Design Center; Los Angeles
County Federation of Labor; Los Angeles Housing
Law Project; Lutheran Social Services of Southern
California; Mental Health Advocacy Services,
Inc.; Mid-Peninsula Housing Coalition;
Montebello Housing Development Corp.; National
Farm Workers Service Center; Orange County
Community Housing Corp.; People of Progress;
Peoples' Self-Help Housing Corp.; Planning for
Elders; Rural Communities Housing; Sacramento
Housing Alliance; Sacramento Mutual Housing
Association; Sacramento Neighborhood Housing
Services; San Diego Home Loan Counseling; Santa
Monica Commission on Older Americans; Self Help
Enterprises; Shelter Network; Shelter Partnership
Inc.; Southern California Association of
Non-Profit Housing; Strategies for a Just
Economy; Tenderloin Housing Clinic; United
Cerebral Palsy of Los Angeles, Ventura & Santa
Barbara; United Farm Workers of America, AFL-CIO;
West Hollywood Community Housing Corporation;
Westside Regional Center; numerous individuals
Opposition:None Known
HISTORY
Source: Western Center on Law and Poverty; Association
of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN);
Service Employees International Union (SEIU)
(co-sponsors)
Related Pending Legislation: None Known
Prior Legislation:None Known
Prior Vote:Assembly Floor (59 - 6);
Assm. Judiciary Committee (14 - 0)
AB 647 (Nunez)
Page 8
**************