Barela v. Superior Court

Citation30 Cal.3d 244,636 P.2d 582,178 Cal.Rptr. 618
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court (California)
Decision Date27 November 1981
Parties, 636 P.2d 582 Alice BARELA, Petitioner, v. The SUPERIOR COURT OF ORANGE COUNTY, Respondent; Leonardo VALDEZ, Real Party in Interest. L.A. 31444.

Katherine R. Wolff, Encino, for petitioner.

Ronald S. Javor, Long Beach, Fred Okrand, Los Angeles, Ronald R. Talmo and Robert Klotz, Santa Ana, amici curiae for petitioner.

No appearance for respondent.

Paul G. Mast, Santa Ana, for real party in interest.

BIRD, Chief Justice.

In an unlawful detainer action, may a renter raise as an affirmative defense the claim that a landlord seeks to evict in retaliation for the tenant's complaint to the police that the landlord has committed a crime?

I.

On April 12, 1980, petitioner, Alice Barela, called the Santa Ana Police Department to complain that her landlord, Leonardo Valdez (real party in interest), had sexually molested her nine-year-old daughter. 1

Seven days later, on April 19, 1980, Valdez served Barela with a three-day notice to "Pay Rent or Quit." He demanded rent of $650 per month, rather than the $200 per month she had been paying. Prior to her complaint to the police, she had rented the house from him for four years without any problem.

In May of 1980, Valdez filed an unlawful detainer action against Barela, based on her failure to pay $650 per month rent in May. That action was dismissed, apparently because Valdez had never served the 30-day notice of rent increase required by law. However, in late May he served Barela with a 30-day notice of termination of her month-to-month tenancy. Barela did not move. On July 21, 1980, while criminal charges were pending against him, Valdez filed a new unlawful detainer action, based on the 30-day notice of termination. Barela responded with an answer alleging as an affirmative defense that she was being evicted in retaliation for her exercise of constitutionally protected rights.

After trial, the court issued the following findings of fact: (1) "(t)his eviction of the defendant by the plaintiff was caused by the complaint of the defendant against the plaintiff to the police," and (2) "(t)he pending criminal trial against the plaintiff which was the result of defendant's complaint to the police led to a breakdown of the parties' ability to live peacefully in the same community."

In addition, the court issued conclusions of law, holding that the eviction was not protected by section 1942.5 of the Civil Code 2 or by the standards of S.P. Growers Assn. v. Rodriguez (1976) 17 Cal.3d 719, 131 Cal.Rptr. 761, 552 P.2d 721. The court granted Valdez the relief sought, including restitution of the premises and back rent. This result was held to be equitable.

The appellate department of the superior court upheld the trial court's decision without issuing an opinion, and refused to certify the case to the Court of Appeal. (Code Civ.Proc., § 911.) Barela filed a petition for a writ of mandate in the Court of Appeal. She requested that the superior court be ordered to vacate its order and to either enter judgment for petitioner or rehear the case, giving proper consideration to the defense of retaliatory eviction. 3 The Court of Appeal summarily denied her petition. Barela then filed a petition for a writ of mandate before this court and an alternative writ of mandate was issued.

II.

This case involves one basic issue-whether an affirmative defense is available in an unlawful detainer action if it is based on the allegation that the landlord seeks to evict in retaliation for the tenant's report to the police that the landlord has committed a crime. 4

Unlawful detainer actions are summary proceedings. Only "issues directly relevant to the ultimate question of possession" may be raised in defense of an unlawful detainer action. (Green v. Superior Court, supra, 10 Cal.3d 616, 634, 111 Cal.Rptr. 704, 517 P.2d 1168.) Generally counterclaims, cross-complaints and affirmative defenses cannot be considered. (Union Oil Co. v. Chandler (1970) 4 Cal.App.3d 716, 721, 84 Cal.Rptr. 756.)

The defense of "retaliatory eviction" has been firmly ensconced in this state's statutory law and judicial decisions for many years. (See, e. g., § 1942.5; S.P. Growers Assn. v. Rodriguez, supra, 17 Cal.3d 719, 724, 131 Cal.Rptr. 761, 552 P.2d 721; Schweiger v. Superior Court, supra, 3 Cal.3d 507, 517, 90 Cal.Rptr. 729, 476 P.2d 97.) "It is settled that a landlord may be precluded from evicting a tenant in retaliation for certain kinds of lawful activities of the tenant. As a landlord has no right to possession when he seeks it for such an invalid reason, a tenant may raise the defense of retaliatory eviction in an unlawful detainer proceeding. (Citations.)" (S.P. Growers, supra, 17 Cal.3d at p. 724, 131 Cal.Rptr. 761, 552 P.2d 721.) The retaliatory eviction doctrine is founded on the premise that "(a) landlord may normally evict a tenant for any reason or for no reason at all, but he may not evict for an improper reason ...." (Id., at p. 730, 131 Cal.Rptr. 761, 552 P.2d 721.)

The affirmative defense of retaliatory eviction was first recognized by this court in Schweiger v. Superior Court, supra, 3 Cal.3d 507, 90 Cal.Rptr. 729, 476 P.2d 97. There, the statutory "repair and deduct" provision (§ 1942) was construed so as to include protection against eviction for those tenants who exercised their statutory rights. The same year, the Legislature codified this protection in section 1942.5. The statute prohibited landlords from evicting a tenant in retaliation for the tenant's exercise of the right to repair and deduct or the tenant's complaint to the authorities about housing code violations.

In 1976, this court extended the scope of the common law retaliatory eviction defense beyond mere complaints about conditions of tenancy. (S.P. Growers Assn. v. Rodriguez, supra, 17 Cal.3d 719, 728, 131 Cal.Rptr. 761, 552 P.2d 721.) In S.P. Growers, this court held that an eviction in retaliation for the filing of a federal lawsuit charging violations of a federal farm labor statute was improper. The test set down in S.P. Growers, supra, is quite simple. A valid defense of retaliatory eviction may be advanced if, on balance, the public policies furthered by protecting a tenant from eviction outweigh the state's interest in ensuring that unlawful detainer proceedings are truly summary. (Id., at pp. 728-729, 131 Cal.Rptr. 761, 552 P.2d 721.)

The Legislature repealed section 1942.5 in 1979 and reenacted it with amendments. 5 (Stats. 1979, ch. 652, § 2, p. 2005.) The statutory retaliatory eviction defense was greatly expanded. The time period during which a tenant is protected was extended, and the grounds for which retaliation is prohibited were enlarged. (§ 1942.5, subds. (a) and (c).) In addition, the 1979 amendments added a specific statement that the statutory remedies provided by section 1942.5 are in addition to any other remedies provided by statutory or decisional law. (Id., subd. (h).)

Thus, California has two parallel and independent sources for the doctrine of retaliatory eviction. This court must decide whether petitioner raised a legally cognizable defense of retaliatory eviction under the statutory scheme and/or the common law doctrine.

Section 1942.5 is a remedial statute aimed at protecting tenants from certain types of abuses. It is to be "liberally construed to effect its objectives and to suppress, not encourage, the mischief at which it was directed. (Citation.)" (Kriz v. Taylor (1979) 92 Cal.App.3d 302, 311, 154 Cal.Rptr. 824.)

Subdivision (c) of section 1942.5 provides that it is unlawful "for a lessor to increase rent, decrease services, cause a lessee to quit involuntarily, bring an action to recover possession, or threaten to do any of such acts, for the purpose of retaliating against the lessee because he or she has ... lawfully and peaceably exercised any rights under the law." (Emphasis added.) This subdivision was added to the statute in 1979. (Stats. 1979, ch. 652, § 2, pp. 2005-2006.) It has been denominated a "boilerplate" provision because of its broad prohibition against retaliation by a landlord when a tenant has exercised valid legal rights under the law. (See Review of Selected 1979 California Legislation (1979) 11 Pacific L.J. 601, 602.)

Petitioner argues that in reporting a crime to the police, she was exercising a legal right protected by section 1942.5, subdivision (c). She notes that, "It is the duty and the right, not only of every peace officer of the United States, but of every citizen, to assist in prosecuting, and in securing the punishment of, any breach of the peace of the United States." (In re Quarles and Butler (1895) 158 U.S. 532, 535, 15 S.Ct. 959, 960, 39 L.Ed. 1080.)

California has a long history of protecting those citizens who report violations of the criminal laws. "It is for the best interests of society that those who offend against the laws shall be promptly punished, and that any citizen who has good reason to believe that the law has been violated shall have the right to cause the arrest of the offender." (Ball v. Rawles (1892) 93 Cal. 222, 228, 28 P. 937.)

Implicit in the passage of any remedial legislation is a general intent to protect from intimidation those who report violations of the law. (Edwards v. Habib (D.C.Cir.1968) 397 F.2d 687, 701-702; see also Schweiger v. Superior Court, supra, 3 Cal.3d 507, 513, 90 Cal.Rptr. 729, 476 P.2d 97.) Laws which define certain acts as criminal would be meaningless if citizens who reported crime were not protected from vindictive retaliation. This fundamental principle is embodied in Penal Code section 136.1, which declares that it is a misdemeanor to dissuade or attempt to dissuade any victim of crime from reporting the crime to the police. (Pen. Code, § 136.1, subd. (b)(1).) 6

Thus, every citizen has a right protected by state law to report criminal violations to the police. Since petitioner merely...

To continue reading

Request your trial
43 cases
  • People ex rel. Alzayat v. Hebb
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • 19 Diciembre 2017
    ...encouraging, rather than suppressing, ‘ "the mischief at which it was directed. [Citation.]" ’ ( Barela v. Superior Court [ (1981) ] 30 Cal.3d [244,] 251 [178 Cal.Rptr. 618, 636 P.2d 582].)" ( Banuelos , at p. 332, 161 Cal.Rptr.3d 772.) In addition, the court noted "the right of tenants to ......
  • Snukal v. Flightways Manufacturing, Inc.
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • 17 Julio 2000
    ...certified the issue for review. (Id. at pp. 650-651, 125 Cal.Rptr. 771, 542 P.2d 1363; see, e.g., Barela v. Superior Court (1981) 30 Cal.3d 244, 248, fn. 3, 178 Cal.Rptr. 618, 636 P.2d 582; Green v. Superior Court (1974) 10 Cal.3d 616, 620-622 & fn. 5, 111 Cal.Rptr. 704, 517 P.2d 1168; see ......
  • People v. Navarro
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • 1 Mayo 2013
    ...to dissuade or attempt to dissuade any victim of crime from reporting the crime to the police.” ( Barela v. Superior Court (1981) 30 Cal.3d 244, 252, 178 Cal.Rptr. 618, 636 P.2d 582.) “ ‘It is for the best interests of society that those who offend against the laws shall be promptly punishe......
  • Port of Longview v. International Raw Materials, Ltd.
    • United States
    • Washington Court of Appeals
    • 9 Julio 1999
    ...eviction outweigh the interests in preserving the summary nature of unlawful detainer proceedings. Barela v. Superior Court, 30 Cal.3d 244, 178 Cal.Rptr. 618, 636 P.2d 582, 586 (1981); S.P. Growers Ass'n v. Rodriguez, 17 Cal.3d 719, 131 Cal.Rptr. 761, 762, 552 P.2d 721, 723 (1976).3 The Whi......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Real property torts
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Causes of Action
    • 31 Marzo 2022
    ...Co. v. Hutchinson , 204 Cal. App. 2d 242, 247-248, 22 Cal. Rptr. 309, 313 (1962)). • Retaliatory Eviction (Barela v. Superior Court, 30 Cal. 3d 244, 249, 178 Cal. Rptr. 618, 620, (1981) (tenant was evicted after reporting to police that landlord had committed a crime); see also Cal. Civ. Co......
  • Background Checks and Social Effects: Contemporary Residential Tenant-screening Problems in Washington State
    • United States
    • Seattle University School of Law Seattle Journal for Social Justice No. 9-1, 2010
    • Invalid date
    ...identified as defendants in unlawful detainer actions, regardless of the outcome of the litigation.") (citing Barela v. Superior Court, 636 P.2d 582, 583 (Cal. 111. See U.D. Registry Div. 4, 40 Cal. Rptr. 2d at 231; Pultz v. Economakis, No. 114915/2004, 2005 WL 1845635, at *1 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT