Hall v. Municipal Court, S.F. 22992

• Decision Date: 15 January 1974
• Docket Number: S.F. 22992
• Citation: 517 P.2d 1185,10 Cal.3d 641,111 Cal.Rptr. 721
• Court: California Supreme Court
• Parties: , 517 P.2d 1185 Eveline HALL, Petitioner, v. The MUNICIPAL COURT FOR the CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Respondent; Jeff McGASKEY, Real Party in Interest.

Page 721

111 Cal.Rptr. 721

10 Cal.3d 641, 517 P.2d 1185

Eveline HALL, Petitioner, v. The MUNICIPAL COURT FOR the CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Respondent;

Jeff McGASKEY, Real Party in Interest.

S.F. 22992.

Supreme Court of California,

In Bank.

Jan. 15, 1974.

Gilbert T. Graham and Lawrence L. Curtice, San Francisco, for petitioner.

Allan David Heskin, Berkeley, Myron Moskovitz, San Francisco and Rosalyn M. Chapman, Los Angeles, as amici curiae on behalf of petitioner.

No appearance for respondent.

Williams & James, Joseph B. Williams and Benjamin D. James, Jr., San Francisco, for real party in interest.

TOBRINER, Justice.

In this proceeding, petitioner Eveline Hall seeks a writ of mandate and or prohibition to compel the San Francisco Municipal Court to vacate a judgment rendered against her in an unlawful detainer action, on the ground that the municipal court failed to give appropriate consideration to her claim that the landlord had breached an implied warranty of habitability. Although we have held this day in Green v. Superior Court, Cal., 111 Cal.Rptr. 517 P.2d 1168, that a warranty of habitability is implied by law in residential leases in California, and that a landlord's breach of such a warranty is available as a defense in an unlawful detainer action, the record in the instant case does not support petitioner's claim that the municipal court erred in its treatment of these issues. Accordingly, we have determined that the requested writ must be denied.

On September 25, 1972, petitioner's landlord, Jeff McGaskey, commenced an unlawful detainer action in the San Francisco Municipal Court based upon petitioner's failure to pay $160 rent for the month of September. In her answer, the tenant admitted that she had refused to pay rent for that month, but she defended her refusal on the ground that the landlord had failed to maintain the premises in a habitable state. In support of this contention, petitioner attached to her answer copies of official city inspection reports detailing some 40 separate violations of the city's housing code, as well as a certified copy of a 'Notice of Condemnation' declaring the premises in question 'unsafe' and a 'public nuisance.' Both the inspection reports and the condemnation notice were rather dated, however, the former being from May 1971, and the latter from November 1971.

At trial, defendant landlord objected to the admission of any evidence relating to the alleged uninhabitability of the premises, but the trial court, apparently relying upon the Court of Appeal opinion in Hinson v. Delis (1972) 26 Cal.App.3d 62, 102 Cal.Rptr. 661, overruled these objections and permitted the tenant to present evidence on the uninhabitability issue. Thereafter, the landlord apparently controverted at least some of the tenant's testimony. At the conclusion of the presentation of this evidence, the trial court ruled in favor of the landlord in his claim for possession of the premises. ¹

Petitioner now claims that the trial court's determination necessarily rests upon an erroneous legal conclusion that a breach of a warranty of habitability is not a defense in an unlawful detainer action. In response, however, the landlord points out that the trial court's ruling could equally reflect the court's determination that, as a factual matter, the tenant had failed to demonstrate a breach of warranty. Under established principles, of course, a lower court judgment is presumed correct, and when a lower court has made no specific findings of fact, it is presumed that the court made such implied findings as will support the...