Salazar v. Maradeaga

• Decision Date: 06 August 1992
• Docket Number: No. BV19133,BV19133
• Citation: Salazar v. Maradeaga, 12 Cal.Rptr.2d 676, 10 Cal.App.4th Supp. 1 (Cal. Super. 1992)
• Court: California Superior Court
• Parties: 10 Cal.App.4th Supp. 1 Teofilo SALAZAR, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Blanca MARADEAGA, Defendant and Appellant. Civ. A. Appellate Department, Superior Court, Los Angeles County, California

Page 676

12 Cal.Rptr.2d 676

10 Cal.App.4th Supp. 1

Teofilo SALAZAR, Plaintiff and Respondent, v.Blanca MARADEAGA, Defendant and Appellant.

Civ. A. No. BV19133.

Appellate Department, Superior Court, Los Angeles County, California.

Aug. 6, 1992.

[10 Cal.App.4th Supp. 3] Maeve Elise Brown, Los Angeles, for defendant and appellant.

David Pallack, Pacoima, and Anna Burns, Los Angeles, as amici curiae on behalf of defendant and appellant.

Wayne C. Collett, Fox Hills, for plaintiff and respondent.

OPINION AND JUDGMENT

DISCO, Judge.

Respondent brought an unlawful detainer action in March of 1991 to evict appellant from a garage unit which had been used by appellant and her family as living quarters for approximately four years.A department of building and safety order had been outstanding since approximately 1989 requiring respondent to cease the illegal use of this space.Appellant answered the complaint with a general denial, and raised a number of affirmative defenses, including a defense that the premises were untenantable and a defense that the premises were subject to the Los Angeles Rent Stabilization Ordinance(Los Angeles Mun.Code, ch. XV, art. I, § 151.00 et seq.[RSO hereafter] ).The trial court found that appellant owed no money to respondent, and awarded possession of the premises to respondent.

contends on appeal that the court erred in awarding possession to respondent because it was established at trial that respondent had not paid relocation benefits to appellant, as required under the RSO.We agree.

There is no question but that respondent owes appellant relocation benefits.Section 151.09, subsection A, subdivision 11 of the RSO permits a landlord to evict a tenant "in order to comply with a governmental agency's order to vacate the building housing the rental unit as a result of the violation of the Los Angeles Municipal Code or any other provision of law."When a landlord evicts a tenant under this section, he or she must pay relocation benefits.Section 151.09, subsection G of the RSO states that: "[i]f the termination of tenancy is based on the grounds set forth in Subdivisions 8, 9, 10 or 11 of Subsection A of this Section then the landlord shall pay a relocation fee of $5,000.00 to qualified tenants and a $2,000.00 fee to all other tenants."

The issue raised by this appeal is whether a tenant may remain in possession until relocation benefits are provided under the RSO when the occupancy itself is unlawful.Generally, if the object of a contract is unlawful, the entire contract is void.(Civ.Code, §§ 1550,1598;see generally, 1 Witkin, Summary of Cal.Law (9th ed. 1987) Contracts, §§ 430, 441, pp. 386, 396.)A party who is not in pari delicto may be entitled to relief under certain circumstances, but the relief is limited to rescission and restitution; the party is not entitled to enforce the contract.(1 Witkin, supra, at § 450, p. 401.)This rule applies to the lease of real property.Where, as here, an occupancy violates a zoning or building code enacted for the benefit of the general public, the use itself is illegal, and the defect is thus uncorrectable, the lease agreement is held to be void and unenforceable by either party.¹The landlord is not entitled to back rent, and the tenant is not entitled to possession.(Gruzen v. Henry(1978)84 Cal.App.3d 515, 518-519, 148 Cal.Rptr. 573;Shephard v. Lerner(1960)182 Cal.App.2d 746, 750, 6 Cal.Rptr. 433.)

Appellant argues, however, that this is not the result contemplated under the RSO, where the tenant is given the option of remaining in possession, irrespective of the basis for the eviction, when the landlord fails to provide relocation benefits.Section 151.09, subsection H of the RSO provides that: "In any action by a landlord to recover possession of a rental unit, the tenant may raise as an affirmative defense the failure of the landlord to comply with Subsection G of this Section."²An "affirmative defense" is one which "sets forth facts from which it results that, notwithstanding the truth of the allegations of the complaint, no cause of action existed in the plaintiff at the time the action was brought."(Goddard v. Fulton(1863)21 Cal. 430, 436;see, generally, 5 Witkin, Cal.Procedure (3d ed. 1985) Pleading, § 1004, pp. 425, 426.)We conclude that the clear intent of this provision is to preclude the landlord from terminating a tenancy and recovering possession in an unlawful detainer action where the tenant raises and establishes as an affirmative defense ³ that the landlord has failed to pay relocation benefits, even if the basis of the eviction is an illegal use.

Enforcement of the relocation benefit provisions of the RSO thus conflicts with enforcement of the city's building and zoning codes where the occupancy is illegal.We are persuaded, however, that the Los Angeles City Council intended to give priority to enforcement of the RSO under these circumstances.⁴The legislative history makes it clear that the council was well aware when it passed OrdinanceNo. 164685, amending the RSO to include evictions based on illegal units in the section that requires the payment of relocation benefits, that application of the ordinance could delay enforcement of the city's zoning and building codes.The motion which led to the presentation of OrdinanceNo. 164685 states, in pertinent part: "Property owners who practice and profit from illegal conversions or additions must cease such activities.Such practices are inconsistent with the intent of the city's policy to provide quality housing for tenants.Such practices also violate the City's zoning and building codes."At the time it passed the ordinance, the council also knew that other sections of the RSO then in effect required payment of relocation assistance within 15 days of service of the notice of termination (subsection G, subd. 2) and provided that failure to pay relocation benefits under subsection G would defeat an action for possession (subsection H).(Yoffie v. Marin Hospital District(1987)193 Cal.App.3d 743, 747, 238 Cal.Rptr. 502[Legislature is presumed to know existing law at the time it enacts a statute].)No effort, however, was made to amend these other provisions in order to permit immediate enforcement of the zoning or building code.Failure to change the law in a particular respect when the subject is before the Legislature, which makes other changes, is indicative of an intention to leave the law unchanged in such respect.(Cole v. Rush(1955)45 Cal.2d 345, 355, 289 P.2d 450, overruled on other grounds inVesely v. Sager(1971)5 Cal.3d 153, 167, 95 Cal.Rptr. 623, 486 P.2d 151.)

This conclusion best reconciles the stated policies behind both statutory schemes.Deferring vacation of the unit until the landlord has paid relocation assistance serves the purposes of the RSO by affording tenants the financial means to secure replacement housing prior to eviction.(SeeRSO, § 151.01, "Statement of Purpose.")It is consistent with the city council's...