Section 1942

Citation: Section 1942
Parent Document: Drouet v. Superior Court, 73 P.3d 1185 (2003)
Jurisdiction: California (state)
Effective Date: 2003-08-11
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2585536/drouet-v-superior-court/ ↗

Full Text

1,410 chars

The majority also cites Carol Rickert & Associates v. Law (App.2002) 132 N.M. 687, 54 P.3d 91, for the proposition that a "claim of retaliation is not a defense in [an] unlawful detainer action based on [a] landlord's decision not to remain in the federal government former Section 8 housing program." (Maj. opn., ante, 3 Cal.Rptr .3d at p. 215, 73 P.3d at p. 1194.) The decision in Carol Rickert clearly is distinguishable. The New Mexico statute at issue in Carol Rickert prohibited retaliatory eviction, but included an exception that permitted a landlord to increase rent or alter services "if the owner can establish that the increased rent or changes in services are consistent with those imposed on other residents of similar rental units and are not directed at the particular resident, but are uniform." (Carol Rickert & Associates v. Law, supra, 54 P.3d at p. 98.) Carol Rickert held that the tenant's claim of retaliatory eviction was prohibited by this statutory language because the landlord's action was uniform: "[T]he parties do not dispute that Owner's decision to discontinue participation in the Section 8 housing program was to be uniformly applied to all Section 8 tenants as their leases expired. Accordingly, Tenant cannot base her retaliation defense on Owner's decision to discontinue the Section 8 program." (Ibid.) Carol Rickert thus has no bearing on the issues in the present case.

Other Sections in This Document (188)

Full Text