Runnymede Holdings, LLC v. Foster (2023)

Citation: Runnymede Holdings, LLC v. Foster (2023)
Parent Document: Runnymede Holdings, LLC v. Foster (2023)
Jurisdiction: California (state)
Effective Date: 2023-11-01
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/9436573/runnymede-holdings-llc-v-foster/ ↗

Full Text

1,040 chars

9
        When Foster raised the presumption of a retaliatory motive on plaintiff’s part, plaintiff
explained it was motivated to increase the security deposit for a business purpose―to ensure there
would be a sufficient amount of funds available in the event Foster left the property and repairs would
be necessary. But no evidence was presented an increased security deposit was necessary because
Foster was a threat to vacate the property or to leave the property in a state of uncleanliness, if he were
to vacate it.
       10
          Whether or not section 1942.5 applies to the facts and circumstances of this case, tenants may
also rely upon decisional law to assert the retaliation defense in appropriate cases. (See Civ. Code, §
1942.5, subd. (j) [“the remedies provided by this section shall be in addition to any other remedies
provided by statutory or decisional law”]; Barela v. Superior Court (1981) 30 Cal.3d 244, 251
[“California has two parallel and independent sources for the doctrine of retaliatory eviction”]; Rich v.

Other Sections in This Document (32)

Full Text