Elmassian v. Flores (2021)

Citation: Elmassian v. Flores (2021)
Parent Document: Elmassian v. Flores (2021)
Jurisdiction: California (state)
Effective Date: 2021-09-27
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/5291317/elmassian-v-flores/ ↗

Full Text

2,193 chars

1
INTRODUCTION
In this matter of first impression, we construe the affirmative defense in unlawful
detainer evictions that “a landlord shall not terminate a tenancy . . . based upon an act or acts
against a tenant . . . that constitute domestic violence” (Code of Civ. Proc., § 1161.3, subd.
(a)).1 We hold:
(1) A tenant can assert the defense to being evicted based upon domestic violence
causing a nuisance on rented property even if non-domestic violence grounds are also asserted
in the action. The language of the statute and its legislative history indicate that, although a
tenant can be evicted for non-domestic violence grounds even when the tenant is a victim of
domestic violence, including due to creating a nuisance for reasons other than domestic
violence and/or failing to pay rent, in instances where the action is based on both domestic
violence and non-domestic violence grounds, a tenant must be allowed to maintain the section
1161.3 defense as to the domestic violence grounds.
(2) The requisite documentation needed to support the defense can consist of a report
prepared by the police narrating a domestic violence incident based solely on a tenant’s
statements which do not name the perpetrator of the violence, do not indicate the relationship
between the victim and the perpetrator, and only document one of multiple instances of
violence relied on by the landlord to evict the tenant. The statute provides the domestic
violence defense must be documented by “[a] copy of a written report, written within the last
180 days, by a peace officer . . . stating that the tenant . . . has filed a report alleging that [the
tenant] is a victim of domestic violence . . . .” (§ 1161.3, subd. (a)(1)(B)), and the language
used and the statute’s legislative history do not evince a requirement that further information be
provided.
The trial court granted a directed verdict as to the defense by defendant and appellant
Noemi Flores that plaintiff and respondent Nora Elmassian terminated the tenancy and brought
an unlawful detainer action based upon acts of domestic violence committed in the apartment

Other Sections in This Document (74)

Full Text