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

2,020 chars

16
expiration of a three-day notice specifying the covenant that must be performed (§ 1161, subd.
(3)); and “maintaining, committing, or permitting the commission of a nuisance upon [rental
property]” and failing to vacate the property once a three-day notice expires (§ 1161, subd. (4)).
A nuisance as defined by Civil Code section 3479 as, “[a]nything which is injurious to
health, including, but not limited to, the illegal sale of controlled substances, . . . offensive to
the senses, or an obstruction to the free use of property, so as to interfere with the comfortable
enjoyment of life or property . . . .” A nuisance may therefore be based on an act or acts of
domestic violence, to the extent the activity is “injurious to [the] health” of other tenants, is
“offensive to the senses” of the tenants, and/or threatens the other tenants and interferes with
their comfortable enjoyment of their apartments.14
Pursuant to the text of section 1161.3, a termination of a tenancy, followed by an
unlawful detainer action, which is based upon grounds such as failing to pay rent, or disobeying
a covenant like a no-pets clause, is not one which rests or is supported by domestic violence.
Likewise, a termination/unlawful detainer based on a tenant committing a nuisance, by selling
drugs or interfering with other tenants’ property interests, like using their parking spots without
permission, also neither rests nor is supported by domestic violence. In contrast, a
termination/unlawful detainer based on a nuisance where an act or acts of domestic violence are
injurious to other tenants’ health, disturb the other tenants, and/or interfere with their property,
does rest, and is supported by, domestic violence evidence.
We thus agree with plaintiff’s argument on appeal, that existence of domestic violence is
not a talisman which may be invoked to thwart an eviction regardless of the presence of valid
grounds for an unlawful detainer. On the other hand, we find that, when a landlord uses

Other Sections in This Document (74)

Full Text