Skip to main content
INTERNAL PROTOTYPE — NOT LEGAL ADVICE — DO NOT SEND

Elmassian v. Flores (2021)

Citation
Elmassian v. Flores (2021)
Parent Document
Elmassian v. Flores (2021)
Jurisdiction
California (state)
Effective Date
2021-09-27

Other Sections in This Document (74)

Full Text

1,739 chars
17
domestic violence acts to prove a ground for an action, the affirmative defense applies as to that
ground.15
       To the extent there is any ambiguity in the law as to when the defense can be used, the
legislative history of the bill that first enacted the statute fully supports our interpretation of
what it means for the termination of a tenancy to be “based upon” domestic violence acts.
Reports before the Legislature in 2010—when the bill enacting the statute that provided, as it
does now, a termination must be “based upon” domestic violence, was being considered—
indicate as follows.
       “[S]ome landlord groups worried that tenants might abuse this right by claiming to be
victims in order to avoid eviction on other grounds. However, the bill makes it quite clear that
the landlord is only restricted from terminating a tenancy if the termination is ‘based upon an
act or acts against a tenant that constitute domestic violence . . . .” In other words, if a tenant
fails to pay rent or violates some other condition of the lease, the protection provided by this
bill will not apply even if the tenant has documentation showing that he or she is a victim of
domestic violence. It is only when the landlord terminates the tenancy because of problems
created by the acts of the abuser—such as loud noises that disturb other tenants, violence that
may threaten other tenants, or frequent police calls to quell disturbances—that the victim may
invoke the provisions of this bill.” (Assem. Com. on Judiciary, Analysis of Sen. Bill No. 782
(2009-2010 Reg. Sess.) as amended June 10, 2010, p. 5, italics in original; see Assem. Floor,
Analysis of Sen. Bill No. 782 (2009-2010 Reg. Sess.) as amended Aug. 2, 2010, p. 3 [same].)