Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Adamson Companies v. Zipp, 163 Cal. App. 3d 1 (1984)

Citation
Adamson Companies v. Zipp, 163 Cal. App. 3d 1 (1984)
Parent Document
Adamson Companies v. Zipp, 163 Cal. App. 3d 1 (1984)
Jurisdiction
California (state)
Effective Date
1984-11-15

Other Sections in This Document (89)

Full Text

908 chars
In their answer defendants, denying the liability of Barbara Zipp, admitted that Steven Zipp had entered into the lease and that he continued to reside on the leased premises with his wife and child as alleged in the complaint. As affirmative defenses, defendants claimed that the unlawful detainer action, based "on nothing more than the residency of a minor child in their mobile home," constituted illegal discrimination prohibited under the Unruh Civil Rights Act, was unconstitutional as a violation of defendants' rights to equal protection and to due process of law under the United States and California Constitutions, and that the age limitation set forth in the lease agreement was "void as contrary to public policy." Defendants also sought a stay of the unlawful detainer proceedings pending decision in Marina Point, Ltd. v. Wolfson, then pending argument before the California Supreme Court.[9]