Section 1950
- Citation
- Section 1950
- Parent Document
- Granberry v. Islay Investments, 889 P.2d 970 (1995)
- Jurisdiction
- California (state)
- Effective Date
- 1995-03-06
Other Sections in This Document (169)
- Granberry v. Islay Investments, 889 P.2d 970 (1995)
- Granberry v. Islay Investments, 889 P.2d 970 (1995)
- Granberry v. Islay Investments, 889 P.2d 970 (1995)
- Granberry v. Islay Investments, 889 P.2d 970 (1995)
- Granberry v. Islay Investments, 889 P.2d 970 (1995)
- Granberry v. Islay Investments, 889 P.2d 970 (1995)
- Granberry v. Islay Investments, 889 P.2d 970 (1995)
- Granberry v. Islay Investments, 889 P.2d 970 (1995)
- Granberry v. Islay Investments, 889 P.2d 970 (1995)
- Granberry v. Islay Investments, 889 P.2d 970 (1995)
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
- Section 1950
Full Text
883 charsWhen the trial court chose the class remedy in this case, it had already held that defendants were not entitled to set off amounts owed for unpaid rent, repair, and cleaning. There can be little doubt that this prior ruling was among the more important factors that the trial court considered in deciding what remedy would be most equitable given the circumstances as they then existed. However, we now hold in part I of this opinion that the trial court’s initial ruling was error, that defendants are not barred as a matter of law from seeking setoff, and that they are entitled to have the opportunity to prove their right to setoff at an evidentiary hearing. It follows that the equities in this case may well have changed, and the trial court must reconsider its choice of remedy in light of the result of the forthcoming evidentiary hearing on defendants’ claim of setoff. III.