Section 1950

Citation: Section 1950
Parent Document: Granberry v. Islay Investments, 889 P.2d 970 (1995)
Jurisdiction: California (state)
Effective Date: 1995-03-06
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1436586/granberry-v-islay-investments/ ↗

Full Text

1,970 chars

I respectfully disagree, though, with the majority’s premise that section 1950.5 is ambiguous on the question of whether setoff is allowed and that we therefore must construe the statute based on its legislative history. “ ‘If the language is clear and unambiguous there is no need for construction, nor is it necessary to resort to indicia of the intent of the Legislature . . . .’” (Delaney v. Superior Court (1990) 50 Cal.3d 785, 798 [268 Cal.Rptr. 753, *753789 P.2d 934], quoting Lungren v. Deukmejian (1988) 45 Cal.3d 727, 735 [248 Cal.Rptr. 115, 755 P.2d 299].) I believe section 1950.5 is not ambiguous and that we need not construe it. Section 1950.5, subdivision (k) provides the sole remedies for a landlord’s retention of a security deposit: “The bad faith claim or retention by a landlord or the landlord’s successors in interest of the security or any portion thereof in violation of this section, or the bad faith demand of replacement security in violation of subdivision (i), may subject the landlord or the landlord’s successors in interest to statutory damages of up to six hundred dollars ($600), in addition to actual damages. The court may award damages for bad faith whenever the facts warrant such an award, regardless of whether the injured party has specifically requested relief. In any action under this section, the landlord or the landlord’s successors in interest shall have the burden of proof as to the reasonableness of the amounts claimed or the authority pursuant to this section to demand additional security deposits.” Nothing in the statute states or even suggests that the landlord who has acted in good faith loses his right to assert a setoff. Because section 1950.5 provides the remedies for a landlord’s wrongful retention but does not even mention the loss of a landlord’s setoff, the statute necessarily does not deprive the landlord of the setoff. This is not ambiguous. Arabian, J., concurred. --- 040dissent by Kennard ---

Other Sections in This Document (169)

Full Text