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
1,710 charsDefendants also remind us that we should construe section 1950.5, subdivision (f), in a way that will give effect to section 1950.5 as a whole, leaving no part useless or deprived of meaning. (Gay Law Students Assn. v. Pacific Tel. & Tel. Co. (1979) 24 Cal.3d 458, 478 [156 Cal. Rptr. 14, 595 P.2d 592].) They draw our attention to section 1950.5, subdivision (k), which provides in pertinent part: "The bad faith claim or retention by a landlord ... of the security or any portion thereof, in violation of this section ..., may subject the landlord ... to statutory damages of up to six hundred dollars ($600), in addition to actual damages.... In any action under this section, the landlord ... shall have the burden of proof as to the reasonableness of the *747 amounts claimed...."[5] According to defendants, this provision is "critical" for two reasons. First, they argue that if the Legislature had intended to bar all claims for damages for unpaid rent, repair, and cleaning other than those made in accordance with section 1950.5, subdivision (f), it would not have been necessary to allocate the burden of proof regarding reasonableness, because the matter would never be litigated. According to defendants, this provision could only have meaning in cases in which the landlord has failed to comply with section 1950.5, subdivision (f), the tenant has sued for a refund, and the landlord seeks setoff. The argument misses the mark: the second sentence of section 1950.5, subdivision (k), would also apply in cases in which the tenant contests the accounting required under section 1950.5, subdivision (f), and sues for a refund of all or part of the amount deducted and retained under that provision.