Construction By Landlord Results In Habitability Violations

In Los Angeles two married couples alleged that their landlord made their apartments inhabitable when he began construction on their apartments, including the kitchen, bedrooms and bathrooms. The plaintiffs complained that the construction caused the apartments to become inhabitable. The owners of the apartments disagreed and required plaintiffs to continue to pay rent. Both couples claimed that they were low-income couples and had been in their apartments for 10 years. Plaintiffs agreed to allow the owner of the apartments to make “quick and small” improvements to the rental units in order to turn them into condominiums. Instead, plaintiff contended that defendants tore down walls to the studs, cut off running water, gutted kitchens and bathrooms, exposed nails, exposed electrical wires and caused excessive dust, debris and noise. Plaintiff claimed that defendant landlord breached the following; habitability, quiet enjoyment, nuisance, negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress, retaliation and unlawful business practice.

The above case went to trial and the result was an award for both couples for a total of $122,120.00. However, plaintiffs were also awarded attorney fees by the judge in the amount of $450,000.00.

If you have had an issue of habitability violations Penney and Associates may be able to help you. Penney and Associates does not guarantee the outcome of any specific case.

Real Estate Law

As the Real Estate, Construction and Collection attorney at Penney and Associates, I deal with interesting cases every day. If you have a real estate, construction or collection legal question do not hesitate to call our office at 916-652-7235.
In Los Angeles (this type of case occurs in Sacramento, San Francisco, Roseville or any other city), the court granted a Mr. Gillingham and his neighbors an equitable easement across the property of Rancho Agua Dulce LLC. A number of plaintiff's used a dirt road known as "Briggs Road" for 30 years to access their homes. The road crossed a parcel of mostly vacant land owned by the defendant. According to the plaintiffs, the only reasonable access to their homes was through Briggs Road. They claimed an implied easement and a prescriptive easement. This litigation arose out of defendants erecting a gate across the access road. The defendant claimed the homeowners were trespassing on its land. The court held for the plaintiffs and found that the road had been in use in some fashion since 1930.
The outcome of this case does not guarantee the same outcome to a case that may have a similar fact pattern.

SF Lawyer

We are excited at Penney and Associates to each get out own Blog site and will be blogging soon. See you later.