Lexplug logoLexplug

Green v. Superior Court

California Supreme Court
111 Cal. Rptr. 704, 517 P.2d 1168, 10 Cal.3d 616 (1974)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A warranty of habitability is implied by law in all residential leases in California, and a landlord's breach of this warranty may be raised as an affirmative defense in an unlawful detainer action for nonpayment of rent.


Facts:

  • Tenant Green rented a residential apartment from landlord Jack Sumski in San Francisco.
  • During his tenancy, Green became aware of numerous serious defects in the apartment.
  • The defects included a collapsed bathroom ceiling, the presence of rats and cockroaches, lack of heat in four rooms, plumbing blockages, faulty electrical wiring, and a dangerous stove.
  • Green notified Sumski of these defects, but Sumski failed to make any repairs within a reasonable time.
  • Believing the premises to be uninhabitable, Green withheld payment of his rent.
  • A subsequent inspection by the San Francisco Department of Public Works revealed approximately 80 housing code violations in the building and resulted in a scheduled condemnation hearing.

Procedural Posture:

  • Landlord Jack Sumski filed an unlawful detainer action against tenant Green in the San Francisco Small Claims Court, seeking possession and $300 in back rent.
  • The small claims court awarded possession to Sumski and entered a money judgment of $225 against Green.
  • Green appealed to the San Francisco Superior Court, which held a trial de novo.
  • The superior court entered judgment for Sumski, reasoning that the statutory 'repair and deduct' remedy was the tenant's exclusive recourse.
  • The superior court denied Green's request to certify the case for transfer to the Court of Appeal.
  • Green then petitioned the Court of Appeal for a writ of mandate, which the court summarily denied.
  • The California Supreme Court granted a hearing and issued an alternative writ of mandate to review the superior court's judgment.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does a landlord's failure to maintain a residential premises in a habitable condition constitute a breach of an implied warranty of habitability, which a tenant can raise as a defense in an unlawful detainer action for nonpayment of rent?


Opinions:

Majority - Tobriner, J.

Yes. A warranty of habitability is implied by law in residential leases, and a tenant can raise the landlord's breach of this warranty as a defense in an unlawful detainer action. The court's reasoning has several parts. First, the old common law rule of caveat emptor (let the buyer beware) in leases is obsolete; it arose from an agrarian society where the land itself was the primary value of the lease, not the dwelling. Second, modern urban leases should be treated as contracts for shelter, not conveyances of land, aligning them with consumer protection principles where warranties of fitness are implied in the sale of goods. Third, a tenant's duty to pay rent and a landlord's duty to maintain a habitable premises are mutually dependent covenants; a material breach by the landlord justifies the tenant's nonpayment of rent. Fourth, California's statutory 'repair and deduct' remedy is not exclusive and does not preclude the evolution of common law remedies. Finally, allowing this defense in an unlawful detainer action is proper because the landlord's breach is directly relevant to the core issue of whether rent is 'due and owing,' and thus, who is entitled to possession of the premises.



Analysis:

This landmark decision fundamentally transformed California landlord-tenant law, shifting its conceptual basis from traditional property law to modern contract law. By establishing the implied warranty of habitability, the court created a new, non-waivable duty for landlords to maintain safe and sanitary housing and provided tenants with a powerful defense against eviction for nonpayment of rent. This case significantly rebalanced the power dynamic between landlords and tenants, giving tenants leverage to compel repairs of substandard conditions without having to vacate the premises or file a separate lawsuit. The ruling set a precedent that has been widely influential and reflects the modern reality of urban residential tenancies as a contract for services and shelter, not a conveyance of land.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Green v. Superior Court (1974)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"