California Tenant Defense Blog
Eviction defenses. Rent control. Habitability rights. Know the law.
-
The Day You Stop Accepting Your Landlord’s Word: What Knowing the Law Changes
Most tenants operate on what their landlord tells them. They accept the lease terms as given. They assume the landlord’s interpretation of events is correct. They don’t send written repair requests because they assume a text is sufficient. They move out without a walkthrough because they don’t know they have a right to one. Each…
-
AB 1482 California Rent Control: Is Your Landlord’s Rent Increase Legal?
AB 1482 caps annual rent increases at 5% + local CPI, max 10% for most California rentals built before 2005. If your landlord exceeded the cap, they must refund the excess for every month it was charged. Coverage Test AB 1482 covers most residential rentals except: single-family homes/condos with proper written exemption notice, buildings under…
-
Mold in Your California Rental: Your Landlord’s Legal Obligation and Your Remedies
Mold is a habitability violation under California Health and Safety Code §17920.3 and Civil Code 1941.1. A landlord who knows about mold and fails to remediate is violating the implied warranty of habitability. What to Do Immediately Document with dated photos and video Send written notice by certified mail and email — describe location and…
-
California Habitability Law: Repair-and-Deduct, Rent Withholding, and Rent Reduction Explained
California Civil Code 1941 imposes an absolute duty on landlords to maintain habitable conditions. This duty cannot be waived by any lease provision. When your landlord fails, you have three immediate self-help remedies. The Three Remedies 1. Repair-and-Deduct: Hire a contractor, deduct cost from rent — up to one month’s rent. Requires prior written notice.…
-
Normal Wear and Tear vs. Damage: Where California Law Draws the Line on Security Deposit Deductions
Normal wear and tear is the natural deterioration from ordinary use. Landlords cannot charge for it. Understanding the line is the difference between getting your deposit back and losing hundreds to improper deductions. Normal Wear and Tear — Cannot Deduct Carpet worn flat from foot traffic Minor wall scuffs from furniture Faded or peeling paint…
-
California Security Deposit Law: The 21-Day Rule and How to Recover 3x Damages
California Civil Code 1950.5 requires your landlord to return your deposit within 21 days of move-out with an itemized statement. Miss the deadline or withhold in bad faith = up to 3x the wrongfully withheld amount. What the 21-Day Rule Requires Return the full deposit, OR Itemized statement with receipts + any remaining balance Missing…
-
California Landlord Retaliation: The 180-Day Presumption That Flips the Burden of Proof
California Civil Code 1942.5 creates a legal presumption of retaliation when a landlord serves an eviction notice or raises rent within 180 days of a protected tenant activity. Your landlord must prove it wasn’t retaliation — not the other way around. Protected Activities Requesting repairs or reporting habitability conditions Contacting a government agency (building department,…
-
How to File a California Unlawful Detainer Answer — The 5-Day Deadline and Every Defense Available
You have only 5 business days from being served with a UD summons to file a written answer. Miss it and your landlord gets a default judgment without a hearing. Form UD-105 is free at courts.ca.gov and lists every available defense in checkbox format. The Strongest Affirmative Defenses Notice DefectsAny procedural defect in the 3-day…
-
California 3-Day Notice: Every Fatal Defect That Voids the Eviction
When your landlord serves you a 3-day notice to pay rent or quit, most tenants panic. They shouldn’t. A 3-day notice is not an eviction order — it is a legal prerequisite to filing an Unlawful Detainer lawsuit, and California Code of Civil Procedure §1161 imposes strict requirements on its form and content. One defect…
-
class action in Labor relations
Tuesday, August 11, 2015 Sanchez v. Valencia Holding Co: Cal. Supreme Court Addresses Unconscionability, Enforceability of Consumer Arbitration Agreement In Sanchez v. Valencia Holding Company, LLC (8/3/15) — Cal.4th —, the California Supreme Court has addressed a number of issues involving the enforcement of an arbitration provision in a car dealer’s sales contract. In the underlying…