Landeros

Landeros v. Pankey

Good Law
1995 Cal. App. LEXIS 1062·39 Cal. App. 4th 1167·46 Cal. Rptr. 2d 165·95 Daily Journal DAR 14567·95 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8485
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaOctober 30, 1995B082190California2,556 words

Opinion

Opinion

Acting, J.

This case illustrates that settling an unlawful detainer action does not necessarily settle all disputes arising from a residential landlord-tenant relationship and that, in order to assure finality of litigation, the settlement documents must be comprehensive.

Introduction

Plaintiffs and appellants Pauline and Jesus Landeros were formerly tenants in a home owned by defendants and respondents Dana and Ruth Pankey, individually and as tmstees. A prior unlawful detainer action resulted in a stipulated judgment, with plaintiffs vacating the premises. Eight months later plaintiffs filed this action for damages for “breach of warranty of habitability” and other causes of action. Plaintiffs alleged that during the more than three years they rented the premises, the home was so defective, dilapidated, and violative of building and safety codes as to breach a landlord’s implied warranty of habitability and entitle plaintiffs to a rebate of excessive rent and damages for annoyance, discomfort, and emotional distress. Plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of dismissal following the sustaining of a demurrer to their complaint.

Case law supports an independent action by a tenant or…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.