Guttman

Guttman v. Chiazor

Good Law
15 Cal. App. Supp. 5th 57·2017 Cal. App. LEXIS 863·223 Cal. Rptr. 3d 482
Superior Court of CaliforniaSeptember 8, 2017No. BV 031226-01California3,392 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Ricciardulli, J.

*60 INTRODUCTION

In the published portion of this opinion, we hold there is a right to a jury trial in an unlawful detainer action on the affirmative defense of breach of the warranty of habitability. The trial court erred in denying the demand for a jury trial by defendants Charles Chiazor and Hyacinth Pascascio and in conducting a court trial. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment in favor of plaintiff Phillip Guttman.

[[/]] **

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND REGARDING 2015 ACTION

The unlawful detainer action at issue here was filed on March 12, 2015, with plaintiff alleging defendants failed to pay rent in March 2015. Plaintiff requested possession of the defendants' apartment unit, forfeiture of the rental agreement, past due rent, and damages.

On March 17, 2015, defendants filed a joint answer denying allegations in the complaint, including that a three-day notice to pay rent or quit was properly served and the complaint's stated fair rental value of the apartment. The answer also asserted several affirmative defenses. With regard to plaintiff's breach of the warranty of habitability, defendants checked the box in the form answer which stated, "The amount of rent…

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.