§4.04 Presumption of Breach and Findings

There is a rebuttable presumption of a breach of the warranty of habitability when all the following conditions are true [see CC §1942.3(a)]:

• The rental unit substantially lacks any of the standards of habitability set forth in CC §1941.1, is deemed and declared substandard under H&SC §17920.3, or contains lead hazards as defined in H&SC §17920.10;
• A public official who is responsible for enforcing any housing law has notified the landlord, after an inspection of the premises, that the landlord had an obligation to abate the nuisance or repair the substandard condition;
• The condition has existed unabated for 60 days since the notice was issued, and there was no good cause for the delay; and
• The condition was not caused by the tenant’s act or omission in violation of CC §1929 or §1941.2.

The tenant must prove each of the above conditions to take advantage of the rebuttable presumption. However, a failure to establish the presumption does not affect the tenant’s right to pursue the defense.

Click

If you find proof of a substantial breach of the warranty of habitability, you must [CCP §1174.2(a)]:

• Reduce the rent to reflect the breach,
• Give the tenant the right to possession conditioned on the tenant’s payment of the reduced rent,
• Order the landlord to make the repairs and correct the conditions that constitute the breach,
• Order that the rent is to remain reduced until the repairs are made, and
• Award costs and attorney fees to the tenant if permitted by statute or the parties’ rental agreement.

If, on the other hand, you determine that there has been no substantial breach, the landlord is entitled to possession and a judgment, including any costs and attorney fees allowed by statute or contract. [See CCP §1174.2(b).]

Click