SC-100, Item 3 Harris vs. Whitehead & Hildebrand
The plaintiff entered into a residential rental agreement with the defendants’ predecessor, the late Nancy Whitehead & George Whitehead on September 30, 2017. Following the passing of the late Mrs. Whitehead, the property, 819 Sutter St., San Diego, was administered by the de facto, landlords, these defendants.
The plaintiff gave written notice of his intent to terminate the lease agreement by letter dated October 9, 2024 effective November 9, 2024. The same letter requested the defendants to inspect the condition of the property prior to the effective date of the termination of the lease.
The defendant, Diana Hildebrand did attend at the premises and advised the plaintiff that the property showed signs of “normal wear”.
The plaintiff vacated the premises. The plaintiff had paid a deposit for the lease agreement in the sum of $1,200. The parties had agreed that the rental payment due on November 1, 2024 for the period from November 1 to November 9, 2024 would reduce the sum to be repaid from the deposit.
The lease agreement allowed the Landlords the right to offset from the deposit to a sum required to “repair damage exclusive of normal wear and tear” and “to clean the premises, if necessary”. The plaintiff asserts that the defendants are estopped from asserting that the property required such repair or cleaning, given the statements made by the defendant Hildebrand. California law requires that the defendants allow the plaintiff, in any event, notice of such alleged repair or cleaning, to allow the plaintiff to perform such tasks at his expense. No notice was given.
The defendants unilaterally and without color of right deducted from the deposit the sum of $350. No invoices or particulars of the alleged expenses incurred to perform such alleged repairs were given to the plaintiff, also as required by California law.
The plaintiff seeks recovery of this sum and a doubling of such payment, given the conduct of the defendants, as allowed by California law.
The defendants were aware that the plaintiff was moving to New York state. They took such action knowing of the logistical issues to be confronted by the plaintiff to return to California to present this case. The plaintiff seeks recovery of his travel and related expenses to travel to California to commence this action and for the trial of this proceeding in the sum of $2,000.
Breach of Covenant of Quite Enjoyment
It is an implied term of the lease agreement that the plaintiff would enjoy quiet enjoyment of the subject premises.
Contrary to this term, the premises were infested with rats which required an exterminator to remove. This was so from October to December 2023. The premises were littered with rat feces which was unbecoming and unsanitary.
Further, the heating mechanics were defective and inoperative from December 2023 to February 2024. The premises were not habitable in this period.
Yet further, the defendants chose to do repairs to the living room fireplace from January to March 2024 which rendered the fireplace unusable in the coldest period of the year when it is used most frequently.
This collective conduct is a breach of this implied and/or direct covenant(s) for which the plaintiff seeks compensation in the sum of $5,000.
Reimbursement of Capital Improvements
During the currency of the lease, the plaintiff at his own expense:
- Remodeled the kitchen to replace the kitchen sink, installed a dishwasher, and a garburator.
- Replaced the decaying tile in the washroom;
- Seeded the front lawn which was pure dirt.
The plaintiff relies on the principle of quantum meruit and seeks recovery of the expenses for the above items in the sum of $5,000.
The plaintiff waives recovery of all sums recovered in excess of the Small Claims Court cap of $12,500.