Judge Deirdre Hill, Case 21TRCV00277 2023-02-06 Tentative Ruling

ALERT

Due to Coronavirus, please consider appearing by phone for Department M cases.

Department M strongly encourages the use of LA CourtConnect* for ALL hearings, without need for prior approval, unless live testimony by a witness is required.

The contact information for LA CourtConnect* is:

https://lacourt.portalscloud.com/VCourt/

*Parties with a fee waiver on file may be eligible to appear at no/reduced cost

Motion to Further Reduce Rent to Zero Pursuant to the Conditional Judgment Entered on July 27, 2022

The court considered the moving papers and plaintiff’s counsel’s declaration re status of repairs. No opposition was filed.

The motion is GRANTED. The court reduces the rent to $0 until plaintiff has completed all of the court-ordered repairs and a mold clearance report has been issued by a professional mold specialist confirming that it is safe for defendants to move back into the property.

The court sets an OSC re status of repairs and restoration of full rent for June 9, 2023.

On April 12, 2021, plaintiff Paul Lupo filed a UD complaint against Brain Taylor and Maria Hovnanian based on property located at 3620 The Strand, Manhattan Beach. Plaintiff alleges that on November 1, 2015, defendants agreed to rent the premises as a nine-month lease for $3,400/month. On August 1, 2016, the monthly rent increased to $3,550. The tenancy is subject to the Tenant Protection Act of 2019. The tenancy was terminated for at-fault just cause for failure to pay rent. Defendants were served with a 15-day notice to pay or quit. The past due rent is $43,600.

On April 28, 2021, the court denied defendants’ motion to quash service of summons.

On June 22, 2022, on the date set for trial, defense counsel requested a continuance of the trial in order to have the pending motion to be relieved as counsel heard. The trial was continued to July 5, 2022. The court found the daily rental value to be $118.33 per day and conditioned a longer continuance on the posting of rent in the sum of $1,775 with the clerk. Defendants represented that they were unable to post the rental value. The court denied defendants’ request for a continuance to educate themselves on how to oppose the motion to be relieved as counsel based on the statutory priority of unlawful detainer cases and the fact that possession was still at issue.

On July 5, 2022, a jury trial was held. The jury found in favor of defendants and against plaintiff.

On July 11, 2022, the court issued a conditional judgment in the amount of $68,614 and ordered defendants to pay the amount by July 15, 2022.

Defendants request that the court reduce the amount of rent to $0 until the repairs are completed and defendants are able to safely return to the premises.

Defendants contend that they should not be required to continue paying the reduced rent of $2,366 when they will be completely deprived of any use of the property during repairs.

As background, in July 2022, judgment was entered in favor of defendants and against plaintiff as follows: defendants to remain in possession of the property and to continue to pay rent on or by the first of each month; rent to remain reduced at the rate of $2,366 until the defects identified at trial are remedied, which include cleaning of all mold; extermination of all rodents; effective waterproofing of all ceilings, roof, walls, and windows and doors; cleaning and repair of all water damaged flooring; and cleaning of all filth, debris, or other unhealthy conditions as described in CCP §1941.1(a). Defendants were ordered to allow reasonable access to the property to permit repairs. Entry allowed on stipulated time or on 24-hour notice. The court retained jurisdiction to enforce the above orders.

On August 22, 2022, at the OSC re status of repairs and restoration of full rent, plaintiff’s counsel represented that repairs were ongoing.

On September 26, 2022, defendant Taylor filed a declaration regarding status of repairs, stating that the defective conditions still existed and that plaintiff had not served any notice to enter to make the repairs or scheduled any remediation work to be performed at the premises. He also stated that plaintiff had indicated that the property needed to be vacant in order to fully complete the repairs, but that plaintiff has not offered to pay for hotel accommodations for him and his family or provided any scope or timeline of the work or offered to waive the rent that is due.

On October 4, 2022, at the OSC re status of repairs and restoration of full rent, there was no appearance by plaintiff’s counsel. Defense counsel represented that no repairs had taken place and that the parties cannot agree on compensation for move out. The rental value remained reduced until further order of the court.

On January 6, 2023, defendant Taylor filed a declaration stating that the defective conditions still exist at the property and that plaintiff had made no effort to make any repairs, despite representations that repairs were ongoing. He also stated that the conditions on the premises continue to worsen and that there are several water leaks throughout the unit. Further, plaintiff has failed to make any effort to remove the mold, the mold infestation has grown to other areas, and the entire property is now uninhabitable. He and his family have had to find alternative housing. He attached an email from plaintiff’s counsel dated September 2, 2022 indicating that the renovation work to be done is extensive and will take an extended amount of time and that “it will take months to complete and require the tenants to vacate the property.”

On January 23, 2023, at the OSC re status of repairs and restoration of full rent, the court ordered that both sides meet and confer and that tenant’s counsel was to be given sufficient information re scope of the work. The hearing was continued to the herein date to be heard with the motion to further reduce rent.

Defendants contend that plaintiff has not provided defense counsel any documentation describing the scope of work to be done on the property or an anticipated start/end date. Defendants acknowledge that plaintiff will be required to hire a professional mold remediation company to remove the mold growth and that they will be unable to safely return to the premises until a mold clearance report is issued by a professional mold specialist.

On February 2, 2023, plaintiff’s counsel filed a declaration attaching a mold/asbestos abatement proposal dated October 30, 2022. The proposal indicates that the “proposal is only valid if tenant is completely out including ALL furniture, belongings, and items completely from the property.”

The court rules as follows: Both parties acknowledge that to undergo the repairs/remediation, defendants have to temporarily vacate the premises, and defendants assert that they have already vacated. As the court noted above, the jury found that plaintiff landlord breached the covenant of habitability and that the judgment included an abatement of rent. The court retained jurisdiction to enforce the orders, including to repair and remediate the property. Accordingly, the court reduces the rent amount to $0 until defendants are able to return to the premises.