Breach of Implied Warranty of Habitability

Explanation: This defense applies when a landlord fails to maintain rental premises in a habitable condition. California law implies a warranty of habitability in every residential lease, meaning the landlord must provide safe, sanitary, and livable housing. If serious conditions (like lack of heat, water, electricity, pest infestations, or other health and safety hazards) are not repaired after notice, the tenant’s obligation to pay full rent is affected. In an eviction for nonpayment of rent, the tenant can argue that no rent (or reduced rent) was due because the landlord breached this implied warranty.

Example: For example, a tenant’s apartment suffers from a collapsed ceiling, no heat, and a severe cockroach infestation. The tenant notified the landlord multiple times, but the landlord did not fix these issues. The tenant withholds rent due to the uninhabitable conditions. If the landlord files an eviction (unlawful detainer) for nonpayment, the tenant can raise breach of the warranty of habitability as an affirmative defense, asserting that the poor conditions justified withholding rent.

Statute: California Civil Code § 1941.1 outlines minimum habitability standards (e.g., effective waterproofing, plumbing, hot water, heating, electrical lighting, clean premises free of rodents, etc.). A dwelling that substantially lacks these features, or has serious code violations, is considered “untenantable.” While the implied warranty of habitability is primarily a product of case law (established by Green v. Superior Court), statutes like Civil Code § 1941.1 provide the baseline requirements that landlords must meet. A landlord’s failure to comply with these standards can result in a breach of the warranty of habitability.

Reference:

“A landlord’s breach of the warranty of habitability directly relates to whether any rent is ‘due and owing’ by the tenant; hence, such breach may be determinative of whether the landlord or tenant is entitled to possession of the premises upon nonpayment of rent. Accordingly, the tenant may properly raise the issue of warranty of habitability in an unlawful detainer action.” — Green v. Superior Court (1974)

“Once we recognize that the tenant’s obligation to pay rent and the landlord’s warranty of habitability are mutually dependent, it becomes clear that the landlord’s breach of such warranty may be directly relevant to the issue of possession. If the tenant can prove such a breach by the landlord, he may demonstrate that his nonpayment of rent was justified and that no rent is in fact ‘due and owing’ to the landlord. Under such circumstances, of course, the landlord would not be entitled to possession of the premises.” — Green v. Superior Court (1974) 10 Cal.3d 616.

“As used in this section, ‘substantial breach’ means the failure of the landlord to comply with applicable building and housing code standards which materially affect health and safety.” — Code of Civil Procedure § 1174.2(c).

“[F]or reasons of public policy the implied warranty of habitability cannot be waived by the tenant.” — Cazares v. Ortiz (1980)

Defective Notice to Quit

Explanation: In California, a landlord’s termination notice (whether a 3-Day Notice or 30/60/90-Day Notice) must strictly comply with statutory requirements for content and service. If the notice to quit is defective – for example, it misstated the amount of rent due, or omitted required information, or was not properly served – then it cannot support an eviction. A defective notice means the landlord has not met the prerequisites for an unlawful detainer, and the case will be dismissed or judgment entered for the tenant. Common defects include: demanding more rent than is actually due, failing to give the correct number of days or correct cause, improper service (not delivered in one of the authorized methods), or in a just-cause context, not stating the cause. Because eviction is a summary process, courts require strict compliance. A tenant can assert any such defect as a defense.

Example: A landlord serves a 3-Day Notice to Pay Rent or Quit demanding $1,500, when in fact only $1,200 is actually due (the notice perhaps included unauthorized late fees or overcharges). The tenant does not pay the $1,500, believing it’s incorrect. The landlord files an eviction. The tenant can defend on the ground that the notice overstated the rent and thus did not comply with Code of Civil Procedure § 1161(2) (which requires the notice to accurately state the amount due). Because the notice was invalid, the eviction will be defeated (the landlord would be required to serve a new, correct notice before proceeding).

Statute: The content and service of termination notices are governed by statutes. For nonpayment of rent, Code of Civil Procedure § 1161(2) requires a 3-day notice to state “the amount which is due” and to be in the alternative (pay or quit). If it includes an incorrect amount or additional unauthorized charges, it is invalid. For curable breaches, § 1161(3) requires the notice to describe the breach and allow 3 days to cure. For nuisance/illegal activity, § 1161(4) requires certain allegations (and those are incurable). For no-fault terminations under various laws (like the Tenant Protection Act), 30, 60, or 90 days are required and sometimes specific language or relocation assistance. Service of notices must be done per Code of Civil Procedure § 1162 (personal service, substituted service, or posting and mailing as last resort). Any deviation (like improper mailing, serving too late, etc.) can make the notice defective. Because a valid notice is a prerequisite to eviction, these statutes give tenants a defense if not followed.

Reference:

“A valid three-day notice to pay rent or quit is a prerequisite to an unlawful detainer action. Because of the summary nature of such proceedings, a notice is valid only if the landlord strictly complies with the statutorily mandated notice requirements.” (Bevill v. Zoura (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 694, 697)

“A three-day notice must contain ‘the amount which is due’ (Code Civ. Proc., § 1161(2)). A notice that demands more rent than is actually due (for instance, including excessive fees or rent from beyond the statutory period) does not satisfy this requirement. ‘Because the tenant was not given the proper opportunity to cure and pay the true amount due, the notice was insufficient to support the unlawful detainer.’” (Bevill v. Zoura (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 694, 697–698)

“Unlawful detainer is a creature of statute, and a landlord must strictly comply with the notice provisions. If the notice is defective – whether in content or service – the court lacks jurisdiction to evict. [For example, if a 60-day termination notice is required but only 30 days were given, or if the notice to quit was not properly served as per CCP § 1162, the resulting unlawful detainer cannot be maintained.]” (California Courts Self-Help – Eviction Defenses: Defective Notice)

“Fairness and due process require that a tenant be clearly and correctly informed of what is needed to avoid eviction. Thus, notices that are ambiguous, misleading, or contain errors (e.g., wrong amount, wrong address, incorrect dates, or lack of required language) are grounds for dismissal. The burden is on the landlord to prove the notice was proper in all respects.” (Cal-American Income Prop. Fund IV v. Ho (1984) 161 Cal.App.3d 583, 585)

Retaliatory Eviction

Explanation: It is illegal for a landlord to evict (or attempt to evict) a tenant in retaliation for the tenant’s asserting of legal rights. In California, if a tenant has engaged in protected activity — for example, complaining to a health or building inspector about code violations, requesting repairs, lawfully withholding rent for habitability, organizing or joining a tenants’ union, or exercising any other rights under law — the landlord cannot retaliate by serving an eviction notice, raising the rent, or reducing services as punishment. An eviction motivated by retaliation is a defense to an unlawful detainer. The law presumes an eviction to be retaliatory if it occurs within a certain time (e.g. 180 days) after the tenant’s protected action, unless the landlord can prove a legitimate reason. A tenant who proves retaliatory eviction not only defeats the eviction but may also be entitled to damages and attorney’s fees under California law.

Example: For example, a tenant contacts the local housing authority to report serious mold and electrical problems in the apartment. The city inspectors issue citations against the property. Two months later, the landlord serves the tenant with a 30-Day Notice to Quit (despite the tenant being current on rent and a month-to-month tenant). Given the timing and context, the tenant suspects this termination is in retaliation for calling the inspectors. In the eviction lawsuit that follows, the tenant can raise retaliatory eviction as a defense. The tenant would present evidence of the complaint to the authority and the short time frame between that and the eviction notice. Unless the landlord can prove a valid, non-retaliatory reason for eviction, the court should rule in the tenant’s favor and dismiss the eviction due to retaliation.

Statute: California Civil Code § 1942.5 is the primary anti-retaliation law. In summary, § 1942.5 forbids a landlord from increasing rent, decreasing services, or initiating an eviction because a tenant has lawfully exercised their rights. For instance, a landlord may not serve a notice to recover possession within 180 days after a tenant has: complained in good faith to a governmental agency about habitability, or to the landlord about repairs; or after the tenant has organized or participated in a tenants’ rights group. Any such retaliatory action is unlawful. The statute provides that retaliatory eviction can be raised as a defense in an unlawful detainer, and if proven, the landlord not only loses the eviction but can be liable for monetary penalties and the tenant’s attorney fees. Notably, § 1942.5 makes any agreement by a tenant to waive these rights void as against public policy.

Reference:

“It shall be unlawful for a lessor to increase rent, decrease services, cause a lessee to quit involuntarily, bring an action to recover possession, or threaten to do any of those acts, for the purpose of retaliating against the lessee because he or she has lawfully organized or participated in a lessees’ association or an organization advocating lessees’ rights or has lawfully and peaceably exercised any rights under the law.” — Cal. Civil Code § 1942.5(d)

“Since the statutory defense of retaliatory eviction created by Civil Code section 1942.5 may be pleaded as a defense in an unlawful detainer action, this court is convinced that Code of Civil Procedure section 1171 necessarily allows for a jury trial on the issue of retaliatory eviction in any unlawful detainer action where it is asserted as a defense. We find it to be a legal defense, enacted by the Legislature to effectuate exercise of the rights granted tenants under Civil Code sections 1941 and 1942.” — Dept. of Transportation v. Kerrigan (1984)

Eviction Filed in Retaliation for Tenant Union Activity

Explanation: California law specifically protects tenants who engage in organizing or other legally protected activities from retaliatory evictions. If a landlord files an eviction case (or serves a termination notice) because a tenant joined or formed a tenants’ union, participated in a tenants’ rights organization, or otherwise lawfully exercised their rights, the tenant can assert retaliation as a complete defense. Retaliatory eviction is both a statutory defense (under Civil Code § 1942.5) and a recognized common-law defense. To succeed, the tenant should show that the eviction was motivated by the tenant’s protected activity, such as organizing fellow tenants, reporting building code violations, demanding repairs, or participating in a tenants’ association. Once the tenant produces evidence of a retaliatory motive, the burden shifts to the landlord to prove a legitimate, non-retaliatory reason for the eviction. If the court finds the landlord’s primary motive was retaliation against the tenant’s union or advocacy efforts, the eviction will be barred and the case dismissed.

Example: A tenant helps organize a tenant union in her apartment complex and leads a group of tenants in petitioning the landlord for improved maintenance and repairs. One month later, the landlord serves that tenant with a 30-day notice to quit, even though she hasn’t violated any lease terms. The timing and context strongly suggest retaliation for the tenant’s union activity. In the ensuing unlawful detainer lawsuit, the tenant can raise the affirmative defense of retaliatory eviction. She can present evidence of her recent organizing and perhaps statements the landlord made (such as expressing anger about the “tenant union troublemakers”). If the court finds that the eviction was in response to the tenant’s protected organizing activities, it will rule in the tenant’s favor, allowing her to remain in possession. The landlord’s eviction attempt would fail due to its retaliatory nature.

Statute: Civil Code § 1942.5(d) makes it unlawful for a landlord to evict or threaten to evict a tenant as retaliation for the tenant’s lawful activities, including tenant union or association participation. The statute provides in part: “…it is unlawful for a lessor to increase rent, decrease services, cause a lessee to quit involuntarily, [or] bring an action to recover possession, or threaten to do any of those acts, for the purpose of retaliating against the lessee because the lessee has lawfully organized or participated in a lessees’ association or an organization advocating lessees’ rights or has lawfully and peaceably exercised any rights under the law.”. In short, if an eviction is initiated because a tenant engaged in organizing or asserted legal rights, the law presumes retaliation. Such motive, when proven, voids the eviction. (Additionally, Civil Code § 1942.5(a) protects tenants from eviction in retaliation for exercising rights like requesting repairs or complaining to authorities; both provisions can apply, and retaliation is a defense even after the initial 180-day window in cases of ongoing protected conduct.) Tenants who prevail on a retaliation defense may also be entitled to recover monetary penalties and attorney’s fees from the landlord under Section 1942.5.

Reference:

“Civil Code section 1942.5 provides for an affirmative defense to eviction, as well as an independent action for damages, when the eviction is in retaliation for the exercise of a tenant’s rights.” – Drouet v. Superior Court (2003) 31 Cal.4th 583

“It is unlawful for a lessor to … cause a lessee to quit involuntarily, bring an action to recover possession, or threaten to do any of those acts, for the purpose of retaliating against the lessee because the lessee has lawfully organized or participated in a lessees’ association or an organization advocating lessees’ rights or has lawfully and peaceably exercised any rights under the law.” – Civ. Code § 1942.5(d)

“It is reversible error for a court to refuse to allow a tenant to raise retaliatory eviction as an affirmative defense.” – Boyd v. Carter (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th Supp. 1, 8.

Retaliatory Rent Increase

Explanation: California law forbids landlords from retaliating against tenants for exercising their legal rights. “Retaliatory rent increase” refers to a landlord raising the rent (or imposing some other punitive measure) because a tenant engaged in a protected activity – for example, complaining to a health inspector, asking for repairs, reporting the landlord’s legal violations, or organizing with other tenants. If the landlord’s rent hike is motivated by retaliation (and not by legitimate factors), the tenant can use retaliation as a defense in an eviction for nonpayment of that increased rent or as an affirmative defense to an unlawful detainer. Essentially, the tenant argues: *the only reason my rent was raised (or my tenancy terminated) was because I exercised my rights*, and thus the eviction is invalid. California provides a presumptive 6-month window after many protected actions during which any negative act by the landlord (eviction, rent increase, reduction of services) is presumed to be retaliatory.

Example: A tenant contacts the city building department about mold and electrical problems in her apartment. Two months later, the landlord suddenly raises the rent by 50%. If the tenant refuses to pay the higher rent and the landlord files an eviction for nonpayment, the tenant can assert a retaliatory increase defense. The timing and circumstances suggest the rent hike was not for a legitimate reason, but to “punish” the tenant for reporting code violations. Under the law, because this happened within 180 days of the tenant’s complaint, it’s presumed retaliatory. The court, upon finding retaliation, would deny the eviction and the landlord could be liable for penalties. Even beyond 180 days, if evidence shows the landlord’s motive was retaliation (e.g., stating “this is for calling the inspector”), the tenant’s defense can succeed.

Statute: California Civil Code § 1942.5 specifically prohibits landlords from increasing rent, decreasing services, or threatening eviction in retaliation for a tenant’s lawful actions. Subdivision (a) of that statute protects tenants who have exercised rights like using the repair-and-deduct remedy or reporting habitability issues to authorities – within 180 days of such activity, any rent increase or eviction is presumed retaliatory. Subdivision (d) more broadly makes it unlawful for a landlord to retaliate (with a rent hike or other adverse action) because a tenant has lawfully exercised *any* legal rights or has joined a tenants’ association. In any retaliatory eviction or rent increase case, this statute is central. It also provides for tenant remedies (actual damages, punitive damages, and attorneys’ fees) if a landlord is found to have acted with retaliation.

Reference:

“Notwithstanding subdivision (a), it is unlawful for a lessor to increase rent, decrease services, cause a lessee to quit involuntarily, bring an action to recover possession, or threaten to do any of those acts, for the purpose of retaliating against the lessee because the lessee has lawfully organized or participated in a lessees’ association or has lawfully and peaceably exercised any rights under the law.” – Cal. Civil Code § 1942.5(d)

“It is settled that a landlord may be precluded from evicting a tenant in retaliation for certain kinds of lawful activities of the tenant. As a landlord has no right to possession when he seeks it for such an invalid reason, a tenant may raise the defense of retaliatory eviction in an unlawful detainer proceeding.” – Barela v. Superior Court (1981)

Discriminatory Eviction (Unruh Civil Rights Act)

Explanation: If a landlord files an eviction based on a tenant’s membership in a protected class (race, religion, national origin, family status, etc.), it violates California’s anti-discrimination laws. The Unruh Civil Rights Act prohibits arbitrary discrimination by landlords, so an eviction motivated by prejudice is not legally valid. A tenant can raise this defense to prevent eviction when the landlord’s reason for terminating the tenancy is discriminatory.

Example: A landlord attempts to evict a tenant upon learning the tenant’s ethnicity or because the tenant has children, which are not valid grounds. Since this eviction is based on a protected characteristic (e.g. race or family status), the tenant could assert discriminatory eviction as a defense and argue that the eviction is illegal under the Unruh Act.

Statute: The Unruh Civil Rights Act (Civil Code § 51) guarantees that “all persons within the jurisdiction of this state are free and equal” and are entitled to full and equal accommodations and services in all business establishments (including rental housing) regardless of protected characteristics (sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, marital status, sexual orientation, etc.). Government Code § 12955 (FEHA) specifically makes it unlawful for housing providers to discriminate or harass tenants on the basis of protected characteristics, or to evict a tenant in retaliation for the tenant’s opposition to such discrimination. These laws make discriminatory evictions illegal, and any eviction that violates these civil rights statutes can be defeated in court.

“It shall be unlawful: (a) For the owner of any housing accommodation to discriminate against or harass any person because of the race, color, religion, sex, … national origin, ancestry, familial status, source of income, disability, veteran or military status, or genetic information of that person.” – Gov. Code § 12955(a)

Reference:

“An equitable limitation on the punitive power of landlords to evict their tenants was recognized in Abstract Investment Co. v. Hutchinson (1962) when the court held that a tenant could defend an unlawful detainer by proving he was being evicted solely because of his race. Judicial enforcement of a discriminatory eviction would be ‘state action’ in violation of equal protection, and thus such an eviction cannot be allowed by the courts.” (Schweiger v. Superior Court (1970) 3 Cal.3d 507, 512–514, discussing Abstract Investment Co. v. Hutchinson)

“All persons within the jurisdiction of this state are free and equal, and no matter what their sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sexual orientation, citizenship, primary language, or immigration status, are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever.” (Civ. Code § 51(b)) – (Unruh Civil Rights Act)

“It is settled that a landlord’s termination of a tenancy solely for a tenant’s race (or other protected characteristic) is not permitted. In an unlawful detainer action, a tenant may assert as a defense that the eviction is based on illegal discrimination, which, if proved, will bar the landlord from recovering possession.” (Abstract Investment Co. v. Hutchinson (1962) 204 Cal.App.2d 242, 247–249)

“We hold that defendant should have been permitted to produce proof of the allegations of his special defenses of discrimination, which if proven would bar the court from ordering his eviction because such ‘state action’ would be violative of both federal and state Constitutions.” (Abstract Inv. Co. v. Hutchinson (1962))

“…if its exclusion of the [family with children] contravenes statutory or constitutional strictures, such illegality would indeed provide a valid defense to the unlawful detainer action.” (Marina Point, Ltd. v. Wolfson (1982))

Waiver by Acceptance of Rent

Explanation: A landlord may waive the right to evict by accepting rent from the tenant with knowledge of a tenancy violation or after a termination notice period has expired. By accepting rent (especially covering periods after a breach or after a notice to quit), the landlord affirms the tenancy’s continuation and cannot later proceed with eviction for that specific breach. Essentially, the landlord’s acceptance of payment acts as a waiver of the default that would have justified eviction.

Example: A tenant fails to pay rent on time and the landlord serves a 3-Day Notice to Pay or Quit. The tenant doesn’t leave in three days but later pays the rent, and the landlord deposits this payment. By accepting this rent, the landlord waives the default (late payment) and cannot evict based on that notice. Similarly, if a landlord knows the tenant breached a lease term (such as an unauthorized pet) but continues to accept monthly rent, the landlord is deemed to have waived that breach as grounds for eviction.

Statute: Civil Code § 1945; Code of Civil Procedure § 1161.1(c) (partial rent payments in commercial tenancies)

Reference:

“It is a general rule that the right of a lessor to declare a forfeiture of the lease arising from some breach by the lessee is waived when the lessor, with knowledge of the breach, accepts the rent specified in the lease. … While waiver is a question of intent, the cases have required some positive evidence of rejection on the landlord’s part or a specific reservation of rights in the lease to overcome the presumption that tender and acceptance of rent creates.” (EDC Assocs. Ltd. v. Gutierrez (1984))

“The acceptance of rent by the landlord from the tenant, after the breach of a condition of the lease, with full knowledge of all the facts, is a waiver of the breach and precludes the landlord from declaring a forfeiture of the lease by reason of said breach. … ‘The most familiar instance of the waiver of the forfeiture of a lease arises from the acceptance of rent by the landlord after condition broken, and it is a universal rule that if the landlord accepts rent from his tenant after full notice or knowledge of a breach…this constitutes a waiver of forfeiture… In other words, the acceptance by a landlord of the rents, with full knowledge of a breach in the conditions of the lease…is an affirmation by him that the contract of lease is still in force, and he is thereby estopped from… demanding a forfeiture thereof.’” (Kern Sunset Oil Co. v. Good Roads Oil Co. (1931))

Acceptance of Partial Rent After Notice

Explanation: If a landlord gives a termination notice (for example, a 3-Day Notice to Pay Rent or Quit, or a 30-Day Notice to end a tenancy) and then later accepts rent from the tenant covering any period after that notice, it can nullify the notice. In essence, by taking rent, the landlord is treating the tenancy as continuing, which waives the default or forfeiture. This defense argues that the landlord “waived” the right to evict based on that notice by accepting rent (even a partial payment) after issuing the notice. (One exception: in commercial tenancies or if there’s a written non-waiver agreement, a landlord may accept partial rent without waiving the eviction, but specific legal steps must be followed.)

Example: A tenant is served a 3-Day Notice to Pay $1,000 or Quit for unpaid rent. The tenant pays $600 within the 3 days, and the landlord accepts it but the tenant still owes $400. If the landlord proceeds with eviction for the remaining $400 without serving a new notice, the tenant can claim waiver by partial payment. By accepting the $600, the landlord effectively waived the original notice, meaning the landlord must serve a new 3-day notice for the $400 before evicting. Similarly, if a landlord gives a 60-Day Notice to terminate a month-to-month tenancy but then accepts rent for a period beyond that 60 days, the tenant can argue the notice was voided (since the landlord created a new month-to-month tenancy by accepting rent). This defense could lead the court to dismiss the eviction.

Statute: California Civil Code § 1945 provides that if a tenant remains after a lease or notice expires and the landlord accepts rent, a new periodic tenancy is presumed on the same terms. Additionally, Code of Civil Procedure § 1161.1(c) allows a landlord (particularly in commercial cases) to accept partial rent after filing an eviction *only* if the tenant was given written notice that it’s not a waiver. Absent such an agreement, accepting any rent after a termination notice generally waives that notice.

Reference:

“It is a general rule that the right of a lessor to declare a forfeiture of the lease arising from some breach by the lessee is waived when the lessor, with knowledge of the breach, accepts the rent specified in the lease. While waiver is a question of intent, the cases have required some positive evidence of rejection on the landlord’s part or a specific reservation of rights in the lease to overcome the presumption that tender and acceptance of rent creates.” – EDC Associates Ltd. v. Gutierrez (1984)

“If a lessee of real property remains in possession thereof after the expiration of the hiring, and the lessor accepts rent from him, the parties are presumed to have renewed the hiring on the same terms and for the same time, not exceeding one month when the rent is payable monthly….” – Cal. Civil Code § 1945

Landlord’s Refusal of Rent / Tender

Explanation: If a tenant timely tenders the full rent due (for example, within the cure period of a 3-Day Notice to Pay or Quit) and the landlord unreasonably refuses to accept it, the landlord cannot then proceed to evict for nonpayment. In other words, a landlord’s refusal of a proper rent payment is a defense to an eviction. The law expects landlords to accept cure payments when offered within the notice period. A landlord cannot thwart a tenant’s attempt to pay and then claim default. This defense might also apply if the landlord imposes unreasonable conditions on acceptance or is intentionally evasive to prevent the tenant from paying on time. Equity and public policy disfavor forfeiture of a lease when the tenant has the money ready and attempts in good faith to pay.

Example: A tenant receives a 3-Day Notice to Pay $1,000 or Quit. On Day 3, the tenant offers the landlord the $1,000 (in cash or other accepted form). The landlord refuses to accept it (perhaps hoping to evict the tenant anyway). The tenant even documents the tender (e.g., via a witness or certified funds). If the landlord files an eviction for nonpayment, the tenant can assert that they tried to pay in full within the notice period and the landlord refused – therefore, there was no true default. The court, upon proof of the tender, will consider the notice cured and dismiss the eviction.

Statute: Code of Civil Procedure § 1161(2) implicitly requires that a tenant be given an opportunity to cure a rent default within the 3-day notice period. Civil Code § 1500 provides that if a debtor (tenant) makes a valid offer of payment and the creditor (landlord) refuses it, the debtor is not in default for failing to perform (though § 1500 deals with deposit in bank to stop interest, the equitable principle extends to refusals of rent). Additionally, case law has established that a landlord’s unjustified refusal of a timely rent tender nullifies the basis for eviction. Some local ordinances also forbid landlords from refusing late rent after certain notices. In essence, no specific statute flatly says “refusal of tender is a defense,” but the defense arises from the statutory structure requiring an opportunity to pay and from general contract principles of tender.

Reference:

“Where a tenant has timely tendered the full rent within the three-day notice period and the landlord refuses to accept it, the landlord may not evict for nonpayment. The law does not permit a landlord to refuse a proper payment and then claim default. [For instance, if a landlord was intentionally evasive or refused payment in order to manufacture a forfeiture, a court of equity will not enforce that forfeiture.]” (CACI Jury Instruction No. 4327, “Landlord’s Refusal of Rent”)

“After service of the three-day notice but before the three-day period had expired, [the tenant] presented the full amount of rent due to [the landlord], and [the landlord] refused to accept the payment.” (This is the factual showing a tenant must make. If proven, it constitutes a defense to the unlawful detainer.) “A landlord’s unjustified refusal of a duly offered rent payment within the notice period waives the default – the tenant is deemed to have cured by tender. Courts abhor forfeitures resulting from technical traps set by landlords who could have received their money.” (See Strom v. Union Oil Co. (1948) 88 Cal.App.2d 78, 83–84)

“If the landlord intentionally made it difficult or impossible for the tenant to pay the rent (for example, by refusing to accept a check without prior notice that only cash would be taken, or by being absent to dodge payment), equity will intervene. As one court noted: the landlords ‘could have had timely payment if they had so desired, but they were intentionally evasive and uncooperative, hoping thereby to induce some technical shortcoming on which to terminate the lease.’ Such conduct by the landlord defeats the forfeiture; the tenant’s tender is regarded as satisfaction of the rent, and the eviction will be denied.” (Strom v. Union Oil Co. (1948) 88 Cal.App.2d 78, 83–84)

Failure to Comply With Rent Control Ordinance

Explanation: In many California jurisdictions, local rent control laws. If a landlord’s eviction does not comply with these laws, it can be defeated as an affirmative defense. For example, if a landlord attempts to evict contrary to a local just-cause ordinance or without providing relocation assistance or proper notice, the tenant can argue the eviction is unlawful because the landlord failed to follow the governing rent control or tenant protection regulations.

Click here to visit our local ordinances page.

Example: A landlord in a city with a rent stabilization ordinance (rent control) issues a lease termination without citing one of the allowed “just cause” reasons required by the ordinance. The tenant can use the landlord’s non-compliance with the rent control law as a defense to the eviction. Similarly, after January 2020, for a tenant who has been in the unit over a year (and the property is subject to AB 1482), if the landlord serves a 60-day notice to terminate tenancy without stating any just cause, or fails to pay mandated relocation fees for a no-fault eviction, the tenant can raise this defense to invalidate the eviction.

Statute: Local rent stabilization ordinances

Reference:

“[T]he statutory remedies for recovery of possession and of unpaid rent do not preclude a defense based on municipal rent control legislation enacted pursuant to the police power imposing rent ceilings and limiting the grounds for eviction for the purpose of enforcing those rent ceilings.” (Birkenfeld v. City of Berkeley (1976))

“Although municipalities have power to enact ordinances creating substantive defenses to eviction, such legislation is invalid to the extent it conflicts with general state law.” (Fisher v. City of Berkeley (1984))

No Just Cause for Termination

Explanation: Under the California Tenant Protection Act (effective Jan. 1, 2020), landlords of most residential properties must have a “just cause” to terminate a tenancy once the tenant has lived in the unit for at least 12 months (with limited exceptions for exempt properties). An eviction notice must state a valid at-fault or no-fault just cause. If the landlord attempts to end a tenancy without one of the specified just causes (or fails to state the cause in the notice), the tenant can use this as a defense. In short, absence of just cause makes the eviction unlawful for covered tenancies.

Example: A tenant has been renting an apartment for two years, and the property is not exempt from AB 1482. The landlord serves a 60-day notice simply asking the tenant to move out without giving any reason. Because the law now requires a stated just cause (for instance, nonpayment, lease violation, owner move-in, etc.), the tenant can defend against the eviction by pointing out that no just cause was provided, which violates Civil Code § 1946.2.

Statute: Civil Code § 1946.2 (Tenant Protection Act of 2019 – Just Cause Requirement)

Reference:

“…after a tenant has continuously and lawfully occupied a residential real property for 12 months, the owner of the residential real property shall not terminate a tenancy without just cause, which shall be stated in the written notice to terminate tenancy.” (Civ. Code § 1946.2(a))

“California law also provides that after all of the tenants have continuously and lawfully occupied the property for 12 months or more… a landlord must provide a statement of cause in any notice to terminate a tenancy.” (Civ. Code § 1946.2(f)(3))

Landlord’s Breach of the Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment

Explanation: Every rental agreement in California includes an implied covenant of quiet enjoyment, meaning the tenant has a right to possess the premises without significant interference by the landlord. If the landlord substantially breaches this covenant – for example, through harassment, shutting off utilities, creating untenable living conditions, or other disturbances – the landlord’s actions can constitute a defense to an eviction. In effect, the landlord’s serious breach excuses corresponding obligations of the tenant or amounts to a “constructive eviction” of the tenant. A tenant may claim that the landlord’s misconduct has so interfered with use of the property that the tenant is not liable for rent or that the eviction action is barred due to the landlord’s own wrongful conduct.

Example: A landlord repeatedly enters the rental unit without notice, removes the front door, and disconnects the water and electricity in an effort to drive the tenant out. The tenant stops paying rent and the landlord files an eviction for nonpayment. In defense, the tenant can argue that the landlord’s severe violations of the right to quiet enjoyment (harassment and rendering the unit uninhabitable) constructively evicted the tenant or otherwise relieved the obligation to pay rent. Thus, the landlord’s breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment prevents the landlord from prevailing in the eviction.

Statute: Civil Code § 1927

Reference:

“An agreement to let upon hire binds the letter to secure to the hirer the quiet possession of the thing hired during the term of the hiring, against all persons lawfully claiming the same.” (Civ. Code § 1927)

“…it insulates the tenant against any act or omission on the part of the landlord, or anyone claiming under him, which interferes with a tenant’s right to use and enjoy the premises for the purposes contemplated by the tenancy.” (Petroleum Collections Inc. v. Swords (1975))

Landlord’s Failure to Register Rental Unit (Local Ordinance)

Explanation: In some California cities with rent control or just-cause eviction ordinances, landlords must annually register rental units and pay required fees. A landlord’s failure to comply with a local registration ordinance can prevent them from evicting a tenant. If a unit was never registered as required, the landlord may be barred from maintaining an eviction (unlawful detainer) against the tenant. This affirmative defense basically argues that the landlord’s non-compliance with the local law (by failing to register the unit or pay registry fees) means the eviction is not legally allowed.

Example: Imagine a tenant in Los Angeles renting a unit subject to the Rent Stabilization Ordinance (RSO). The landlord never registered the unit with the city’s housing department. The landlord then tries to evict the tenant for a minor lease violation. The tenant could raise a defense that the unit wasn’t registered under the RSO. Since Los Angeles requires registration as a condition to evict, the court might dismiss the eviction. Similarly, in other cities (like Oakland or Berkeley) with rent registries, a tenant could claim the landlord’s failure to register the property as a defense to block the eviction.

Statute: No state statute requires registration, but many local ordinances do. For instance, the Los Angeles Rent Stabilization Ordinance mandates annual registration of units and expressly allows tenants to defend an eviction if the unit isn’t registered (L.A. Mun. Code §§ 151.05, 151.09(F)).

Reference:

“Section 151.05(A) prohibits a lessor from demanding or accepting rent for a rental unit unless it secures a registration statement from the housing department. In addition, no lessor may demand or accept rent for a rental unit unless the registration statement has been served on the tenant or posted in a conspicuous place.” – ABCO, LLC v. Eversley (2013)

“The failure to register a rental unit is a defense to an unlawful detainer action. (§ 151.09(F).)” – ABCO, LLC v. Eversley (2013)

 

Constructive Eviction

Explanation: “Constructive eviction” occurs when a landlord’s actions (or failure to act, in violation of their duties) substantially interfere with or deprive the tenant of the use and enjoyment of the property, to the point that the tenant is forced to move out. In such cases, the law treats the situation as if the landlord evicted the tenant, even though no formal eviction notice was given. As a defense, a tenant can claim they moved out or stopped paying rent because the landlord made the premises unlivable or violated their rights so severely that no reasonable tenant could stay. A successful constructive eviction defense can relieve the tenant from liability for future rent and defeat the landlord’s eviction or rent claim.

Example: A landlord refuses to repair a broken sewer line, causing horrible odors and sanitation issues in the rental unit. After months of this, the tenant moves out, unable to live in those conditions. If the landlord then sues for unpaid rent or tries to evict for abandonment, the tenant can assert constructive eviction – arguing the landlord’s breach (failure to provide habitable conditions) forced them to leave. Another example: a landlord repeatedly cuts off essential utilities or harasses a tenant excessively. The tenant leaves as a result. In an eviction action for non-payment or for breaking the lease by moving, the tenant would claim constructive eviction. If proven, the tenant is not liable for further rent from the point of constructive eviction, and the landlord’s eviction claim fails because the landlord’s conduct effectively “evicted” the tenant first.

Statute: There isn’t a single statute defining constructive eviction; it’s a doctrine developed through case law as part of the covenant of quiet enjoyment (Civil Code § 1927). Civil Code § 1941 and § 1942 (warranty of habitability and tenant remedies) are related – they require a landlord to provide habitable premises, and a tenant can move out if conditions substantially breach that warranty. When such habitability breaches or other serious landlord interferences occur, case law deems it a constructive eviction if the tenant leaves because of it.

Reference:

“Any disturbance of a tenant’s possession by a landlord or by someone acting under his authority, whereby the tenant is deprived of the beneficial enjoyment of the premises, amounts to a constructive eviction. It is not necessary that there be an actual ouster; any act of the lessor which results in depriving the lessee of the beneficial enjoyment of the premises constitutes an eviction.” – Lindenberg v. MacDonald (1950)

“Any interference by the landlord by which the tenant is deprived of the beneficial enjoyment of the premises amounts to a constructive eviction if the tenant so elects and surrenders possession….” – Kulawitz v. Pacific etc. Paper Co. (1944)

Breach of the Warranty of Quiet Enjoyment

Explanation: Every rental agreement in California carries an implied covenant of “quiet enjoyment,” meaning the tenant has a right to possess the premises in peace, without substantial interference by the landlord. When a landlord’s actions (or failures to act) significantly disrupt the tenant’s use or enjoyment of the property, it can constitute a breach of this warranty. Unlike constructive eviction, a tenant can claim breach of quiet enjoyment even while still living in the unit (they don’t necessarily have to move out, especially if the interference is serious but they have not vacated). This is an affirmative defense (and also a cause of action) – for example, a tenant might defend against an eviction for nonpayment by arguing the landlord’s breach of quiet enjoyment (through harassment, noise, entering without notice, shutting off utilities, etc.) was so severe that it justifies the tenant’s actions (like withholding rent or staying despite landlord’s attempts to make them leave).

Example: A landlord repeatedly enters a tenant’s apartment without permission, often late at night, and also allows construction noise all day that makes the apartment barely usable. The tenant complains, but nothing changes. The tenant withholds rent or breaks the lease and the landlord sues. In court, the tenant uses the breach of quiet enjoyment as a defense – citing the landlord’s unauthorized entries and failure to provide peaceful living conditions. If the court finds the landlord’s conduct substantially interfered with the tenant’s right to quietly enjoy their home, it can excuse the tenant’s nonpayment or early move-out. Even if the tenant hasn’t moved, the breach can be a defense to an eviction (for instance, if the landlord is trying to evict in retaliation for complaints, the breach of quiet enjoyment bolsters the tenant’s position).

Statute: Civil Code § 1927 codifies the covenant of quiet enjoyment, binding the landlord to secure the tenant’s quiet possession against anyone with superior title. More practically, the law interprets this to mean the landlord shall not interfere with the tenant’s right to peacefully use the property. There is no specific statute listing all actions that breach quiet enjoyment – it is determined case by case – but common examples include the landlord’s wrongful entry, deliberate disruption of utilities, harassment, or allowing conditions that substantially impair the tenant’s use of the premises.

Reference:

“Whether expressed or implied, this covenant means that a tenant shall not be wrongfully evicted or disturbed in his possession by the lessor.” – Pierce v. Nash (1954)

“Minor inconveniences and annoyances are not actionable breaches of the implied covenant of quiet enjoyment. To be actionable, the landlord’s act or omission must substantially interfere with a tenant’s right to use and enjoy the premises for the purposes contemplated by the tenancy.” – Andrews v. Mobile Aire Estates (2005)

Violation of the Ellis Act Procedure

Explanation: California’s Ellis Act (Government Code §7060 et seq.) allows landlords to “go out of business” by withdrawing all rental units from the market, but only if they strictly follow the Act’s procedures. This means giving proper written notice of intent to withdraw units to the local government and to all affected tenants, honoring lengthy notice periods (120 days for most tenants, extended to one year for qualified elderly or disabled tenants), and continuing to provide all rental services and abide by the lease terms during the withdrawal notice period. If a landlord fails to comply with any of these requirements – for example, by not giving a required one-year notice to a 62-year-old tenant or by reducing a tenant’s amenities or services during the notice period – the attempted eviction is invalid. In short, a tenant can assert as an affirmative defense that the landlord did not follow the Ellis Act’s procedural mandates, rendering the eviction unlawful.

Example: A landlord serves tenants with an eviction notice claiming the Ellis Act, but the landlord only withdraws one unit (while keeping other units rented) and fails to inform the city or county as required. The building includes a 70-year-old tenant who only received 120 days’ notice instead of the one-year notice the law requires. During the notice period, the landlord also shuts down the tenant’s parking and laundry access (services previously included in the rent). In this scenario, the affected tenant could successfully defend the eviction by pointing out these Ellis Act procedural violations – the landlord did not truly remove all units from the rental market, did not give the proper extended notice to a senior tenant, and unilaterally changed lease terms during the notice period. Each of those failures violates the Ellis Act procedure and defeats the eviction.

Statute: Under the Ellis Act, a landlord must adhere to strict requirements when withdrawing rental accommodations. For example, Government Code § 7060.4(b) provides that if a tenant is at least 62 years old or is disabled and has lived in the unit for over one year, the date of withdrawal “shall be extended to one year” after the notice of intent is filed (provided the tenant timely claims this entitlement). The Act also mandates that all units at the property be withdrawn and that tenants receive all required notices and relocation benefits. Failure to meet any of these conditions means the landlord has not validly invoked the Ellis Act.

Reference:

“The Ellis Act allows owners of residential real estate to take their properties off the rental market if they fulfill certain conditions, including the removal of all units at the property from the rental market. … As part of any Ellis Act eviction process: (1) the tenants must be notified of the intent to withdraw the unit, (2) the tenants must have sufficient move out time (one year in the case of an eligible or disabled tenant), and (3) during the notice period, the tenancy must continue on the same terms and conditions as existed prior to the notice of removal from the rental market.”

“We emphasize… the narrowness of our holding. We… hold only that where a landlord agrees to an occupancy, characterization of the occupancy as a subtenancy does not prevent application of the Ordinance’s requirement of cause for eviction. Here the landlords expressly authorized, approved, and agreed to the very occupancy they now seek to terminate without cause. We hold only that they may not do so consistent with the terms of the Ordinance.” – DeZerega v. Meggs (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 28

Violation of Local Just Cause Eviction Ordinance

Explanation: In many California cities and counties, local “just cause” eviction ordinances protect tenants by prohibiting evictions unless the landlord has a specific, enumerated good cause (such as nonpayment of rent, breach of lease, owner move-in, withdrawal under Ellis Act, etc.). If a rental unit is covered by a local just-cause law, any eviction without one of the ordinance’s permitted grounds – or any eviction notice that fails to state a valid ground – is unlawful. The tenant can use the landlord’s lack of just cause as an affirmative defense to prevent eviction. In practice, this means that where a just-cause ordinance applies, the landlord must plead and prove a recognized justification; a “no cause” or arbitrary termination (for example, merely wanting to raise the rent higher than allowed or disliking the tenant) will not hold up in court.

Example: A tenant in San Francisco has a month-to-month tenancy and has always paid rent on time and complied with the lease. San Francisco’s rent ordinance requires “just cause” for eviction. The landlord, hoping to rent the unit at a higher price, serves the tenant a 60-day notice to quit without citing any reason recognized under the ordinance. Because the unit is protected by local just-cause requirements, the tenant can contest the eviction. In the unlawful detainer lawsuit, the court would dismiss the case since the landlord’s notice did not allege one of the ordinance’s allowable causes (and the tenant’s good conduct means no cause exists). The eviction fails entirely due to the violation of the local just-cause law.

Statute: California’s statewide Tenant Protection Act (Civil Code § 1946.2) now imposes just-cause requirements for many tenancies and explicitly does not override any stronger local just-cause ordinances. In fact, Civil Code § 1946.2(e) provides: “Nothing in this section is intended to affect any local just cause eviction ordinance. This section does not, and shall not be construed to, affect the authority of a public entity that otherwise exists to regulate or monitor the basis for eviction.”. In short, if a city or county just-cause law applies, it remains fully in force. Local ordinances (e.g., Los Angeles Municipal Code §151.09, Oakland Municipal Code §8.22, etc.) commonly enumerate permissible grounds and require the reason to be stated in the termination notice. A landlord’s failure to comply with such local requirements (for instance, evicting without a stated just cause or failing to include the reason in the notice) makes the eviction invalid under that law.

Reference:

“Nothing in this section is intended to affect any local just cause eviction ordinance. This section does not, and shall not be construed to, affect the authority of a public entity that otherwise exists to regulate or monitor the basis for eviction.” – Civ. Code § 1946.2(e)

“The Act explicitly disclaims any effect on the power of local governments to regulate evictions. (Civ. Code, § 1954.52, subd. (c) [“Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect any authority of a public entity that may otherwise exist to regulate or monitor the basis for eviction.”]; id., § 1954.53, subd. (e) [same].) … We hold only that … the ordinance’s requirement of cause for eviction [applies]. Here the landlords expressly authorized, approved, and agreed to the very occupancy they now seek to terminate without cause. We hold only that they may not do so consistent with the terms of the Ordinance.” – DeZerega v. Meggs (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 28

Failure to Provide Legally Required Relocation Assistance

Explanation: Both state law and many local ordinances require landlords to pay relocation assistance to tenants in certain “no-fault” eviction situations. For instance, under California’s Tenant Protection Act (AB 1482) and various rent control laws, if a landlord is terminating a tenancy for a no-fault reason (such as owner move-in, withdrawal of the unit from the market, substantial rehabilitation, or demolition), the landlord must compensate the tenant (typically an amount equal to one month’s rent or more) or waive the final month’s rent as relocation assistance. This payment or waiver is not optional – it is a legal prerequisite to the eviction. If the landlord fails to provide the required relocation assistance in the manner prescribed by law, the eviction notice is defective and the tenant can defeat the eviction on that basis. Essentially, the landlord’s neglect or refusal to pay mandated relocation fees renders the termination of tenancy void.

Example: A landlord in Los Angeles issues a tenant a 60-day notice to vacate so the landlord’s family member can move into the unit (an owner move-in eviction, which is a no-fault cause). Los Angeles’ rent stabilization ordinance and state law both require the landlord to pay that tenant a relocation fee (in L.A., the amount varies by tenant’s length of residency and other factors, often several thousand dollars). The landlord, however, neither pays nor offers any relocation money within the required timeframe. The tenant stays past the 60 days, and the landlord files an unlawful detainer. In court, the tenant can point out that no relocation assistance was provided. Because the law conditions the validity of the eviction on the landlord’s payment of assistance, the court will find the notice void and dismiss the case. The landlord would have to start over – this time complying with the relocation payment requirement – if they still wish to regain possession.

Statute: Civil Code § 1946.2(d), part of California’s statewide just-cause law, mandates relocation assistance for no-fault evictions and explicitly invalidates the termination notice if the landlord does not comply. It provides that when an eviction is based on a no-fault just cause, the owner must, at their option, either pay the tenant an amount equal to one month’s rent or waive the final month’s rent, and this assistance must be provided within 15 calendar days of service of the termination notice. The statute further states: “An owner’s failure to strictly comply with this subdivision shall render the notice of termination void.”. In other words, if a landlord does not timely pay or waive rent as required, the eviction notice is legally ineffective. (Local ordinances often impose their own relocation assistance obligations; any payment under state law is credited against local requirements, and landlords must follow whichever law provides greater tenant protections.)

Reference:

“When just cause is required to terminate the tenancy, and the owner issues a termination notice based on a no-fault just cause, the owner must provide the tenant with either (CC § 1946.2(d)(1)): … a direct payment to the tenant [of] one month of the tenant’s rent … within 15 days of service of the notice (CC § 1946.2(d)(3)(A)); or a written waiver for payment of rent for the final month of tenancy… The owner must provide the tenant with one of the above regardless of the length of the tenancy. … If the tenant does not vacate after the notice to terminate expires, the actual amount of any relocation assistance or rent waiver provided … shall be recoverable as damages in an action to recover possession. … An owner’s failure to strictly comply with this subdivision shall render the notice of termination void.” – Civ. Code § 1946.2(d) “If the owner is required to provide relocation assistance, but does not do so, the notice of termination is void.” – Assembly Bill 1482, Chapter 597 (2019) (Tenant Protection Act of 2019)

 

Waiver of Lease Violation

Explanation: A landlord can waive (give up) the right to evict based on a particular lease violation by their own actions. The most common way a waiver happens is when the landlord, knowing of the tenant’s breach (for example, keeping an unauthorized pet or being late on rent), nonetheless accepts rent or otherwise treats the lease as continuing. By accepting rent or not promptly enforcing the lease terms, the landlord indicates the tenancy should continue despite the breach. In such cases, the landlord may be “estopped” (prevented) from later evicting the tenant for that specific violation, because the landlord’s conduct waived the breach.

Example: For example, a lease prohibits subletting without consent, but a tenant brings in a roommate in violation of this clause. The landlord learns of the unauthorized roommate but continues to collect monthly rent from the tenant for several months without objection. By accepting rent with full knowledge of the violation, the landlord may have waived the breach. If the landlord then tries to evict the tenant for the earlier subletting violation, the tenant can argue waiver as a defense – pointing out that the landlord, by continuing to accept rent, affirmed the tenancy and gave up the right to enforce that lease violation.

Statute: (No specific statute directly governs this defense; it is a principle established by case law. Civil Code § 1945 covers acceptance of rent after a lease term expires (holdover situations), and Code of Civil Procedure § 1161.1(c) addresses certain cases of partial rent in commercial tenancies, but generally waiver of a lease breach is determined by the facts and court precedents rather than a specific statute.)

Reference:

“It is a general rule that the right of a lessor to declare a forfeiture of the lease arising from some breach by the lessee is waived when the lessor, with knowledge of the breach, accepts the rent specified in the lease. While waiver is a question of intent, the cases have required some positive evidence of rejection on the landlord’s part or a specific reservation of rights in the lease to overcome the presumption that tender and acceptance of rent creates.” — EDC Associates v. Gutierrez (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 167.

“The acceptance of rent by the landlord from the tenant, after the breach of a condition of the lease, with full knowledge of all the facts, is a waiver of the breach and precludes the landlord from declaring a forfeiture of the lease by reason of said breach. … ‘The most familiar instance of the waiver of the forfeiture of a lease arises from the acceptance of rent by the landlord after [a] condition [is] broken, and it is a universal rule that if the landlord accepts rent from his tenant after full notice or knowledge of a breach of a covenant or condition in his lease for which a forfeiture might have been demanded, this constitutes a waiver of forfeiture… The acceptance by a landlord of the rents, with full knowledge of a breach … is an affirmation that the contract of lease is still in force, and he is thereby estopped from setting up a breach… and demanding a forfeiture thereof.’” — Kern Sunset Oil Co. v. Good Roads Oil Co. (1931) 214 Cal. 435, 440–441.

 

Landlord’s Acceptance of Rent After Termination

Explanation: If a landlord terminates a tenancy (for example, by giving a 30-day or 60-day notice to end a month-to-month tenancy, or by the expiration of a lease term) but then accepts rent covering a period of time after that termination date, the landlord may unintentionally create a new tenancy or waive the termination. By taking rent for post-termination occupancy, the landlord is treating the tenant as continuing in lawful possession. As a result, the prior termination notice or lease end is nullified, and the landlord cannot base an eviction on that lapsed notice or expired lease. In practice, accepting rent after a termination usually means the tenancy converts to a month-to-month tenancy under the same terms as before.

Example: For example, a landlord serves a tenant with a 60-day notice to vacate by June 30, ending a month-to-month tenancy. The tenant does not move out by June 30, and on July 1 the tenant offers the landlord a rent payment for the month of July. If the landlord cashes that rent check (accepts the July rent), the law will treat this as the landlord agreeing to continue the tenancy (usually on a month-to-month basis). The landlord’s 60-day termination notice can no longer be enforced, because by accepting rent for a period after the termination date, the landlord effectively started a new rental period. If the landlord later tries to evict based on the tenant’s holdover after June 30, the tenant can use the landlord’s acceptance of July rent as a defense, arguing that the tenancy was reinstated.

Statute: California Civil Code § 1945 provides that when a tenant remains in possession after the expiration of a lease or rental period and the landlord accepts rent from the tenant, the law presumes the tenancy is renewed on the same terms and for the same period of time as under the prior agreement (not to exceed one month in cases where rent is paid monthly, or one year in any case).

Reference:

“If a lessee of real property remains in possession thereof after the expiration of the hiring, and the lessor accepts rent from him, the parties are presumed to have renewed the hiring on the same terms and for the same time, not exceeding one month when the rent is payable monthly, nor in any case one year.” — Civil Code § 1945.

“When the term of a lease expires but the lessee holds over without the owner’s consent, he becomes a tenant at sufferance…. If instead the owner accepts rent from a tenant at sufferance he accepts the tenant’s possession as rightful and the tenancy is converted into a periodic one.” — Kaufman v. Goldman (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 734, 740.

Failure to Timely Serve Summons and Complaint

Explanation: Unlawful detainer (eviction) cases are meant to move very quickly. After the landlord files the eviction lawsuit, the law expects the landlord to promptly serve the summons and complaint on the tenant. If the landlord unreasonably delays serving the tenant, it undermines the summary nature of the proceeding and can be grounds for dismissal. In fact, California law now provides a specific timeframe: if an eviction summons is not served and documented in the court within a set period, the case can be dismissed. This defense protects tenants from “stale” eviction lawsuits and prevents landlords from filing an eviction and then ambushing a tenant by serving it long after it was filed.

Example: For example, a landlord files an unlawful detainer complaint on January 1 but does not serve the tenant with the lawsuit until April or May. Such a long delay is inconsistent with the eviction process’s urgency. The tenant, upon finally being served, can argue that the landlord failed to serve the summons and complaint within the required time. The court may decide to dismiss the eviction case without prejudice due to the landlord’s failure to timely serve, forcing the landlord to start over. This ensures the tenant isn’t prejudiced by an eviction action that was left hanging for an extended period.

Statute: California Code of Civil Procedure § 1167.1 provides that if proof of service of the summons in an unlawful detainer case is not filed within 60 days after the complaint was filed, the court may dismiss the action without prejudice. In other words, the landlord generally has 60 days from the filing of the eviction lawsuit to officially serve the tenant and file that proof with the court, or risk having the case tossed out.

Reference:

“If proof of service of the summons has not been filed within 60 days of the complaint’s filing, the court may dismiss the action without prejudice.” — Code of Civil Procedure § 1167.1.

“If service is not made within three years… [t]he action shall be dismissed by the court on its own motion or on motion of any person interested in the action, after notice to the parties.” — Code of Civil Procedure § 583.250(a).

Unlawful Business Practices

Explanation: If a landlord engages in unlawful or unfair business practices in connection with the tenancy, it can serve as an affirmative defense to an eviction. This typically involves the landlord systematically violating laws or regulations (such as health, safety, or housing codes) as part of running the rental business. The tenant may argue that the eviction is part of the landlord’s ongoing illegal business scheme and therefore should not be enforced.

Example: A landlord operates multiple rental properties in knowing violation of safety codes (e.g. severe habitability violations or renting out units without permits). The landlord attempts to evict a tenant who complains about these conditions. The tenant could raise the defense that the eviction is in furtherance of the landlord’s unlawful business practices of maintaining unsafe, uninhabitable rentals, and seek to bar the eviction on that basis.

Statute: Business & Professions Code § 17200 (Unfair Competition Law)

Reference:

“California courts have consistently interpreted [the Unfair Competition Law] broadly. An ‘unlawful business activity’ includes ‘anything that can properly be called a business practice and that at the same time is forbidden by law.’” – Barquis v. Merchants Collection Assn. (1972) 7 Cal.3d 94, 113.

“[Housing code] violations…constitute unlawful business activities because they are by nature business practices and are forbidden by law.” – People v. McKale (1979) 25 Cal.3d 626, 632.

Eviction Based on False or Pretextual Reason

Explanation: A landlord cannot evict a tenant for an illegal or improper motive. If the stated reason for an eviction is merely a pretext to hide an unlawful motive (such as retaliation for the tenant exercising legal rights or discrimination against the tenant), the tenant can raise this as an affirmative defense. In essence, the tenant argues that the eviction is not truly for the lawful cause claimed by the landlord, but instead for a forbidden reason, rendering the eviction wrongful.

Example: A tenant reports building code violations to the city. Shortly thereafter, the landlord serves a 60-day no-cause notice to quit (in a property not covered by just-cause eviction law) ostensibly because they “decided to renovate.” If the real intent is to retaliate against the tenant for reporting violations (an improper reason), the tenant can assert that the eviction is retaliatory and pretextual. Similarly, under just-cause eviction laws, if a landlord claims an “owner move-in” eviction but never actually moves in (using it as a pretext to raise rent with a new tenant), the evicted tenant could challenge the eviction as in bad faith.

Statute: Civil Code § 1942.5 (anti-retaliation / improper motive eviction ban)

Reference:

“It is settled that a landlord may be precluded from evicting a tenant in retaliation for certain kinds of lawful activities of the tenant.”

“As a landlord has no right to possession when he seeks it for such an invalid reason, a tenant may raise the defense of retaliatory eviction in an unlawful detainer proceeding.” – S.P. Growers Assn. v. Rodriguez (1976) 17 Cal.3d 719, 724.

Failure to Provide Just Cause (Tenant Protection Act)

Explanation: Under the Tenant Protection Act of 2019 (Civil Code § 1946.2, often called AB 1482), most California residential tenants who have occupied a unit for at least 12 months cannot be evicted without “just cause.” Just causes are specified reasons such as nonpayment of rent, breach of lease, nuisance, criminal activity, owner move-in, withdrawal from rental market, etc. If a landlord attempts to evict a covered tenant without stating a valid just cause (or if the reason given is not one of the allowable causes), the tenant can use this as a defense to prevent eviction. Additionally, for “no-fault” just cause evictions (like owner move-in or withdrawal of unit), the law requires the landlord to give a 60-day notice and often to pay relocation assistance. A failure to comply with these just-cause requirements – either by not giving a cause, or by citing an invalid cause, or not following procedure – will render the eviction illegal.

Example: A tenant in a building covered by AB 1482 has lived in the unit for two years. The landlord serves a 30-day notice to terminate the tenancy without stating any reason (“no cause”). Under the Tenant Protection Act, this is not permitted because the tenant has protection against evictions without just cause. The tenant can file an answer stating that no just cause was given as required by law. The court would likely dismiss the eviction, since the landlord failed to comply with the just-cause eviction law.

Statute: Civil Code § 1946.2(a) provides that, for tenants who have been in possession for 12 months or more (or 24 months in some shared circumstances), “the owner of the residential real property shall not terminate a tenancy without just cause, which shall be stated in the written notice to terminate tenancy.” It enumerates at-fault just causes (e.g., default in rent, material breach of lease, nuisance, waste, criminal activity, etc.) and no-fault just causes (owner’s intent to occupy, withdrawal of unit from rental market, government order, etc.). It also requires 60 days’ notice for no-fault evictions and mandates relocation assistance or rent waiver for no-fault evictions in many cases. If a landlord cannot demonstrate one of the specified just causes, or fails to comply with notice and relocation requirements, the eviction cannot proceed.

Reference:

“After a tenant has continuously and lawfully occupied a residential real property for 12 months, the owner of the residential real property shall not terminate a tenancy without just cause, which shall be stated in the written notice to terminate tenancy.” (Civ. Code § 1946.2(a))

“The statutory just cause requirements (Civil Code § 1946.2) limit a landlord’s ability to evict long-term tenants. A tenancy cannot be terminated except for one of the stated reasons (just cause), and the reason must be included in the termination notice. If no valid just cause is given, the termination notice is defective and cannot support an unlawful detainer.” (Tenant Protection Act summary – Tenant Defenders)

“Just cause protections apply to most tenants in California who have been in place at least a year. For example, a landlord cannot simply evict to raise rent or evict on a whim – they must have a concrete allowable reason. An eviction lacking a just cause (or with a false pretext) is a defense, as the law requires the landlord to prove a valid ground under § 1946.2 before possession can be obtained.” (Civil Code § 1946.2 and Just Cause Eviction Discussion)

Repair and Deduct

Explanation: “Repair and Deduct” is a tenant remedy that can also act as a defense in an eviction for nonpayment if properly exercised. California Civil Code § 1942 allows a tenant, under certain circumstances, to pay for necessary repairs and deduct the cost from rent, when the landlord has failed to repair habitability defects. To use this remedy, the problem must be one that materially affects health and safety (making the unit untenantable), the tenant must have given the landlord notice and a reasonable time to fix it, and the tenant can only deduct an amount up to one month’s rent (and do this at most twice in any 12-month period). If a landlord then tries to evict for nonpayment of the amount the tenant deducted, the tenant can defend by showing they lawfully exercised the repair-and-deduct rights. Essentially, the tenant wasn’t delinquent – the rent was used to remedy the landlord’s breach of the warranty of habitability.

Example: The rental unit’s plumbing is broken, causing no running water – a serious habitability issue. The tenant notified the landlord in writing and waited over 30 days, but the landlord did nothing. The tenant then hired a licensed plumber to make the repair for $800, paid the bill, and deducted $800 from the next month’s rent (which was $1,200). The landlord then serves a 3-Day Notice to Pay Rent or Quit demanding the $800. In the eviction, the tenant can assert the repair-and-deduct defense: the $800 was lawfully deducted under Civil Code § 1942 due to landlord’s failure to fix an untenantable condition. The court would find the tenant’s nonpayment of that portion was justified and dismiss the eviction.

Statute: Civil Code § 1942(a) states that if a landlord neglects, within a reasonable time after notice, to repair dilapidations that make the premises untenantable (and which the landlord ought to repair), “the tenant may repair the same himself where the cost…does not exceed one month’s rent, and deduct the expense of the repairs from the rent when due.” The tenant must have given notice and waited a reasonable period (presumed reasonable if 30 days elapse without repair), and the remedy may not be used more than twice in any 12-month period. This section provides the tenant a defense because it makes such deducted expenses lawful, meaning the rent was not “due” to the landlord to that extent. Civil Code § 1942.4 further prohibits a landlord from demanding rent or evicting when certain serious habitability conditions (after notice from a government agency) are unrepaired – effectively barring eviction for nonpayment in those conditions.

Reference:

“If within a reasonable time after written or oral notice to the landlord of dilapidations rendering the premises untenantable which the landlord ought to repair, the landlord neglects to do so, the tenant may repair the same himself where the cost of such repairs does not require an expenditure more than one month’s rent of the premises and deduct the expenses of such repairs from the rent when due… This remedy shall not be available to the tenant more than twice in any 12-month period.” (Civ. Code § 1942(a))

“On the one hand, Civil Code section 1942 grants a tenant the right to demand that his landlord repair dilapidations… and, if the landlord neglects to do so, the tenant may make the repairs himself (cost not exceeding one month’s rent) and deduct the expense from the rent. On the other… (Code of Civil Procedure § 1161) implies the landlord’s power to evict for nonpayment. These sections must be reconciled so that tenants are not punished for exercising the repair-and-deduct right. Indeed, public policy protects tenants from eviction in retaliation for using this remedy.” (Schweiger v. Superior Court (1970) 3 Cal.3d 507, 511–513)

“If a tenant establishes that they properly invoked the repair-and-deduct remedy under Civil Code § 1942 – meaning the conditions warranted it, notice was given, and the cost was within statutory limits – then the landlord’s claim for unpaid rent equivalent to those repair costs fails. The tenant was legally entitled to deduct that amount, so there is no default in rent for that portion. (See Civ. Code §§ 1941, 1942; Green v. Superior Court, supra.)” (Civil Code § 1942 and related case law)

Post-Foreclosure Notice Requirements

Explanation: Tenants living in a property at the time it is foreclosed have special protections. After foreclosure, the new owner (often the bank or an investor) must give bona fide tenants a minimum of 90 days’ notice to quit before eviction, under both federal law and California law. California’s Code of Civil Procedure § 1161b codifies the 90-day notice for month-to-month tenants in foreclosed properties and also honors fixed-term leases (with some exceptions). If a post-foreclosure eviction (usually brought under CCP § 1161a) is attempted without giving the tenant the required 90-day notice or honoring an existing lease, the tenant can use that failure as a defense. Essentially, the purchaser at foreclosure steps into the role of landlord and must comply with notice periods; an immediate eviction is not allowed unless the occupant is the former owner. Therefore, a tenant can argue the eviction is premature or wrongful if the 90-day notice was not provided.

Example: A family renting a house is caught in a foreclosure; their landlord/owner lost the property to a bank on January 1. The bank immediately serves a 3-Day Notice to Quit, and by January 10 files an eviction (unlawful detainer) to remove the tenants. The tenants have a defense: they were entitled to a 90-Day Notice after foreclosure. Because the bank failed to give 90 days’ notice, the eviction is not lawful. The court would likely dismiss the case, requiring the new owner to start over and properly serve a 90-day notice.

Statute: Code of Civil Procedure § 1161b(a) provides that when a property is sold through foreclosure, any existing tenant on a month-to-month or periodic tenancy “shall be given 90 days’ written notice to quit” before the tenant may be removed. Furthermore, § 1161b(b) protects tenants with fixed-term leases: generally, the new owner must allow the tenant to remain until the lease expires, unless certain exceptions apply (like the new owner intends to occupy as a primary residence or the lease was a fraud/not arms-length, etc.), in which case a 90-day notice still must be given. Federal law (the Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act, now permanent) similarly requires at least 90 days’ notice. If a foreclosing owner does not adhere to these notice requirements, the eviction cannot proceed. Thus, under CCP § 1161b, a post-foreclosure tenant can defeat an eviction if the new owner did not give the full 90-day notice or honor an unexpired lease.

Reference:

“Notwithstanding Section 1161a, a tenant or subtenant in possession of a rental housing unit under a month-to-month lease or periodic tenancy at the time the property is sold in foreclosure shall be given 90 days’ written notice to quit before the tenant or subtenant may be removed from the property.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 1161b(a))

“In addition to the 90-day notice for month-to-month tenants, tenants holding possession under a fixed-term residential lease entered into before transfer of title at the foreclosure sale generally have the right to remain until the end of the lease term. The tenancy may be terminated on 90 days’ notice only if certain conditions apply (for example, the purchaser will occupy the unit as their primary residence or the lease was not arms-length).” (Code Civ. Proc. § 1161b(b))

“Most bona fide tenants in possession at foreclosure are entitled to a 90-day notice to quit. (CCP § 1161b; PTFA.) Failure by the post-foreclosure owner to provide the full 90-day notice (or to honor an existing lease) is a defense to eviction. Courts will dismiss an unlawful detainer if the foreclosure purchaser has not complied with these notice requirements.” (California Tenants in Foreclosed Properties – FAQ (NHLPI))

Invalid Foreclosure / No Perfected Title

Explanation: In an eviction after foreclosure (brought under Code of Civil Procedure § 1161a), the plaintiff (new owner) must prove that it acquired the property through a valid foreclosure sale and that it has “duly perfected” title. If the foreclosure process was defective or the title transfer was not properly perfected (for instance, failure to record the trustee’s deed, or serious irregularities in the sale), then the plaintiff lacks the right to evict under § 1161a. A tenant or former owner occupant can defend the eviction by challenging the foreclosure’s validity or the plaintiff’s title. However, courts in unlawful detainer generally only allow narrow challenges (e.g., void sales, not merely voidable defects). Still, a demonstrably invalid foreclosure sale or lack of perfected title means the purchaser cannot use the summary eviction process. Additionally, if another lawsuit (quiet title or wrongful foreclosure) is pending or a lis pendens was recorded before the UD, the court may consider whether title is in question. In short, “no perfected title, no eviction.”

Example: A home is foreclosed, but the foreclosing party didn’t follow required steps (perhaps the sale was conducted prematurely or the deed was never recorded). The purchaser files an eviction against the occupants. The occupants assert that the sale was invalid (or that the deed was not recorded prior to notice/eviction). If they show, for instance, that the trustee’s deed was recorded after the eviction was filed (in violation of the rule that title must be perfected first), or that the foreclosure was void due to a defective notice of sale, the court will deny eviction because the plaintiff has not established a duly perfected title stemming from a lawful sale.

Statute: Code of Civil Procedure § 1161a(b)(3) allows an eviction after foreclosure only “Where the property has been sold in accordance with Section 2924 of the Civil Code, under a power of sale contained in a deed of trust… and the title under the sale has been duly perfected.” This means the purchaser must prove a properly conducted trustee’s sale and that all steps to perfect title (notably, recording the trustee’s deed) have been completed. If these conditions are not met, the summary process of § 1161a is not available. California case law (e.g., Cheney v. Trauzettel, Dr. Leevil, LLC v. Westlake Health Care Ctr.) holds that only very limited issues (like whether the purchaser acquired title as required) can be tried in UD, but those include whether the sale procedure and title perfection were proper. An eviction plaintiff must prove compliance with § 1161a; failing that, the eviction fails.

Reference:

“In an unlawful detainer action under section 1161a, the plaintiff must not only show purchase at a foreclosure sale, but must also show that ‘the title under the sale has been duly perfected.’” (Dr. Leevil, LLC v. Westlake Health Care Ctr. (2018) 6 Cal.5th 474, 479, quoting Code Civ. Proc. § 1161a(b)(3))

“Title is duly perfected when all steps have been taken to make it perfect, i.e., to convey to the purchaser that which was purchased, valid and good beyond all reasonable doubt – which includes good record title. [Thus, recording the trustee’s deed is a prerequisite.] Because one of the conditions of section 1161a(b)(3) is that title has been duly perfected, a purchaser is not entitled to possession via UD until it first perfects title (for example, by recording the deed).” (Dr. Leevil, LLC v. Westlake Health Care Ctr. (2018) 6 Cal.5th 474, 482–483)

“A plaintiff seeking eviction under CCP 1161a must plead and prove that it obtained the property at a foreclosure sale and that it duly perfected title. If the foreclosure was void (e.g., sale conducted without right) or if title is not perfected, the purchaser cannot evict under the summary proceedings of 1161a. The occupant may raise those issues as a defense – for example, evidence that the sale was not held in compliance with Civil Code 2924 or that the trustee’s deed was never recorded prior to notice – and the court will deny possession if proven.” (Dr. Leevil, supra; Nourafchan v. Miner (1985) 169 Cal.App.3d 746, 753)

“In determining ‘perfected title’ under section 1161a, courts have held that minor irregularities in the foreclosure process are beyond the scope of UD (those must be raised in separate title actions), but a fundamentally defective sale or lack of title can be shown as a defense. The UD court’s jurisdiction includes deciding if the foreclosure purchaser has complied with the requirements of 1161a – i.e., a duly conducted sale and perfected title. Without that, the purchaser’s remedy is not summary eviction.” (Real Property Law Reporter – Case Summary (Cal. Lawyers Assn.))

Landlord’s Consent to Conduct

Explanation: A landlord cannot evict a tenant for conduct that the landlord previously consented to or authorized. If the landlord gave permission or knowingly allowed a certain act (for example, having a pet or an additional occupant in violation of the lease), the landlord is considered to have waived the right to enforce that lease term. In such cases, the tenant can raise consent as a defense, arguing that there is no breach because the landlord agreed to or acquiesced in the behavior.

Example: The lease prohibits any pets, but the landlord gave the tenant written permission to have a dog. Later, the landlord tries to evict the tenant for having the dog. Here, the tenant can defend against eviction by showing the landlord’s consent to the pet – since the landlord consented, the tenant did not wrongfully breach the lease.

Statute: California’s codified maxims of jurisprudence state that “He who consents to an act is not wronged by it” (Civ. Code §3515) and that one who could forbid an act but does not is deemed to have authorized it (Civ. Code §3519).

Reference:

“He who consents to an act is not wronged by it.” (Civ. Code §3515.)

“He who can and does not forbid that which is done on his behalf, is deemed to have bidden it.” (Civ. Code §3519.)

Tenant Cured or No Breach of Lease

Explanation: If the tenant has cured the lease violation or if no actual breach occurred, then there is no valid basis for eviction. Many minor or technical violations can be corrected by the tenant (such as paying overdue rent or fixing a lease violation within a notice period). Once the issue is fixed, the landlord cannot proceed with eviction on that ground. Additionally, if the landlord’s allegations are untrue or the tenant never actually violated the lease, the tenant can assert that no breach occurred. California law (including the Tenant Protection Act for covered units) often requires landlords to give tenants an opportunity to cure certain lease breaches before ending the tenancy.

Example: The tenant receives a 3-day notice to remove an unauthorized subtenant. The tenant complies and the subtenant leaves within the 3 days. If the landlord still files an eviction, the tenant can use the cure as a defense – the lease violation was corrected, so there is no ongoing breach. Likewise, if a notice to pay rent overstated the amount due and the tenant had actually paid in full, the tenant can defend that they were never in default.

Statute: For residential properties covered by the Tenant Protection Act, landlords must allow tenants an opportunity to cure curable lease violations. Civil Code §1946.2 defines an at-fault just cause for eviction to include a “breach of a material term of the lease… after being issued a written notice to correct the violation” (Civ. Code §1946.2(b)(1)(B)). If the tenant cures the violation as required, the tenancy may not be terminated for that cause.

Reference:

“(B) A breach of a material term of the lease, as described in paragraph (3) of Section 1161 of the Code of Civil Procedure, including, but not limited to, violation of a provision of the lease after being issued a written notice to correct the violation.” (Civ. Code §1946.2(b)(1)(B).)

Landlord’s Bad Faith / Frustration of Purpose

Explanation: A tenant may defend an eviction by showing that the landlord’s own bad-faith actions frustrated the purpose of the lease or prevented the tenant from performing their obligations. Under California law, every contract (including leases) contains an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing – neither party should do anything to unfairly interfere with the other’s rights. If the landlord makes the property uninhabitable or unavailable (for instance, by willfully interrupting utilities, failing to make essential repairs, or blocking access) and then seeks eviction for nonperformance by the tenant, the tenant can claim the landlord’s conduct excused the tenant’s performance. This doctrine is known as “frustration of purpose” or “prevention of performance” and can completely negate the landlord’s case.

Example: The landlord commenced major construction that left a commercial tenant without access to the premises and no customers, or a residential landlord deliberately cut off water and electricity to force the tenant out. The tenant stopped paying rent because the premises couldn’t be used. In an eviction for nonpayment, the tenant can raise the landlord’s bad faith and frustration of purpose as a defense – the landlord’s actions destroyed the essential purpose of the lease and prevented the tenant from fulfilling the lease obligations.

Statute: California Civil Code §1511(1) provides that a party’s failure to perform is excused when performance is prevented or delayed by the act of the other party. In the lease context, if the landlord’s actions *prevent* the tenant from performing (or destroy the tenant’s beneficial use of the property), the tenant’s breach may be excused due to the landlord’s conduct (Civ. Code §1511(1)).

Reference:

“Frustration of purpose is a legitimate defense to an unlawful detainer action which, if established, results in the tenant’s retention of the premises.” (Underwood v. Corsino (2005) at p. 135.)

“The want of performance of an obligation… is excused… *[w]hen such performance… is prevented… by the act of the creditor*” (Civ. Code §1511(1)).

Landlord’s Unclean Hands

Explanation: “Unclean hands” is an equitable defense that can bar a landlord from obtaining relief if the landlord has acted unethically, illegally, or in bad faith in connection with the tenancy. The court will not assist a plaintiff who is guilty of serious misconduct in the matter at issue. For example, if a landlord violated housing laws, harassed the tenant, or otherwise acted wrongfully regarding the tenancy, the landlord may be said to have “unclean hands” and the eviction can be stopped on that basis. This defense is rooted in the principle that one should not profit from their own wrongful acts.

Example: A landlord intentionally fails to repair unsafe conditions and then tries to evict the tenant for withholding rent due to those conditions. The landlord’s willful violation of the warranty of habitability could constitute unclean hands. The tenant could argue that the landlord cannot come to court seeking an eviction (an equitable remedy) while in flagrant violation of the law and the lease obligations. If proven, the court may refuse eviction because the landlord’s hands are “unclean.”

Statute: California Civil Code §3517 codifies the maxim that *“No one can take advantage of his own wrong.”* In other words, a landlord should not be permitted to benefit from wrongful conduct (such as violating the law or the lease) by evicting a tenant on a pretext (Civ. Code §3517).

Reference:

“No one can take advantage of his own wrong.” (Civ. Code §3517.)

“The doctrine demands that a plaintiff act fairly in the matter for which he seeks a remedy. He must come into court with clean hands, and keep them clean, or he will be denied relief.” (Kendall-Jackson Winery, Ltd. v. Superior Court (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 970, 978, quoting the equitable maxim.)

Fraud or Misrepresentation by Landlord

Explanation: If a landlord secured the tenant’s agreement or the tenancy through fraud or misrepresentation, the tenant can assert that any resulting eviction is invalid because the underlying lease or notice is void or voidable. Fraud by the landlord – such as false statements about the property’s condition, the tenancy, or promises that induced the tenant to enter or continue the lease – undermines the landlord’s case. A lease obtained by fraud can be rescinded by the tenant, and a notice based on fraudulent grounds (for example, falsifying a reason for eviction) can be defeated by exposing the fraud. In essence, a landlord cannot use their own dishonest conduct as the basis for eviction.

Example: A landlord tells a family that a rental house is zoned for residential use and has all necessary permits, when in fact it is an illegal unit. Relying on this, the family signs a lease. The landlord later tries to evict them, perhaps for nonpayment after they discover the truth. The tenants can raise fraud as a defense – the tenancy agreement itself was procured by the landlord’s misrepresentation, so it cannot be enforced. Similarly, if a landlord serves an eviction notice claiming owner move-in but has no intention of moving in (using it as a pretext), the tenant can argue the notice is void for fraud.

Statute: California Civil Code §1689(b)(1) provides that a party to a contract may rescind the contract if their consent was obtained by fraud. In the eviction context, this means a rental agreement induced by the landlord’s fraud is subject to rescission and cannot be the basis for an unlawful detainer (Civ. Code §1689(b)(1)).

Reference:

“A party to a contract may rescind the contract in the following cases: (1) If the consent of the party rescinding… was obtained through… fraud… exercised by or with the connivance of the party as to whom he rescinds.” (Civ. Code §1689(b)(1).)

Equitable Estoppel (Waiver by Landlord’s Conduct)

Explanation: Equitable estoppel (often overlapping with the concept of waiver) prevents a landlord from evicting when the landlord’s own words or conduct led the tenant to reasonably rely on a belief that the tenancy would continue despite a known breach. If the landlord gave the tenant the impression that a lease violation was acceptable or would not be enforced, the landlord may be estopped from later using that violation to evict. In practical terms, the landlord’s inconsistent conduct – for example, repeatedly accepting late rent or failing to object to a known lease violation – can waive the right to strict enforcement. The tenant must show they relied on the landlord’s conduct to their detriment (such as believing late payment was acceptable) and it would be unfair to allow eviction under those circumstances.

Example: A lease requires rent to be paid by the 1st of the month, but for many months the landlord consistently accepts rent on the 10th without penalty or comment. The tenant relies on this pattern and continues to pay late. If the landlord suddenly serves a 3-Day Notice to Pay or Quit on the 2nd of the month and files for eviction, the tenant can invoke estoppel/waiver. The tenant would argue that the landlord, by routinely accepting late payments, induced the tenant to believe that strict punctuality was not required – and it would be unjust to allow eviction now without warning. The court may find the landlord waived the right to insist on the exact due date or is estopped from evicting for those late payments.

Statute: California Evidence Code §623 codifies equitable estoppel: *“Whenever a party has, by his own statement or conduct, intentionally and deliberately led another to believe a particular thing true and to act upon such belief, he is not… permitted to contradict it.”* (Evid. Code §623). In simpler terms, if a landlord’s behavior caused the tenant to reasonably believe a lease violation was forgiven or would not be enforced, the landlord cannot later go back on that and evict based on the earlier violation.

Reference:

“Acquiescence in error takes away the right of objecting to it.” (Civ. Code §3516.)

“Whenever a party has, by his own statement or conduct, intentionally and deliberately led another to believe a particular thing true and to act upon such belief, he is not, in any litigation arising out of such statement or conduct, permitted to contradict it.” (Evid. Code §623.)

Lack of Standing / No Landlord-Tenant Relationship

Explanation: Only a party with a lawful property interest or agency (often the property owner or a proper successor in interest) can bring an unlawful detainer action. A tenant can defend an eviction by showing that the plaintiff is not the true landlord or has no right to possession – in legal terms, that the plaintiff lacks standing or is not the “real party in interest.” Common scenarios include: the property was sold and the wrong person (former owner or unauthorized agent) filed the eviction, or the landlord is an entity that is not legally authorized to sue (such as an out-of-state LLC without registration, or a corporation not represented by an attorney when required). If the plaintiff cannot prove its legal right to possession (for example, proof of ownership or valid authority over the property), the eviction lawsuit cannot proceed.

Example: A home is in foreclosure and sold at trustee’s sale. An eviction is filed by someone who is not the actual purchaser or is an investor who never received title. The occupants (former owner or tenants) can raise lack of standing as a defense – the plaintiff is not the rightful owner and thus cannot evict. In another example, a property management company files an eviction in its own name (not in the owner’s name) without showing authority – that too could be challenged for lack of standing, since the management company itself isn’t the real party in interest to the lease.

Statute: Code of Civil Procedure §367 requires that *“Every action must be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest.”* (CCP §367). In eviction cases, this means the plaintiff must be the owner or lawful successor entitled to possession (or an authorized agent suing in the owner’s name). If not, the case is subject to dismissal for lack of standing.

Reference:

“Every action must be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest, except as otherwise provided by statute.” (Code Civ. Proc. §367.)

*(In an eviction context, the “real party in interest” is typically the property owner or landlord of record. A plaintiff who is not the true owner or has no legal right to possess cannot maintain an unlawful detainer.)*

Protection for Military Service Members (SCRA)

Explanation: Federal law provides active duty servicemembers with special protections against eviction. Under the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA), a landlord cannot evict a covered servicemember or their dependents during active military service *without a court order*. Even with a court order, the servicemember can request a stay (delay) of eviction proceedings if military service materially affects their ability to pay rent. These protections apply to residential rentals under a certain rent amount (adjusted annually, roughly in the low $4000s per month in recent years). The purpose is to prevent landlords from evicting servicemembers who are unable to meet obligations due to military duties. A tenant who is on active duty (or recently ended service, in some cases) can invoke the SCRA as a defense to stay or dismiss an eviction filed in violation of these rules.

Example: A National Guard member is called to active duty overseas. While deployed, they cannot work their civilian job and fall behind on rent. The landlord serves a 3-Day Notice and files an eviction. The tenant (or their family) can notify the court of the active duty status. Under the SCRA, the court must stay (postpone) the eviction for at least 90 days (and potentially longer) upon application, and in any event the landlord *cannot evict without a court order*. If the landlord attempted to evict without going through court or obtained a default judgment without disclosing military status, the eviction can be challenged and halted under the SCRA.

Statute: The Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, 50 U.S.C. §3951, provides that landlords may not evict a servicemember or their dependents from a primary residence during military service *except by court order*. If an eviction proceeding is filed, the court “shall, if a request is made by or on behalf of a servicemember whose ability to pay rent is materially affected by military service,” stay the proceedings for 90 days (or adjust the obligations) to protect the servicemember (50 U.S.C. §3951). Violating these provisions is a misdemeanor. In practice, upon proof of active service, courts will typically delay or suspend the eviction to give the servicemember relief.

Reference:

“Except by court order, a landlord may not—(A) evict a servicemember, or the servicemember’s dependents, during a period of military service from premises… occupied primarily as a residence, for which the monthly rent does not exceed [the statutory cap].” (50 U.S.C. §3951(a).)

“Upon an application for eviction or distress with respect to premises covered by this section, the court *may* on its own motion and *shall*, if a request is made by or on behalf of a servicemember… stay the proceedings for a period of 90 days, unless… justice and equity require a longer or shorter period.” (50 U.S.C. §3951(b).)

Domestic Violence / Abuse Victim Defense

Explanation: California law protects tenants who are victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, stalking, human trafficking, or elder/dependent adult abuse from being evicted *because* of that abuse. A landlord is prohibited from terminating a tenancy on the basis of acts of violence or abuse against a tenant or household member, if the tenant provides documentation of the incident(s) (such as a restraining order or police report) and the abuser is not a co-tenant. This affirmative defense recognizes that victims should not lose their housing due to crimes committed against them. The tenant must generally attest and provide proof of the qualifying incident within the past 180 days. If these conditions are met, the eviction cannot proceed on those grounds.

Example: A tenant obtains a domestic violence restraining order against an ex-partner who does not live in the unit. The ex-partner later comes to the property and causes a disturbance or damage. The landlord then serves a notice to terminate the tenancy, citing that incident as a lease violation or nuisance. Under Code of Civil Procedure §1161.3, the tenant can show the court the restraining order and police report documenting that they were a victim of domestic violence. The landlord is *barred* from evicting the tenant because the law forbids eviction based on the abuse of which the tenant was a victim.

Statute: Code of Civil Procedure §1161.3 explicitly prohibits a landlord from terminating or refusing to renew a tenancy due to an act of domestic violence, sexual assault, stalking, human trafficking, or elder/dependent adult abuse against the tenant or a household member, if the tenant has provided documentation such as a court protective order or police report and the perpetrator is not a tenant in the same unit. In such cases, any eviction notice based on that incident is invalid (Code Civ. Proc. §1161.3).

Reference:

“A landlord shall not terminate a tenancy or fail to renew a tenancy based upon an act or acts against a tenant or a tenant’s household member that constitute domestic violence… if both of the following apply: (1) The act or acts… have been documented by one of the following: (A) A temporary restraining order, emergency protective order, or protective order… or (B) A [recent] written report by a peace officer…; and (2) The person against whom the protection order has been issued or who was named in the police report… is not a tenant of the same dwelling unit.” (Code Civ. Proc. §1161.3(a).)

Illegal Contract / Unpermitted Rental Unit

Explanation: A tenant can assert that the rental agreement is illegal and unenforceable because the landlord violated laws in renting out the unit. If the premises were rented in violation of building codes, zoning laws, or other regulations (for example, an illegal unpermitted unit or severe code violations making it unlawful to occupy), then the lease may be considered void or against public policy. In such situations, the landlord cannot enforce the lease or collect rent through an unlawful detainer because the contract itself is founded on an unlawful purpose. This defense often arises with unpermitted “in-law” units, garages converted without permits, or properties with conditions so substandard that renting them out was illegal. The tenant effectively argues that one cannot be evicted for refusing to perform an illegal contract (or that no rent is owed for an illegal rental).

Example: A landlord is collecting rent for an apartment that lacks a certificate of occupancy and has multiple serious housing code violations. The housing code actually prohibits the landlord from renting it out in that condition. When the tenant learns of this and withholds rent, the landlord files for eviction. The tenant can use the illegal contract defense: since the rental was illegal to begin with, the landlord has no legal right to enforce the lease or evict for nonpayment. Another scenario is where a local ordinance requires a rental unit to be registered or certified habitability, and the landlord never complied – the tenancy itself may be deemed illegal, blocking the landlord’s eviction suit.

Statute: A contract that has an unlawful objective is void under California law. Civil Code §1598 provides that a contract with a single object that is unlawful is void (Civ. Code §1598). Applied to leases: if the very act of renting the unit was illegal, the lease has an unlawful object and is void. Additionally, public policy (as reflected in building and housing codes) will not allow a landlord to enforce a rental agreement for an illegal unit.

Reference:

“Because the lease was knowingly made… in contravention of local ordinances and state statutes, the parties were in pari delicto; and since the contract was for an illegal purpose, no enforceable duties or rights could arise. The landlord was therefore prohibited from collecting rent.” (Hinson v. Delis (1972) 26 Cal.App.3d 62, 67, summarizing Shephard v. Lerner.)

“Civil Code section 1598 invalidates an entire contract when it ‘has but a single object, and such object is unlawful.’” (Koenig v. Warner Unified Sch. Dist. (2019) quoting Civ. Code §1598.)

Federally Subsidized Housing / Good Cause Requirement

Explanation: Tenancies in certain federally subsidized housing programs (for instance, project-based Section 8 housing or other HUD-assisted housing) carry additional tenant protections that require “good cause” for eviction. This means a landlord cannot terminate the tenancy at will or without a valid reason as defined by federal law or the housing assistance contract. Tenants can raise as a defense that the eviction violates federal regulations or statutes governing their housing subsidy. Often, these defenses involve the landlord’s failure to follow procedural requirements (such as giving a proper HUD termination notice) or the lack of a legitimate good cause to evict. In some cases, courts have held that subsidized housing evictions implicate due process rights, especially when government funds or approvals are involved, thereby requiring proof of good cause.

Example: A tenant in a HUD-subsidized apartment (where the landlord receives rent subsidies) is given a 30-day notice to quit without cause, simply because the landlord wants to end the lease. In market-rate housing this might be allowed (if not subject to other local or state just-cause laws), but in the subsidized context it is not. The tenant can defend the eviction by pointing out that under federal regulations (24 C.F.R. part 247, for example), the landlord must have good cause to terminate a subsidized tenancy. Since no good cause was stated or exists, the eviction should be dismissed. In another example, a public housing tenant could argue the eviction violates the due process requirements of the federal Housing Act if the housing authority did not follow the mandated grievance or notice procedures.

Statute: Federal law (and accompanying HUD regulations) impose good-cause eviction standards on many subsidized tenancies. For instance, in HUD-subsidized multifamily housing, 24 C.F.R. §247.3 provides that a tenancy shall not be terminated *“except upon the occurrence of one of the following categories of good cause”* (such as serious or repeated violation of the lease, or other good cause) and requires proper written notice of the grounds. Similarly, tenants in certain programs have constitutional due process rights. In Appel v. Beyer (1974) 39 Cal.App.3d Supp. 7, 13–14, the court held that in federally involved housing projects, tenants are entitled to notice and proof of good cause before eviction (due process), even if the lease term has expired.

Reference:

“[The question is] whether housing projects carried out by joint participation of private enterprise and government under [federal housing laws] involve such ‘state action’ that due process of law, including notice and proof of good cause for eviction, must be accorded a tenant who holds over after expiration of the agreed term of his tenancy. We answer this question in the affirmative.” (Appel v. Beyer (1974) 39 Cal.App.3d Supp. 7, 13.)

“No termination of tenancy shall be valid unless the tenant is given written notice stating the grounds for termination and those grounds are consistent with the provisions of [§247.3] (enumerating ‘material noncompliance,’ ‘material failure to carry out obligations,’ or other good cause).” (24 C.F.R. § 247.3(a)–(b), setting good cause requirement in federally subsidized housing.)

No Material Breach (Trivial Breach Is Not Grounds for Eviction)

Explanation: California law does not favor forfeiture of leases for trivial or immaterial breaches. A tenant can defend an eviction by arguing that the alleged violation was not a *material* breach of the lease. Courts will look at whether the breach defeats an essential purpose of the agreement or causes serious harm – if not, it may be deemed de minimis (too minor to warrant eviction). For instance, a slight delay in rent or a technical violation that caused no damage to the landlord might not justify the extreme remedy of eviction. This defense aligns with the principle that a lease should not be forfeited for a minor infraction that has little effect on the landlord’s rights. The breach must be significant (material) to justify terminating the tenancy.

Example: A residential lease requires the tenant to carry renter’s insurance. The tenant forgets to renew the policy for a short period. The landlord serves a notice to perform covenant or quit and then files an eviction when proof of insurance wasn’t provided immediately. In court, the tenant can argue that the breach (lapse of insurance) was not material – particularly if it was promptly remedied and no harm occurred. Indeed, the California Court of Appeal in a similar case found that failing to maintain renter’s insurance (a provision mainly benefiting the tenant) was not a material breach that justified eviction. The eviction would be defeated because the breach did not harm the landlord’s interests in any material way.

Statute: No specific statute enumerates this principle; it comes from case law and general contract law policy (Civil Code §3275 allows relief from forfeiture for trivial breaches in some cases, and courts use equitable discretion). The key point is that a *material* breach is required to enforce a forfeiture of the lease. If the tenant’s breach is trivial, equity may preclude forfeiture. This concept was exemplified in *Boston LLC v. Juarez*, where the court held a breach must be material to justify eviction.

Reference:

“The court held that a tenant’s breach must be material to justify forfeiture. In this case, the tenant’s obligation to obtain and pay for insurance protected the tenant’s interest, not the landlord’s; accordingly, the tenant’s failure to obtain a policy… was not a material breach of the agreement constituting grounds for forfeiture. The judgment [of eviction] was reversed.” (Boston LLC v. Juarez (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 75, 81.)

“Permitting forfeiture for trivial breaches could unleash a torrent of unmeritorious unlawful detainer litigation… *Without the protection of the materiality requirement, every trivial default* could be seized upon by a landlord to terminate a lease.” (See id. at pp. 79–80.)