Understanding Constructive Eviction and Tenants’ Rights
Sooner or later, most real estate attorneys that specialize in the area of residential landlord-tenant litigation in California will experience a constructive eviction case.
It’s an archetypal California scenario: the tenant claims they were forced to vacate their home due to their landlord’s neglect or harassment, while the landlord denies any wrongdoing.
Whether you’re litigating or defending, these cases are notoriously difficult to prove. That’s especially true in areas, where judges and juries often lean towards tenants’ rights in these cases.
When it comes to proof of constructive eviction, testimony from a real estate expert witness has the potential to shift judgement.
What Is Constructive Eviction Under California Law?
Constructive eviction is one of those unique legal terms that sounds like the exact opposite of what it means.
The term conjures up images of an eviction related to construction or remodeling or a unit, when in reality, these claims typically center around a landlord’s inaction or refusal to address habitability concerns or it could be from harassment or failure to provide quiet enjoyment.
Tenants typically bring these disputes when they feel they have been forced to move out because the unit has become uninhabitable or unlivable. That can mean anything from a refusal to fix a broken heater in the cold winter months to behavior that impacts the tenants’ use and enjoyment of their home.
And in highly competitive areas, where rents are high and demand is constant, it’s not unheard of for landlords to intentionally create an unlivable situation simply to force a tenant out.
It’s also not uncommon for tenants to attempt to bring an unfounded constructive eviction claim in hopes of winning a settlement.
What these cases are really about is whether or not a landlord has violated the implied warranty of habitability or basic tenancy rights provided by statute.
Can it be proven that a landlord intentionally forced a tenant out without a formal eviction? Or has the tenant overstated the alleged inconvenience beyond what a reasonable tenant would expect?
Where Most Constructive Eviction Cases Fall Apart
The legal standards that define the implied warranty of habitability are clear on paper. But once a case reaches a jury, credibility is often what sways a decision more than the letter of the law.
Juries in California naturally tend to favor tenants in these matters. They strongly consider the impact the alleged conditions have on the health and safety of the tenants. They consider whether the landlord made a prompt and reasonable effort to resolve the issue, and if they provided transparency through the process.
Juries also look at communication between both landlord and tenant: whether the landlord was made aware of the issue, whether their response was professional, and were the repair efforts made in good faith.
All of these factors directly affect the credibility of both the landlord and the tenant.
For either party, the biggest misstep often boils down to the strength of documentation.
The party that can back up their claims with documented communication, repair logs, and other hard evidence often gains the upper hand. A notice of violation from Code Enforcement or lack of citation or a 3rd party Mold report are helpful evidence showing the level of spores.
When these factors are missing, a case can quickly fall apart.
This is also where expert witness testimony can play a significant role in proving that a landlord has met the implied warranty of habitability or not.
Common Signs of Constructive Eviction
For claims of constructive eviction to gain traction with a judge or jury, there must be concrete evidence that conditions under the landlord’s control negatively impaired habitability or quiet enjoyment.
So what are the most common signs of habitability-based claims?
One area we see at Edrington & Associates is when a landlord intentionally shuts off or fails to provide essential utilities. This can mean anything from a lack of hot water to a non-functional gas heater, or even intentionally shutting off the electricity. This could also be long periods where utilities were turn-off for repairs. In one case, we saw the power company remove the electric meter due to unsafe conditions and an illegal power tap rendering the unit uninhabitable.
If something that is generally considered the landlord’s responsibility to maintain is not repaired in a timely fashion, the tenant may have a legitimate claim for landlord constructive eviction if the unit becomes untenable.
Other common signs of constructive eviction include unauthorized or abusive entry. In California, there are limited circumstances where a landlord can lawfully enter a tenant’s unit. It requires advanced and proper notice, and breaching this requirement on a regular basis could be cause for a constructive eviction lawsuit. In one case, a female tenant said they came out of the shower to find a repair person in their unit with no notice.
Landlords that fail to address serious pest infestations or fail to complete repairs after being given significant notice are also common signs of this type of case.
In some cases, landlords have even physically or verbally harassed tenants to the point where they are forced to move out, marking another major sign of constructive eviction.
Conditions That Generally Do Not Establish Constructive Eviction
Likewise, there are many other issues that do not constitute proof of constructive eviction.
Issues that are minor, temporary, or merely cosmetic inconveniences do not justify constructive eviction. Neither do preexisting defects that were disclosed to the tenant prior to them moving in, or that do not materially affect habitability.
That also goes for conditions that are caused by the tenant themself. The landlord is only responsible for items that are within their own control. For example if a tenant breaks a hole in the wall, they cannot turn around and claim that the damage forced them to move out.
The landlord must also be formally notified of any issues and be given an opportunity to cure. Repairs that are actively underway and made within a reasonable timeframe also do not qualify as cause for these claims.
For both prosecution and defense strategy, none of these circumstances qualify as proof of constructive eviction.
Damages Exposure: Why These Cases Carry Disproportionate Risk
For California landlords, constructive eviction claims have the potential to become extremely costly.
Under many local ordinances, juries can award treble damages for legitimate cases of constructive eviction. They can also find the defendant liable for one-way or automatic attorney’s fees.
In addition, landlords can also be made responsible for relocation payments and rent-differential damages. Juries can also award punitive damages for oppression, fraud, or malice.
Cases that involve even relatively modest physical conditions can quickly escalate into seven-figure penalties when all is said and done.
That makes it particularly important for attorneys to establish their client’s credibility with strong documented evidence.
How Expert Testimony Can Impact Landlord Constructive Eviction Cases
Most jurors don’t have any real understanding of property management practices, building codes, or habitability standards, which makes retaining an expert witness highly beneficial in these cases.
California CCP §§ 2034.010–2034.470 regulates the use of expert opinions in court. To be allowed to trial, an expert witness must be appropriately qualified to speak on the issue to the judge or jury.
In constructive eviction proceedings, you want an expert witness that has real world property management experience who can objectively speak to the landlord’s practices.
They must be properly disclosed to the opposing counsel, and their testimony tied to admissible facts and reliable methodology. The expert’s deposition must be consistent with their trial testimony.
The best time to seek expert involvement is early in the pre-trial process.
By retaining an expert witness, they can objectively evaluate whether the conditions were actually uninhabitable or not. They can either establish or rebut the standard of care, breakdown repair timelines and management decisions to the judge or jury, and serve as a counter to emotional testimony with objective analysis.
Ultimately, an expert witness serves to strengthen or narrow claims before juries can settle in on an opinion.
How Edrington & Associates Assists Counsel
At Edrington & Associates, our expert witness services provide objective analysis in constructive eviction, habitability, and wrongful eviction cases grounded in decades of experience as professional landlords, property managers, building inspectors, and litigation experts.
We have experience assisting counsel on both sides in evaluating liability exposure and defense, analyzing a property’s physical conditions against statutory and code standards, and reviewing documentation, timelines, and communications.
Our team prepares expert reports for our clients that are compliant with CCP §§ 2034.010–2034.470, and supporting deposition, motion, and trial strategy.
As expert witnesses, our opinions aren’t theoretical. They are grounded in decades of real-world property management and regulatory compliance.
Constructive Eviction Often Comes Down to Credibility and Evidence
Constructive eviction cases aren’t always straightforward. They often come down to credibility and documented evidence. Juries often sympathize with tenants, making credibility key to a successful case.
Expert testimony can give your case the credibility it needs to prove or defend against tenant protection constructive eviction claims.
For attorneys that need the credibility of an expert witness, Edrington & Associates provides the answer.
Contact Edrington & Associates today for an initial case consultation and let us give you an objective analysis of your case.