CACI 4325 Affirmative Defense—Failure to Comply With Rent Control Ordinance/Tenant Protection Act
California Civil Jury Instructions CACI
4325 Affirmative Defense—Failure to Comply With Rent Control Ordinance/Tenant Protection Act
[Name of defendant] claims that [name of plaintiff] is not entitled to evict [him/her/nonbinary pronoun] because [name of plaintiff] violated [[insert name of local governmental entity]’s rent control law]/[the Tenant Protection Act]. To succeed on this defense, [name of defendant] must prove the following:
[Insert elements of rent control defense.]
New August 2007; Revised May 2020
Directions for Use
Insert the elements of the Tenant Protection Act of 2019 and/or the relevant local rent control law into this instruction.
Sources and Authority
•Tenant Protection Act of 2019. Civil Code section 1946.2.
•“[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. Berkeley (1976) 17 Cal.3d 129, 149 [130 Cal.Rptr. 465, 550 P.2d 1001], internal citations and footnote omitted.)
•“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) 37 Cal.3d 644, 697 [209 Cal.Rptr. 682, 693 P.2d 261], internal citations omitted.)