Retaliatory eviction

In American landlord–tenant law, a retaliatory eviction is a substantive defense and affirmative cause of action that can be used by a tenant against a landlord. If a tenant reports sanitary violations or violations of minimum housing standards, the landlord cannot evict the tenant in retaliation for reporting the poor housing conditions.

For retaliatory evictions in the United Kingdom see Revenge eviction

History

Retaliatory eviction first appeared as a tenant's defense against eviction in Edwards v. Habib (1968), where a tenant was evicted after reporting sanitary code violations. The D.C. Circuit recognized that the eviction was unjustified because it was in retaliation for the reporting of violations.[1]

As a defense

The defense of retaliatory eviction was first recognized in the D.C. Circuit case Edwards v. Habib.

West Virginia

In the case Imperial Colliery Co. v. Fout,[2] the West Virginia Supreme Court reaffirmed that retaliatory eviction was a valid defense against eviction, but added the condition that the retaliation must be against a tenant's exercise of a right incidental to their tenancy. Therefore, a defense of retaliatory eviction did not exist for a tenant evicted after participating in a labor strike.

California

1942.5 is the California Civil Code that establishes a renter's rights and defines a Retaliatory Eviction in the state of California.

As a cause of action

Retaliatory eviction was first recognized as a cause of action in the California case Aweeka v. Bonds.[3] The case recognized the inequity of forcing the tenant to wait until they were confronted with an unlawful detainer action to bring up retaliatory eviction as a defense.

gollark: Technically, chickens are dinosaurs, not birds.
gollark: <@199029493791326208> Stop this pro-bird propaganda!
gollark: Are you implying that birds *are* real?
gollark: Example of weaponized birds.
gollark: I might have a few anti-bird-propaganda memes saved.

References
  1. Casner, A.J. et al. Cases and Text on Property, Fifth Edition. Aspen Publishers, New York, NY: 2004, p. 504
  2. Imperial Colliery Co. v. Fout, 179 W.Va. 776 (1988)
  3. Aweeka v. Bonds, 20 Cal.App.3d 278 (1971)
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.