My question involves an eviction in the state of: California
12 years ago, tenant rented unit from landlord (owners/managers) in rent controlled Los Angeles.
They did not disclose that the unit they rented was legally uninhabitable -- that the former tenant moved because the roof leaked - a lot.
The landlord had "cosmetically" repaired the unit so it showed no signs of significant damage other than it was old and had plaster patches, typical in similar old buildings in Los Angeles.
There was never a written rental agreement -- the tenant paid six months rent and moved in establishing an oral agreement.
The first year of tenancy, a couple of small leaks sprouted. Landlord had her friend come in and patch cracks -- this actually worked -- for a while.
A few more leaks sprouted but rain season had ended. Tenant had notified landlord and was told problem was fixed.
Next year of tenancy, leaks got worse. Tenant notified landlord (verbally) and was told they were fixing problem.
Third year of tenancy, leaks were significant -- creating an uninhabitable situation. Tenant again notified landlord verbally and was told they were fixing problem but it got worse.
Tenant then noted to landlord that this was unacceptable -- the landlord told tenant he should move.
Tenant noted that the landlord had a legal responsibility to fix the roof and again, the landlord suggested he move.
Tenant stopped paying rent.
Landlord requested payment but tenant noted the condition of the unit was legally uninhabitable.
The unit continued to progressively get worse year after year and tenant continued to live in unit but still wasn't paying rent.
This continued for nine years.
About 3 years ago, the owners were cited by LAHD for the roof and were required to bring it into compliance.
The roof finally stopped leaking (but only this year). However, there was, and still is, significant damage in the unit from the water (mold, large holes in ceiling, cracked plaster) along with other problems such as broken toilet, moldy backsplash in bathroom, etc.
The owners (a family) had died off over the years and now there was one sole owner left.
She came to my friend's unit when the building was being re-roofed, banged on his door and demanded he pay an amount of rent that was above the original rent he paid when he first rented the unit several years earlier. He said no and would not sign an agreement.
The owner later came back with another agreement with a different rent amount and the tenant still would not sign it based on the still existing problems in the unit.
The landlord continued to dog the tenant for rent - but the tenant refused to pay based on the grounds that the property was still legally uninhabitable.
The owner then served a 3 day pay or quit notice with a year's worth of rent but she did not follow up with an Unlawful Detainer
Two more years go by and tenant still has same arrangement -- doesn't pay rent.
About a week ago, the owner served the tenant with a 3 day pay or quit notice and followed up today with an Unlawful Detainer, both claiming the tenant owes a year's worth of back rent, different amounts than the 3 day pay or quit served two years ago.
The tenant asked the landlord for a copy of his rental agreement and she noted she didn't have one because he refused to sign it. .
We're curious about the 9 years that have passed in which the rent was "renegotiated" to where he has had to pay nothing (or what ever amt he felt like) and the fact that the owners never contested this until now and doesn't have a signed agreement showing any amount of rent.
If the owner(s) accepted these terms by the fact that they've never moved to seek an eviction during the past 9 years, what legal standing does she have to evict him now for non-payment of rent if this 'implied consent" agreement has been in place for nine years?
Do the nine years of the owner(s) "agreeing" to the terms of non-payment constitute an implied consent agreement that is binding?
And how can she file the 3 day pay or quit and Unlawful Detainer and ask for a year's worth of rent based on the original rent (when the unit was supposedly "habitable" when first rented) if for the past nine years, they've accepted / agreed to non-payment of rent and there is no signed rent agreement that says otherwise?
The unit is still legally uninhabitable (along with many other code violations in the building).
Who is right in this case?
The tenant whose renegotiated agreement to not have ot pay rent constitutes an "implied consent" agreement because owners did nothing for nine years and let it stand?
Or the landlord's recent demand for the tenant (with no signed agreement) to pay rent and back rent for a year based on a figure that goes back 8-9 years or more that was only in play for maybe 3-4 years at most during which time the unit became uninhabitable and they refused to fix it?
Does the implied consent agreement of non-payment for rent for the past nine years supersede the first agreement when tenant was paying rent for what he thought was a habitable unit and which the landlord is now trying to reinstate as the current rent despite having no signed agreement?
Looking forward to your thoughts, opinions, etc.
Thank you.


