image of spinning marijuana leaf
Morongo Valley
Appeal Decision CIV.A.1197 4
Felony Cultivation
HUD/DFEH Complaint
Appeal Decision CIV.A.1197
April 04, 2005 - page 4

At the conclusion of testimony, the parties agreed to submit briefs in lieu of

closing arguments. These briefs are not contained in the record.

The court prepared a written Statement of Decision. The court found

respondent to have been a more credible witness than appellant. It concluded

the eviction was not motivated by appellant's use of medical marijuana and was

neither retaliatory nor discriminatory. In support of its conclusion, the court listed

the following findings:

1. Respondent was not initially bothered by appellant's

cultivation or use of marijuana; the relationship between the parties worsened

when appellant's utility bills increased sharply.

2. Respondent wanted to let her nephew live on her property.

3. Respondent served the 60-day notice to quit before she knew

about the FEHA complaint.

4. Appellant did not use marijuana solely for medicinal purposes.

as evidenced by his having given respondent a marijuana-laced brownie.

The court entered judgment for respondent, returning possession to her.

This appeal followed.


Appellant first contends he was protected from eviction for at least six

months by Civil Code section 1942.5. Under that statute, if a tenant successfully

defends against an unlawful detainer case on the ground that the eviction was in

retaliation for the tenant's exercise of certain rights, then the landlord may not


copyright © 2003-2015 J. Craig Canada aka palmspringsbum.
Commercial use prohibited without consent. All rights reserved.