Civil Code Section 789.3(c)(2) Allows For Such An Award.
Successor landlord in this one got “stung” for interrupting the utilities in premises and then failing to pay relocation expenses with respect to a 77-year elderly tenant, who had a good 12 year relationship with a prior landlord. Then, things got shaky with the new landlord, who was hit with a jury verdict of $154,500 for constructive eviction and was further hit with adverse attorney’s fees of $106,924, all in tenant’s favor.
Landlord’s appeal was unsuccessful in Phelps v. Bishop, Case Nos. B252583/254891 (2d Dist., Div. 4 May 28, 2015) (unpublished).
A landlord is subject to attorney’s fees exposure where it is proven that utility interruption was caused with the intent to terminate the tenant’s occupancy. (Civ. Code, § 789.3(c)(2).) The challenge to the amount of the award was doomed because landlord never opposed tenant’s fees motion and never made any specific objections to the supporting fee submissions. Beyond that, detailed fee records were submitted and the generalized “unconscionability” argument – the fees were facially shocking – simply did not establish the trial court abused its discretion.