A common ground for eviction in California includes one based on the tenant’s violation of the lease agreement or rental contract.  However, California law recognizes that while every instance of noncompliance with a contract’s terms constitutes a breach, not every breach justifies treating the contract as terminated, as required to support an unlawful detainer action. 

California courts typically resolve the issue by determining whether the tenant’s alleged noncompliance was a “material” breach of the contract between the parties.  Although the question of materiality has historically been decided on a case-by-case basis, here is an overview of the analytical framework utilized by the courts when deciding the issue.

“Materiality” is not specifically defined in California statutes, so resort to California case law will provide guidance.  (See e.g. Keating v. Preston (1940) 42 Cal.App.2d 110, 115; Feder v. Wreden Packing & Provision Co. (1928) 89 Cal.App. 665, 673.) A breach of lease is considered “material” enough to support an unlawful detainer action when it involves a significant violation of an important obligation under the lease. Here are some common examples of material breaches:

Nonpayment of rent

Unauthorized occupants

Significant damage to the rental unit

Criminal activity,

Unauthorized pets

Failure to pay security deposit

“Holding over” after the rental term expires

An immaterial breach, also known as a minor or partial breach, is a less severe violation that does not substantially undermine the overall purpose of the contract. The breach can often be rectified through minor adjustments or compensatory measures. Such breaches typically cause inconvenience or delay but do not allow the non-breaching party to terminate the contract. Instead, the non-breaching party may be entitled to some form of compensation.

A breach may also be immaterial if the tenant has substantially complied with a contractual obligation and the breach involves a less critical aspect of the contract. For example, a defendant’s failure to fulfill his obligation to maintain the premises in a clean and orderly fashion may be immaterial if the breach of that obligation was an isolated incident. Causing damage to the rental property beyond normal wear and tear may be considered immaterial if the extent of damage was relatively minor.  Breaking a lightbulb is an obvious example of an immaterial breach related to damage to the premises.

Where the breach involves illegal activities the severity of the violation will control.  For example, a one-time incident of the tenant parking in a no parking zone is technically an illegal activity but would not be considered a material breach. 

Creating a nuisance that interferes with other tenants’ rights to quiet enjoyment may also be considered either material or immaterial depending on the severity of the nuisance.  An isolated incident of arguing with other neighbors will not justify displacement from the home through eviction proceedings. 

Other courts have resolved the issue by determining whether the provision allegedly breached substantially benefited one party over the other.  For example, one California court has held that renter’s insurance is for the tenant’s benefit only and thus failure to obtain such insurance is not a material breach of the lease which justifies forfeiture.

Please contact Lynx Legal with any questions regarding the above, evictions in general, or if you are ready to start a case.  We can be reached at 888-441-2355 or info@lynxlegal.com.  Our experienced staff is standing by to answer any inquiries or complete the intake necessary to start your case.