This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Real Property
Landlord and Tenant
Interference with Quiet Use

Marcia Weisbrot v. Lewin Properties Inc., Fay Stein, Lamont Susslow, Lindsey Susslow

Published: Apr. 16, 2011 | Result Date: Dec. 21, 2010 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: CGC-09-488562 Verdict –  $104,000

Court

San Francisco Superior


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Kristen M. Ross

Ryan J. Vlasak
(Bracamontes & Vlasak PC)


Defendant

Bradley J. Jameson

William R. Carlson


Experts

Plaintiff

Derek Watry
(technical)

Daniel Bornstein
(technical)

Defendant

Merrie T. Lightner
(technical)

Charles M. Salter
(technical)

Stephen M. Raffle
(technical)

Andrew M. Zacks
(Zacks, Freedman & Patterson PC) (technical)

Facts

Marcia Weisbrot, a tenant in a rent-controlled, multi-unit building in San Francisco, claimed that she was subjected to persistent loud noise from her neighbor over a five-year period. She made noise complaints to the building owners and property management who served three notices to cease nuisance to the nuisance tenant. But despite the notices, Weisbrot claimed the noise did not stop.

Weisbrot sued Lewin Properties Inc., the property manager and the building owners, Fay Stein, Lamont Susslow, and Lindsey Susslow, for nuisance, negligence, breach of quiet enjoyment, negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress, and violations of the San Francisco Rent Ordinance.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
Weisbrot claimed that defendants failed to follow up with an unlawful detainer despite serving the nuisance tenant with three notices. She claimed that the notices only led her on, but did not resolve the problem and even reinforced the nuisance tenant's belief that there would be no real consequences to her actions.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS:
Defendants claimed that they have met their duty by issuing notices, and that Weisbrot's medical conditions made her overly sensitive to noise. They requested a Proposition 51 jury instruction and apportionment on the grounds that the noise disturbance was caused by a nuisance tenant and not them.

Damages

Weisbrot sought $64,000 in general damages for emotional distress. She also sought $50,000 in damages for rent paid. Defendants, however, argued that Weisbrot collected rent from sub-tenants, which precluded her from recovering economic damages for rent paid.

Injuries

Emotional distress. Weisbrot claimed that the noise affected her sleep and day-to-day life at home.

Result

The jury found defendants liable and awarded Weisbrot $104,000 in damages for rent paid and emotional distress. Defendant's request for Proposition 51 jury instruction and apportionment was denied as Weisbrot carefully pled and presented the case as a failure to abate nuisance.

Deliberation

half day

Length

12 days


#115922

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390