Do you have a contact add for the Pearcy couple? I for one would like to point out the error of their ways, ways typical of Democrats world over (should be illegal to hijack a word like that)

Not only the renters, but the neighbors may have ways to remove the signs.

The more I think about signage, the more I see this unoccupied commercial property as a billboard. Now, maybe billboards are OK in residential neighborhoods in that town, but I doubt it. Even if one is allowed giant lawn signs on one's occupied property, this is unoccupied.

Things like "zoning" and "conditional use permit" come to mind. A simple complaint to the zoning board or building & safety, or whatever it's called there, might do wonders.

If you want to get really nasty, one might look for a Homeowner's Association and it's CC&Rs. Guy lost his house in Florida last year for flying an AMERICAN flag against the homeowner's association rules. Court said the flag could be suppressed and assessed court costs and legal fees.

The comment about possible legal recourse for the tenants was partially correct -- a tenant has a right of quiet enjoyment and the federal FHA, state and local laws prohibit many types of housing discrimination.

However, in this sort of situation, where the harassment or discrimination is of a political nature, it is likely that the tenants' only recourse would be the equitable remedy of constructive eviction which, if memory serves me correctly, allows little more than being freed from the obligations of their lease. This would obviously be moot if indeed the landlord released them from having to continue to pay under their lease.

In any event, the Pearcys are clearly left-wing a**holes of the worst sort.

Freedom for me, not for thee, eh, Pearcy?

SWLiP, you're wrong. The landlords' entry on the property was a violation of law in its own right (see Cal. Civ. Code Sec. 1954(a)) and to the extent it was a "significant and intentional" violation and was done with the intent of inducing the girls to vacate the house, the girls may well be entitled to a civil penalty up to $2,000 per violation. More on the law here.

Xrlq:

My initial reaction is to say that, of course, the California code is one of the most tenant-friendly in the country. I am neither a California lawyer nor a specialist in landlord-tenant law, although I had six years' experience as a tenant in California ;-). My comment addressed the broader common law tenets that are taught in law school and on the multi-state bar exam.

However, a review of section 1954(a) discloses that the landlord only commits a violation when actually entering the unit for a purpose other than that permitted by the statute. This is different from entering the grounds or the building, itself, which the landlord has license to do pretty much at will. My recollection of the above story is that the harassment took place about the grounds but not in the actual unit (I don't think that leaving harassing voice mails or emails counts as an intrusion under section 1954).

In the end, it would depend on the factual circumstances underlying the definition of "unit" in this case. Did they rent the whole house? Or did they rent a room in the house? If the former, then the case against the Pearcys is stronger. But if the latter, then the case is definitely weaker.

The foregoing would also apply to the applicability of subsection (c), although I think that more particularly I have not read any evidence that the Pearcys obstructed their tenants' access to the building.

This is not meant to defend what the Pearcys did, as I find their behavior to have been as reprehensible as the next person. But one rule in construing the law, especially where penalties or civil fines are involved, is that the prohibited conduct must be reasonably clear and unambiguous. A plain reading of this statute, in comparison with the conduct complained of, does not lead me to conclude that the Pearcys would be liable.

Postscript:

I think that the girls might have a better argument on a common law theory of intentional infliction of emotional distress. The standard of conduct for hoteliers, innkeepers, and other keepers of public accommodations is generally higher than for most people. It could possibly be argued that being harassed and humiliated by one's landlord in such a fashion induced severe emotional distress. However, proof of damages might be tough, depending on how the cause of action is treated under California law.

(Disclosure: I am a Florida lawyer, not licensed to practice in California, so the foregoing is mostly educated speculation, not a proper legal analysis.)

Allow me to backtrack a little:

Having glanced at the story again, it looks like the girls were indeed renting the home. This makes Xrlq's case against the Pearcy's stronger than it would have been if the girls had just rented a discrete portion of the house.

I agree that the harassing phone calls and emails are not a violation of 1954, but may be intentional infliction of emotional distress - assuming it actually resulted in severe emotional distress. I don't know whether trespassing on the property is equivalent to entering the unit for purposes of that statute.

With that I should probably take a cue from SWLiP and throw in a disclaimer of my own. I am a California lawyer and, I blush to admit, a graduate of the same institution as Virginia Pearcy, BUT ... and this is a big but ... This. Is. Not. Legal. Advice. Anything I post in someone's comments, or even on my own blog, is mostly shooting from the hip, and was not researched nearly as thoroughly as it would have been if someone had actually hired me to represent them on the matter. I don't specialize in landlord-tenant law, and my only real advice to the Pearcys' former tenants is to find an attorney who does).

Stephen Pearcy has responded to the claims made by the tenants above. You can view them at my entry here

Who the hell are these people? Why do they live in the US if they hate it so much. My husband is a soldier, my daughter has also served her country(shes discharged now Honorable Discharge). Regardless of how these people feel about the government, or the military, their idiots. To do anything derogatory towards the soldiers is assinine. If there isn't a law against ths there should be. Maybe they should move to one of the states in the deep south and try that crap. I would bet on it that it would only happen once down here.When political correctness gets in the way of justice as it has here. People in the south have their own way of dealing with bugs like these. Their neighbors should research this further.