Marina Point, Ltd. v. Wolfson
California Supreme Court
496 P.2d 115 (1982)
- Written by John Yi, JD
Facts
In January 1974, the Wolfsons (defendants) became tenants in a building owned by Marina Point Ltd. (Marina Point) (plaintiff). Marina Point’s rental policy excluded families with children or pregnant women, although at the time, many of its tenants had minor children. Marina Point decided that any existing children could remain but that it would not allow any more children going forward. In September 1975, Mrs. Wolfson gave birth to a son, Adam, who then lived with them. The Wolfsons renewed their lease without informing Marina Point about their new son. Marina Point later refused to renew the lease because of Adam. When the Wolfsons failed to surrender the apartment at the end of their lease, Marina Point filed an unlawful detainer action. The Wolfsons claimed that Marina Point’s discrimination against families with children violated the Unruh Civil Rights Act. Marina Point argued that their exclusionary policy was based on past experiences with unruly and disruptive children. It also presented expert, but anecdotal, testimony that maintenance costs increase if there are children. But it did not present any evidence that Adam had ever been disruptive. The trial court held that children and families with children were not protected from housing discrimination because they are not included in any statute or case law.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Tobriner, J.)
Dissent (Richardson, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 810,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
