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

I cross-posted this response at Diggers Realm. Let me preface this by noting that I sympathize with your jaundiced view of the Pearcys’ behavior in this case; it was quite reprehensible.

My initial reaction [to your discussion of the California landlord-tenant code] 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.