I have a question for you Cathy, not necessarily related to the OP's situation, or any situation. Suppose I had to prove damages by establishing the FMV of the apartment in this situation... As a landlord, couldn't I establish that the 'problematic behavior' is the periodic replacement of a roof, required by all dwellings with roofs? By extension, don't all dwellings have, priced into their FMV, the 'problematic behavior' of having a roof with a finite life that requires periodic replacement?
Seems there is a HUGE difference between a building that has a roof replaced for 2 days/20 years, versus one where a crew of people hang out on the roof all day, every day, driving nails, and it would be unreasonable to claim that as the damages. Not to say there isn't perhaps a better way of determining damages, however.
To be clear, I have never intended to suggest that replacing the roof on a rental is something that a tenant can seek damages for, without more. But depending on all the facts, there may be claims available.
To make this a little bit more concrete (and hopefully answer your question in the process), let's consider specifically a hypothetical where I live in the state of California and let's suppose I am renting a house from a landlord (including all of the land, not just the interior of the building) and I am awoken out of bed one Sunday morning and I find that the landlord is replacing the roof on the house. I make some inquiries of the landlord and he does not assert that there is any emergency. He also does not claim that he ever provided any notice that the repairs would be taking place. I was planning to spend this Sunday at home enjoying myself, but because of the noise, I am forced to abandon the property and go elsewhere. If I had had advance notice, I would have made plans, but because of the lack of notice, I have no plans, and am forced to randomly abandon my home when I was planning to stay there.
On these hypothetical facts, I would almost certainly be able to prove trespass to land by the landlord. In California, a landlord generally has no right to enter the property he is leasing out, subject to very specific exceptions.
Avalon Pacific--Santa Ana, L.P. v. HD Supply Repair & Remodel, LLC, 192 Cal.App.4th 1183 (Ca Ct App 2011). One exception is for "necessary or agreed repairs", but unless there is an emergency, entry for that purpose is only authorised with reasonable notice "in writing", which notice must include "the date, approximate time, and purpose of the entry". Cal. Civ. Code § 1954. On my hypothetical set of facts, the landlord has not complied with these requirements, so he has no legal basis for being on the property to complete the repairs, so I can prevail on a claim of trespass to land against him (and possibly against the workers too, especially if I inform them that they are trespassing, but that's more complicated so I won't address it). Note that
causing other people to enter land unlawfully is actionable as trespass to land against the person who caused the trespass, so it doesn't matter whether the landlord physically entered the property himself.
Since I can prove trespass to land, there is no need to prove damages to obtain a judgment in my favour. See generally
Belle Terre Ranch, Inc. v. Wilson, 182 Cal.Rptr.3d 393 (Ca Ct App 2015) (citing many cases for this proposition). The question then becomes how much damages could I get. In the absence of any argument for economic harm, the California courts award a $1 judgment. See, e.g.,
id. Although this is not a financially significant amount, it is still a judicial confirmation that the landlord was legally in the wrong, and it is absolutely not the same as the claim being dismissed. To get more damages than $1, however, I would need an economic argument.
On my hypothetical facts, the economic harm would be that I was forced to abandon the property on Sunday, even though I would have preferred to stay there. In other words, the economic harm is the difference between an apartment where I randomly am forced to abandon my home on a Sunday morning, compared to one where I do not have to do that. In truth, it's difficult to say how the Court would value that. I might argue that it is the equivalent to the apartment not being available at all on that date, such that the rent should be pro-rated to remove that day, but the landlord might say it was still broadly usable, just not to full effect. As mentioned, I don't know how the Court would rule, but that is the framework it might apply. And it's important to note that even if the Court finds I suffered no economic harm, it would still enter a judgment in my favour, not dismiss the case.