Author

Bornstein Law

Browsing

Coined the “Fair Chance” ordinance, lawmakers in Berkeley have introduced a measure that would prohibit landlords from conducting criminal background checks in vetting most applicants for rental housing throughout the city.

Owner-occupied properties that are triplexes, duplexes and single-family residences would be exempted, a concession made after mom-and-pop landlords shared unique concerns they live in close quarters with tenants.

The sweeping ordinance would be the first of its kind in California, though we hasten to say San Francisco and Richmond have banned criminal background checks in a smaller subset of affordable or subsidized housing. San Francisco illegalized criminal background checks in public housing, while Richmond’s ban goes a step further by applying the ban to all subsidized affordable housing and nonprofit housing.

Elsewhere, Portland and Seattle have inked similar laws that cover private rentals, though Seattle’s groundbreaking ordinance is mired in legal disputes. It seems that similar arguments are being made for and against Berkeley’s proposed amnesty against renters with a checkered past.

Predictably, tenants’ advocates led by Alameda County Fair Chance Housing Coalition and Just Cities, point out the structural barriers for ex-offenders reintegrating into society. Some studies cited find that formerly incarcerated people are almost 10 times more likely to be homeless than the general public, as their rental applications are discarded. On its website, the organization articulates in mission statement.

By creating equal opportunities for housing applicants, we can ensure that formerly incarcerated residents aren’t boxed out of housing and have a stable and healthy life upon release.

This sentiment is shared by Berkeley Mayor Jesse Arreguin and a chorus of others who note ex-offenders have paid their dues to society, and raise other concerns like unreliability of criminal reports, wrongful convictions, and a tendency for some landlords to promote fear-mongering.

A competing narrative by property owners and their advocates

Meanwhile, landlords argue for their free speech, property rights and the safety of neighboring tenants, claiming that such “ban the box” laws leave them blind to relevant public information about rental risks.

The law’s premise ‘is this paternalistic idea that the city gets to decide what information is relevant or important to a landlord’s decision making process.’

~ Ethan Blevins, an attorney at the Pacific Legal Foundation

If the ordinance is passed, aggrieved tenants could sue landlords over violations, similar to remedies afforded to tenants under Berkeley’s ban on discrimination against housing voucher holders. It seems that thus far, the city has not had the capacity to bring affirmative lawsuits against landlord offenders who blatantly advertise their disfavor of Section 8.

Yet as a sidebar, we urge property owners not to get a false sense of bravado from a lack of enforcement. There are many enterprising attorneys who can fill the void. A case in point is a San Diego attorney who recently single handedly filed more than 50 lawsuits on behalf of clients, alleging apartment listing ads contained language like “NO Section 8,” in violation of a local ordinance.

In an earlier blog, we went over a confluence of factors that have concealed rental risks. Limitations in technology, a culture of amnesty and new laws that impede the ability to detect evictions and other blemishes make it vital for landlords to do proper tenant screening on the front end, something our founding attorney accentuated in this video.

Our takeaways from Berkeley’s proposed ordinance and those that mirror it

Our role at Bornstein Law is not to take sides or legislate, but merely to advise owners and real estate practitioners on the legal implications of their policies and actions. The law attempts to strike a balance between the interests of property owners and the societal interest of transitioning stigmatized ex-offenders into normal life.

RELATED BLOG: Criminal background checks in tenant screening

Regardless of the fate of Berkeley’s ordinance, we can offer some emphatic statements.

If your rental business has a blanket ban against renting to tenants with a criminal history, it is likely a violation of fair housing laws and if you use criminal records to screen tenants, the policy must be narrowly tailored, meaning owners or their agents must weigh the nature and severity of the offense, and whether there is actual danger presented if renting to the tenant.
These carefully thought out policies should also be applied uniformly. If you deny a tenancy based on a criminal background check, yet welcome another ex-offender into rental units, you are inviting liability.
It’s also worth noting that landlords need explicit permission and signature from applicants to conduct a criminal background check. The field can be narrowed, however, by screening only those applicants who survive other checks, such as a credit report. Let’s move on to a larger, parting thought.

California defines housing discrimination more broadly than federal law, as a pool of “protected” classes are ever-expanding. When denying a tenancy, less communication is more, because common factors in costly lawsuits are landlord statements that shoo away certain groups or favoring others.

A landlord need not accept a certain tenant who is considered protected or vulnerable, but the prospective tenants cannot be given the cold shoulder simply because of their status.

For those of you who have followed us for any period of time, we are probably preaching to the choir. But even saying that may fly in the face of fair housing laws because of a religious connotation.

Winding down the earthly affairs of a departed loved one is a daunting task, and the pain of losing someone is often exasperated by the financial and legal complications that death brings.

When the estate home is occupied by tenants or beneficiaries/relatives or others who overwarm their welcome, this process can be all the more harrowing.

Let’s compartmentalize exactly who is occupying the property after the owner passes away. Are they tenants or licensees? That’s the quintessential question that must be answered, so let’s define the two.

It should go without saying that a tenant is someone who lawfully occupies the property by paying rent and have entered into a rental agreement with the deceased owner. What is worth noting is that upon death of the landlord, the tenancy will normally survive. Put differently, the passing of the owner is not a “just cause” for eviction, nor is it an opportunity for heirs to indiscriminately raise the rent without regard to rent control ordinances and the agreed-upon lease they inherited. Tenants cannot be summarily uprooted because there is a new sheriff.

When the property is legally transferred to someone else, the new landlord must honor the pre-existing lease, and likewise, the tenant is bound by the terms and conditions of that lease. In the eyes of the law, this covenant is a living, breathing creature and continues after the landlord’s passing.

When someone inherits a rental property and suddenly fills the shoes of the landlord, he or she is well advised to become familiar with state and local laws relating to this unique relationship, as there are many nuances in landlord-tenant law. In this already stressful time, adding new layers of complexity by staying compliant with myriad statutes and ordinances can compound the pressure and expose unsuspecting heirs to liability if there are any missteps.

It’s been said that ignorance of the law is no defense. That a novice landlord was bequeathed a rental property and was not versed in landlording rules will be not be an acceptable excuse in front of the court or local rent boards when a dispute arises.

More often than not, though, the heirs don’t want the investment property – they want to liquidate it, especially with the red-hot sticker prices of real estate in the Bay Area. A property that is vacant and properly staged will typically sell for more than if there are inhabitants residing in it. Bornstein Law can avail several possible avenues to help you effectuate the vacancy, but let’s move onto dwellers of the estate home who are not tenants.

When opportunistic or unauthorized residents claim the home of the deceased, many decision makers are conflict avoiders and put their head in the sand.

This is a delicate, usually emotionally charged subject. When the property owner passes, heirs and beneficiaries may assert they are entitled to the premises, or just kind of casually stake out a living space, as if pitching a tent, whether or not they are afforded the legal right to do so. Since they are close blood relatives or their acquaintances, the wayward guests may be parasitic and/or impede the sale of the property.

The buck stops with the Personal Representative, executor, administrator, trustee, whatever the title of the singular person in charge, but oftentimes this person lets people live in the estate home in an informal arrangement because it is family. This can quickly get out of hand, especially when roommates are added to the equation, rent exchanges hands, and it is later argued that tenancies are created. Worse yet, these inadvertent tenancies may be subject to rent and/or eviction controls, so the innocent heir looking to help someone out by providing a place to stay in the inherited home can be unknowingly exposed to a set of onerous rent and eviction controls when the resident hunkers down.

RELATED POST: The difficult prospect of evicting a relative

Unlike a buttoned-up tenancy agreement, a licensee is someone who is given limited access to a property. With Thanksgiving nearing, here is an easy example: You invite some friends over for leftover turkey and watch a football game. After a while, they will leave. As a licensee, they can’t stay there without permission or claim they are in possession of the property. They have to go when it’s time to go.

If someone continues to stay after the game is over and the pumpkin pie is gone, we won’t go so far as to say they are “squatters” who helped themselves to the premises wthout the owner’s permission, a subject we took on here. If they continue to stay after it is time to depart, though, the guest has violated a license to stay.

It’s the same concept with relatives and others who linger around when the owner passes. Assuming no tenancy was established with the guest/licensee, whoever is in charge of the estate can ask the unauthorized occupier to vacate the premises. If the recalcitrant guest continues to stay, a forcible detainer action can be filed.

An unlawful detainer and a forcible detainer are similar creatures – the end goal is to legally remove an occupant. Where the two differ is how the occupant plopped into the unit in the first place. If the occupant is a tenant, a carefully choreographed eviction procedure is required in the form of an unlawful detainer action. If the occupant is not a tenant but merely a licensee, a forcible detainer is the appropriate vehicle to create a vacancy.

We hasten to say that even without a written lease, a tenancy can be created when the guest pays rent to whoever is tasked with managing the estate’s assets. Let’s take a hypothetical.  The owner passes away and there is a sibling who wants to stay in the estate home. The individual reaches out to his sister, who has been appointed the Personal Representative responsible for liquidating the estate’s assets, and the incoming occupant offers to pay his sister to stay in the home of the deceased. The Personal Representative accepts the payment and sometime later, it’s time to sell and the PR asks her brother to leave. He refuses to leave.

In this event, an unlawful detainer would be necessary because money exchanged hands, a tenancy was commenced, and worse yet, the tenancy can be subject to just cause eviction rules. When monetary compensation is accepted, the occupant is not a licensee, but is a tenant and afforded the full suite of protections that come with a tenancy.

Parting thoughts

Being appointed the person to settle an estate is both an honor and a burden, and this burden is more cumbersome when family members, caregivers or others attempt to live in the property of the deceased. This requires stern action, “tough love,” if you will, but oftentimes this period is clouded by emotion and a reluctance to ruffle feathers. A competent attorney removed from the emotional fray can help make this process just a little easier so you can regain control of the property and move on to build greater memories.

Orinda was ranked one of “America’s friendliest towns” by Forbes and hasn’t recorded a homicide in nearly a decade, and so this posh community was an unlikely place for a mass shooting in a short-term rental.

While Airbnb advertises its value as helping make sharing easy, enjoyable and safe, it was sheer panic when a quiet Halloween was disturbed as jolted neighbors heard screams and the sound of bullets at a party around 10:50 pm, sadly taking the lives of five young people and injuring several others.

The Halloween horror took place in a spacious home nestled on the hillside at 114 Lucille Way. After the mansion was listed on Airbnb by owner Michael Wang , a Lafayette woman was all too willing to rent this gem, purportedly telling the owner that her asthmatic family needed a dwelling with fresh air to escape wildfire smoke.

In planned attendance would be 12 guests, just one shy of the maximum occupancy limits found in Section 17.3.12 of the Orina Municipal Code, but did this storyline smell a little fishy?

Daniel Bornstein said that a one-night rental on a Halloween night in suburbia should have raised eyebrawls, telling KTVU Fox 2 that greater scrutiny should be applied to ensure Airbnb is a good citizen.

13 is enough

Cities have wide latitude in enacting ordinances that regulate the modern-day iteration of the temporary flop and in Oriana, the number of occupants is capped to 2 people per bedroom, plus 3 additional people. As for the Lucille Way property, only 13 people would be allowed on the premises under the city’s formula.

Notably, owners are bound by stipulations made in the city’s Short-Term Rental Registration and Transient Occupancy Tax Registration Certificate Form and must attest their compliance with noise and parking regulations, among other rules. With everything in order for the get together, the transaction proceeded without complication.

A close-knit family reunion seemed innocuous enough, but what actually followed was a steady stream of over 100 revelers into the doors after responding to a widely promoted “Airbnb mansion party.” Take a look at the viral flyer that was purportedly used to publicize the doomed event on Instagram. BYOB and BYOW stands for “bring your own booze,” and “bring your own weed,” never a good omen for unsuspecting owners who hand over the keys.

Who will pay for ‘Airbnb Mansion Party’ deaths, injuries?

This is the provocative headline question posed in a San Francisco Chronicle article that enlisted answers from a panel of attorneys, Daniel Bornstein among them. The consensus?  It is unlikely that any criminal charges will be filed against the homeowner, renter, or anyone other than who pulled the trigger, or accomplices that aided in the shooting.

“Individuals are generally not liable for the criminal conduct of third parties,” Daniel told the Chronicle, though homeowners can be criminally culpable if there is a foreseeable threat to short-term rental visitants and this threat is ignored.

For example, if the owner of a short-term rental knows that a balcony is structurally unsound, lists the property on a home-sharing platform, and people then fall when the balcony collapses, this can rise to the level of a criminal act. Or, if the owner rents to groups that are known to have “bad blood” and there is a reasonable expectation that a fight will break out, it may be criminal to put together this toxic brew of people. This doesn’t appear to be the case at hand, though.

When short term rentals go horribly wrong, all parties tend to retreat into a shell and use the common narrative that “it wasn’t me,” and we would expect nothing less in this case. Before we test that defense, let’s look at where everyone stands on the firing squad in any inevitable lawsuit.

Poll: Americans strongly support reforming federal law to rein illegal short-term rentals

Does the buck stop with the homeowner?

When bodily injuries occur in a short-term rental, most claims would be governed by premises liability law, a subset of personal injury law. Premises liability law is based on the notion that property owners have a legal duty to keep lawful guests safe. In the eyes of the law, Airbnb guests are considered “invitees” and as such, are afforded a high degree of legal protection.

The riddle to solve is whether the owner’s negligence caused or contributed to the havoc wreaked in the rental home . California Civil Code 1714(a) makes it clear that:

“Everyone is responsible, not only for the result of his or her willful acts, but also for an injury occasioned to another by his or her want of ordinary care or skill in the management of his or her property or person…”

The plaintiff must prove four elements, two of which should be clear cut in this massacre. The homeowner owned, leased, occupied, or controlled the Airbnb-listed property and certainly, the plaintiff or plaintiffs were harmed when invitees perished.

What is left for a judge or jury to decide is whether the owners were negligent in the use of maintenance of the property, and this negligence was a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff’s harm. This will have to be aired out in court, and what we have in law is competing narratives.

We know from the news feed what the owner’s account is. He claims that after receiving noise complaints from neighbors, he checked his home security cameras. After discovering a raucous party, the owner told the Chronicle, he called the police and was en route to the scene at the first sign of distress, but not before a hail of gunfire erupted.

“We called the police. They were on the way to go there to stop them, but before we got there the neighbor already sent us a message saying there was a shooting,” he was quoted as saying. Whether the owner’s watchfulness, attention, caution and prudence (what we call a duty of care) is enough to let the owner off the hook will be litigated in court.

In the blame game, the owner points the finger to Airbnb, saying that homeowners “can’t control” who rent their homes on the platform. “Airbnb does not release the customer information before they really book, so we have no way to know. We also tell them there’s a maximum [number of] people and no parties, but people lie.”

Airbnb will take exception, arguing it is not a puppet and points out the owner is the final arbiter of who gets the welcoming mat.

Whatever plaintiffs emerge, they will surely submit that the owner should have anticipated something could go wrong at 114 Lucille Way.

The mansion has been on Orinda’s radar for some time, after the city issued citations for violating local parking ordinances and exceeding the legal capacity of the home. Neighbor complaints over noise and large congregations put the owner on notice that this was a potential party spot, let alone Halloween night, and he was obligated to take extra precaution, the plaintiffs will likely argue.

“It wasn’t me” may or may not work for the owner. With this box checked, let’s move onto Airbnb to see if they can get a black eye.

We would fully expect Airbnb to assert they were far removed from the chaos and is not responsible for the actions of gun-toting guests. The peer-to-peer sharing company was merely a conduit between the owner and errant occupants, they will say.

Airbnb didn’t pull the trigger, didn’t load the gun, but did they hand the firearm to the perpetrator by making the ‘Airbnb Mansion Party’ available for the world to see? Before testing Airbnb’s defense and examining what liability may await them, their response to the shooting and some background is instructive.

No stranger to controversy and lawsuits the world over, Airbnb’s PR machine was quick to respond in order to get ahead of the disaster and try to win in the court of opinion. Brian Chesky took to Twitter announcing a ban on “party houses” and a commitment to clean house by removing bad actors. Although we have heard these pledges before, the CEO and co-founder promises to accelerate this process in a 10-day sprint.

We might express skepticism that any monumental change can be achieved easily or quickly. We noted in earlier posts that it has taken years to fight endemic discrimination in short-term rentals and bring these properties up to compliance with fair housing laws, and this bumpy road towards cultural change continues to this day.

Although the token ban on party houses and strong language was a PR necessity, it’s unclear how this disfavor against rowdy parties will be enforced, even with newfangled technology and a dedicated party house “rapid response team” being assembled. By their own admission to reporters, Airbnb said parties, weapons, smoking and marijuana were already banned under existing rules, so it now becomes a matter of increased monitoring and policing high-risk rentals.

No plans for metal detectors or drug-sniffing K-9’s in short-term rentals are being contemplated , but in an email to employees, Airbnb Co-Founder, CEO and Head of Community, Brian Chesky, shared a four-pronged plan to instill trust in an anarchy.

A donut hole in Airbnb’s litigation strategy?

When it comes to maneuvering the law, Airbnb has been proactive in suing cities that stand in the way of profits by enacting ordinances that remove lucrative, but illegal listings from their websites.

A recurring theme: invoking the Communications Decency Act, specifically one part of that act known as Section 230. That Section says that internet companies are not responsible for what users post on it. For example, if you post something defamatory on Facebook, you can be held liable, but not Facebook. Yet, many cities have punched back and debunked this logic.

There is a cogent argument that these websites do much more than publish other people’s ads. Short-term rental websites hold the hands of users, helping them register and post listings, connect hosts with prospective renters, provide a mechanism for ratings and feedbacks, and last but not least, put money in its coffers by taking a share of the proceeds. Under this theory, Airbnb is liable for facilitating third-party booking by essentially acting as a co-conspirator.

Airbnb is suing so it could illegally rent out homes in the city. Not exactly the type of behavior you would expect from good corporate citizen.  
~ Miami Beach Mayor Dan Gelber (Bloomberg Law, 1/4/2019) 

The courts’ interpretation of the 1996 law and the protections it affords Airbnb and its rivals has been put under a microscope, with varying outcomes.  Several federal and state courts have sided with cities by agreeing the high-profile unicorn is complicit in providing aid and comfort to owners who engage in illegal rentals.

With such a horrific event on its home soil, It’s with little surprise that the City of Orinda has entered into the fray, with proposals being floated to further reign in short-term rentals, if not ban them altogether.

Following the logic that Airbnb is so hands on and more than a matchmaker, can Airbnb be held partially responsible for the shooting deaths of five bystanders and the injuries of many more? Its convoluted and ironclad “Terms of Service” says no, but given the high profile of this case, you can rest assured that disclaiming the horrific event away will not be so easy.

A mass murder is not the garden variety of damage to a property that can go away by referencing 70 pages of fine print , so we expect that there will be a fight. As Daniel told the Chronicle, “someone will have to compensate someone for the harm that was generated in that house.” Given that there is hell to pay by somebody, Airbnb is a natural target with its deep pockets.

Of course, the vast and battle-tested legal team of Airbnb is well prepared to get into the ring. While the company’s core business model is home sharing, a close second is litigation, so they will be a formidable opponent for any enterprising attorneys that go after them.

What about the renter’s fault?

Unless we are getting misinformation, there is a prima facie instance of deception on the part of the renter, who indicated the colossal home would be utilized for a small gathering of family members, only to turn into an epic party for college-aged students.

Instagram user “tonecapone300” was ostensibly the host of the party, and undoubtedly a person of interest in a criminal investigation. Whoever is hiding behind this handle, they will likely resurface in any future civil litigation as the organizer of the doomed event.

This is a perfect storm of the risk you face when you arbitrage your house on Airbnb … You may be ‘sharing’ with people who you don’t know from a hole in the head.

~ Daniel Bornstein to the Chronicle

Many hosts assume that if calamity strikes their short-term rental, it will be covered by homeowner’s insurance. Not true.

Business activities operated out of a home is likely not covered. While some policies allow owners to rent the home to a limited degree, the insurance company might require advanced notice, or to purchase a separate endorsement. A host’s personal umbrella policy may also have no protection when it comes to a business activity. Airbnb’s “host protection insurance” says it will cough up to $1 million to protect against third party claims for personal injury or property damage. This amount seems meager for the loss of five lives, and there are many loopholes, so if you are looking to rent out your home, it’s best to consult an attorney to ensure all the I’s are dotted and the T’s are crossed.

Short-term rental insurance is a topic we will take on in a future post, so be sure to subscribe, or follow us on Facebook for the latest insights.

 

From time to time, servicemembers and housing law intersect and with newfound protections afforded to the men and women in uniform, Bornstein Law wanted to revisit this topic.

We noted earlier that while tenants ordinarily have no right to terminate their lease early because of a new job or job relocation, military personnel have been carved out as an exception if they receive permanent change of station orders, or if their expected deployment will be 90 days or more. If either of these criterion is met, tenants on active duty can terminate the lease with 30 days’ written notice, without penalty.

That is courtesy, in part, of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, a 2003 law that restricts or limits actions against military personnel who are inherently transient. The Act was designed to relieve the stress of active duty service members and their families and allow military members to “devote their entire energy to the defense needs of the Nation.”

There are numerous obligations of both the landlord and departing service member under federal and California law, but we won’t get lost in the weeds now – suffice it to say that military personnel are given deference when being reassigned.

If amnesty is given to military members who are tenants, will they also be given favoritism if they are landlords?

That’s an interesting question we posed when we observed the case of Ballinger v. City of Oakland. When duty called for the Oakland couple, they left for Maryland for a short time but before doing so, rented out their home on a month-to-month basis. When it was time to come back home after their assignment was complete, however, the service members with two small children in tow had to fork over nearly $7,000 in relocation payments to their tenants.

The Air Force couple challenged the relocation scheme on constitutional grounds, but the court ruled they failed to “plead a cognizable legal theory” and that paying money to outgoing tenants is not an illegal seizure of property.

Military members get added recognition under new state law

The Governor recently signed a flurry of housing-related bills, two of them directly related to veterans, though not every landlord is a fan. In today’s polarized political climate, though, expressing concerns over added protections for veterans can be viewed as being against the troops.

SB 644 lowers limits on security deposits for active military – service members need only pay one month’s rent for unfurnished units and two months’ rent for furnished units.

If, however, the applicant has a poor credit history or track record of damaging rental property, these more relaxed security deposit rules would not apply. The lower security deposit requirement will not apply if the unit is rented to several individuals outside the service member’s close-knit family.

Although the bill has received widespread support and has been heralded by housing advocates, anti-poverty groups and veterans’ organizations, a high security deposit is sacrosanct to some landlords who fear that they will not have enough money on hand to pay for repairs and make no distinction that the tenant is in uniform.

At Bornstein Law, we say lighten up and give them a break. There’s plenty of more pressing concerns operating a rental business than shaving a security deposit for those who risk their lives to defend a person’s right to own a property.

Anti-discrimination laws extend to military members and veterans

We have stated in many venues that California has an ever-expanding pool of “protected” classes that cannot be discriminated against, and SB 222 adds veterans to a list of tenants who cannot be given the cold shoulder because of veteran or military status. Declaring that such bias is against public policy, the bill prohibits rental property owners from refusing to accept Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing Vouchers.

General Douglas MacArthur once said, “Whoever said the pen is mightier than the sword obviously never encountered automatic weapons.” We agree and pay homage to our brave heroes, but in landlord-tenant matters, we are reduced to the pen and legislation to ease the burden.

Everyone likes a comeback story, and at the risk of being wrong twice, we see a comeback story being unfolded.

Accessory Dwelling Units, also known as ADUs, granny flats, secondary units or cottages, are pint-sized units added to a property inside the envelope of an existing building and are typically developed in an underutilized area such as a garage, lower level storage area, attic space and the like. Traditionally, these compartmentalized units have been used to house relatives, but have been lumped into a larger public policy of increasing affordable housing stock, period.

In theory, these small dwellings could be a solution to California’s housing shortage because of their low cost and immediate feasibility, but in the real world, ADU projects have been costly and lengthy. We are encouraged, though, that the needle of progress is finally moving in the right direction.

We came across this scholarly report prepared for the San Francisco chapter of the Urban Land Institute entitled, “Jumpstarting the market for accessory dwelling units.” Drawing from the successes in Seattle, Portland and Vancouver, the study concludes, among other things, that making loans more accessible to more homeowners will spur ADU production.

The study also observes that city-approved manuals detailing the regulatory, design and project management processes furnished to homeowners, coupled with technical assistance and promotional efforts would likely help boost production.

San Jose, for one, got the memo and is taking the charge by releasing pre-approved floor plans for minimalist prefab homes. But, the pot is sweetened by a newly minted, city-funded loan program that would put $20,000 into the budgets of eligible homeowners to drop these pint-sized into backyards throughout the city.

Redwood City-based Abodu was the chosen one in designing the first round of pre-approved ADUs for San Jose households, and you can get a glimpse into the 495-square foot home here. For the price tag of $199,000, you can have a backyard cottage delivered and installed within two weeks.

San Diego has also been an early adopter and San Diego County Supervisor Dianne Jacob makes her case for slashing the red tape and cost barriers attendant to ADUs to make a dent in solving housing needs.

Up until the 911 calls for increased housing stock, land-use policy remained sacrosanct, no matter how dysfunctional the outcome.

Through carrots and sticks, the state has attempted to cajole housing-starved municipalities to take sensible steps toward slashing regulations surrounding ADUs, but a recent spate of laws has increasingly taken the form of a cudgel. Legislators have removed burdensome regulations like minimum lot sizes and setback requirements and have allowed up to two ADUs on every single-family lot. Senate Bill 13, meantime, axes owner-occupancy requirements and limits impact fees.

Even in San Francisco, the capital of burdensome rules for owners,  lawmakers have unanimously voted for a pilot program to waive Department of Building Inspection fees for ADUs, though the effective date has yet to be announced. For its part, though, the city has prepared an extensive guide with the attempt to sell the benefits of ADUs.

Our takeaways

As pioneers in navigating the permitting and legal complexities of constructing Accessory Dwelling Units or legalizing units in the shadows, Bornstein Law is encouraged that California and local municipalities have put away the scalpel and are taking a machete to convoluted city permits, exorbitant fees and other red tape.

Refreshingly, while we normally refer to added regulations when we cite a new regulatory regime, the one upon us now has peeled back onerous rules and so it may be time to reconsider whether building or legalizing an ADU makes more sense today. Of course, you can count on Bornstein Law to help you evaluate the risks an opportunities involved.

AB 1482 would impose statewide rent control and “just cause” eviction policies. To the elatement of tenants’ advocates, the measure has cleared many legislative hurdles to date.

As the chief architect of AB 1482, our own Assemblymember David Chiu, a Democratic from San Francisco, got some timely juice from Governor Newsom, who was recently quoted saying that statewide controls are “long overdue in the state of California.”

The venue in which Governor Newsom chose to make his remarks is not accidental and may be a double-whammy for rental housing providers. The occasion?

Mortgage servicers whose lending practices allegedly contributed to the 2018 financial crisis added $331 million dollars to the state coffers as part of a settlement. The Governor announced his support for AB1482 at an event promoting the allocation of $20 million dollars from this pot to provide free legal assistance to renters facing eviction. You can get the official scoop here, or for more on the controversial use of funds and concerns of misuse, there’s an interesting side story in this article.

What, exactly, would statewide controls look like?

Loosely modeled after Oregon’s calculus, AB 1482 would cap annual rent increases at 7% plus the Consumer Price Index, so let’s use a ballpark figure of around 10%. Nearly all of California’s rental housing stock, including apartments and some single-family homes, would be enveloped by the new law. With the state as the emperor, AB 1482 would apply in local jurisdictions where voters and elected leaders have rejected rent control policies.

Immune from the law would be new constructs less than ten years old, as well as detached single-family homes when the owner does not own more than 10 units in their name.

What says the rental property industry?

The debate has been well represented by hundreds of rental housing providers who flocked to the Capitol in opposition, and also in attendance in the latest hearing was Debra Carlton, the California Senior Vice President of Public Affairs.

“We don’t want to scare off development… We don’t want builders to go to other states. Unfortunately, we are seeing this now.”
~ Debra Carlton

She also reminded lawmakers that while new housing construction is sorely needed, developers have bowed out of many large residential projects originally slated for Southern California and have chosen to take the path of least resistance by going to Texas, Utah, Colorado and Nevada instead.

If AB 1482 becomes law, Oregon offers a premonition. As a pioneer in statewide rent control law, the state’s investment in multifamily housing has free fallen 38%.

“Just cause” eviction amendments

Bornstein Law has said in many venues that what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. While photos, logs of correspondence, testimony of neighboring residents and the like go a long way for landlords to win an unlawful detainer action under the theory of a nuisance, AB 1482 would make this non-optional.

If the law comes to fruition, landlords need more than a good reason to evict – the eviction must be supported by the testimony of third-party witnesses. This tall burden of proof will make it difficult, if not impossible, to sever tenancies with problematic tenants.

What is the status of the law now?

After sailing through several processes, AB 1482 now falls into the lap of the Appropriations Committee,  a body that is known as a graveyard where difficult legislation can be quietly put to rest without forcing lawmakers to vote up or down on the bill, and we hope that this committee lives up to its grim reputation on this bill.

Here’s an infographic courtesy of the California Apartment Association illustrating where the bill is at now, and serves as a civics lesson for the rest of us.

Our final takes

It seems that the push for statewide rent control has come full circle. After voters resoundingly rejected Proposition 10 at the ballot box, we predicted that unrelenting tenant advocates would take the fight to local municipalities and they did, with varied success.

With still more upward pressure on rent, the case for expanded tenant protections reaches the domes of the Capitol again, but this time with more open ears and the sympathy of the Governor. While we hope that cooler heads prevail in the Senate, it is now time for rental property owners to think in terms of statewide rent and eviction controls.

Of course, you can count on Bornstein Law to keep you updated in the weeks to come and advise a course of action in the eventuality of new laws that impact your real estate business.

It is the responsibility of both the landlord and the tenant to maintain a habitable dwelling, but when there is a breakdown in communication, problems can brew and quickly escalate.

At the end of the day, rental property owners, real estate professionals, Bornstein Law and our property management arm, Bay Property Group, are in the same business. It boils down to managing relationships. Some are more difficult to manage than others.

After being inserted into thousands of problematic landlord-tenant relationships, the underlying cause in a staggering number of these cases is a lack of communication in many forms. Inspections of the rental property, or lack thereof, can serve as a perfect nest for this insidious miscommunication.

Often, the condition of the property is not brought into the light of day, and the culpability can rest with the landlord, tenant, or both parties who share the dual responsibility to create and maintain a “healthy home,” the term embraced by rental inspection programs.

Let’s talk about potential gaffes in the communication around inspections, starting with the tenant who has a responsibility to report maintenance issues.

Tenants can put shade on the property

Not uncommonly, tenants obstruct access to the rental property to conceal what is going on inside, and this becomes a cat and mouse game with the landlord. Whether it is because of nefarious activity, damage to the dwelling, or substandard conditions, we have seen tenants go to great lengths to keep their abode away from prying eyes.

Indeed, so adamant are some tenants in denying access to the unit, we have observed some who refuse to let in exterminators to remediate a bed bug infestation. Read our article on this subject

With the limited stock of affordable housing, we also see tenants who don’t want to initiate inspections or subsequent repairs for fear they will be displaced – they don’t want to stir up any dust.

Still other tenants are who we would call “silent tenants” who are too busy to engage with the landlord and, despite numerous notices, do not allow contractors access to their unit to make repairs.

See our article on the psychological profiles of tenants

Concerns of illegal immigrants

Tenants who do not have legal immigration status can be especially prone to burrow into the unit quietly and hesitate to report maintenance issues because they do not want to draw attention, a perceived threat that has been made all the more real by recent ICE raids. Rental housing providers should be aware that immigration status cannot be used as leverage against residents, a topic we took on in our article on what the immigration debate means for rental housing providers.

The cloth cuts both ways, so we pivot to the landlord’s role in ascertaining the condition of the building.

We have said in many venues, such as policing your rental units to identify unauthorized short-term rental activity, that owners or their agents should be the eyes and ears of their property. Although on-site inspections are usually conducted annually, an ironclad lease can stipulate to only two inspections in a year.

Of course, the landlord can get a glimpse into the condition of their property by making necessary or agreed repairs, decorations, alterations or improvements, assuming the tenant has not put up roadblocks as discussed above.

We hasten to say that in many rent-controlled jurisdictions, a failure to give the landlord proper access to inspect or repair the unit constitutes a “just cause” for eviction.

Some landlords avail themselves of Health and Safety Code Section 13113.7 and 13260 to repair, test, and/or maintain smoke or carbon monoxide detectors, but we urge caution when using vehicles such as this, because the excessive “dropping in” can interfere with the tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment and create hard feelings between the landlord and tenant, something we punctuated in our earlier article. We would also be remiss to say that, barring an emergency, landlords must give proper notice to enter the unit regardless of the reasoning to enter.

Real-life consequences

In a perfect world, rental property owners or managers would routinely inspect their properties, tenants would take good care of their units, alert the landlord/manager to any maintenance issues, and allow access to make repairs. Yet, it is not a perfect world we live in and there are plenty of opportunities for failures in inspecting or reporting.

These errors have reared its ugly head in many forms. An overwhelming number of blight complaints, health risks attendant to older housing stock, and recent infernos have forced cities to take a hard look at measures to ensure the livability of tenants by creating proactive inspection programs that identify potential hazards early on.

Of course, the tragic Ghost Ship fire in Oakland is seared into memory and has served as an impetus to these programs, as well as lead poisoning and other risks that threaten the most vulnerable populations, concerns articulated in this moving video by the Healthy Homes Department of Alameda County.

Many of these initiatives have a component of “self-certification,” the process by which landlords religiously make inspections, but are subject to random, proactive audits by the city.

Parting thoughts

Substandard conditions are not acceptable, but now is not the time for finger-pointing. Bornstein Law has always operated on the presumption there are good landlords and bad landlords and in like fashion, good tenants and bad tenants. Yet, we maintain that the vast majority of rental property owners are studious landlords who take good care of their properties and tenants, and so they should not be shouldered with an inordinate amount of blame.

Many problems can be avoided by being tethered to a law firm specializing in managing landlord-tenant relationships and, much like the spirit of proactive rental inspection programs, solve problems before they are enlarged.

If you found this article informative, continue the conversation by following us on Facebook.

 

One of our top New Years resolutions for rental property owners was to have an emergency preparedness plan in place when Mother Nature strikes, and we are sad to fast forward to today when disasters have become the new norm.

RELATED: There’s a 72 percent chance of a major Bay Area quake by 2043

During tragedy, it is time for Californians to come together and extend our hands to victims, not for opportunistic merchants and housing providers to take advantage of the most vulnerable. Yet prosecutors throughout the state are fielding a steady stream of complaints by struggling or displaced residents who stare at rent or lodging hikes, sometimes in excess of 100%.

This disfavor of unconscionable rent hikes has been codified in Penal Code Section 396, which prohibits raising the price of many consumer goods and services by more than 10% after an emergency has been declared by POTUS, the Governor, or a city/county executive officer.

For any who would give in to the temptation to benefit from others’ misfortune, we will take price gouging and charitable solicitation fraud very seriously and will prosecute to the full extent of the law.
~ Kern County District Attorney Cynthia Zimmer

We hasten to say that local laws may also enact their own bans on price gouging. In recent memory, our neighbors in Vallejo ratified a proclamation capping rent increases above 10 percent per year.

Landlords risk getting down a rabbit hole of complexity

While the rules seem straightforward, our hard-won experience has taught us the law is cleaner on the page than it is in real life.

If you own rental housing that was not advertised for rent prior to a declaration of emergency, the law reads that landlords cannot increase the price cannot exceed 160% of the fair market value of rental housing, as determined by HUD.

There are no gambits to circumvent the spirit of the law

Landlords cannot justify an unlawful price by providing added-on services like cleaning, utilities, gardening and the like, because they offer a shorter lease term. Nor can landlords charge more than the allowable price when an insurance company offers to pay a higher price.

Finally, the statute criminalizes the act of evicting a tenant and then re-renting the property at a rate that the landlord would have been prohibited from charging the evicted tenant under the price gouging statute.

There are many nuances with the price gouging ban, best journeyed with an attorney experienced in handling landlord-tenant relationships. If you are contemplating raising rents in any circumstance, much less during a disaster, please seek informed advice first.

In parting thoughts, the vast majority of housing providers have shown great restraint and compassion for those affected by disasters, and we trust that this will continue. It is not only right. It’s the law.

In several past articles on fair housing and Section 8 tenancies, we said that no group should be painted with a broad brush and that discrimination lawsuits are the product of preconceived notions about classes of people.

We might be seen as hypocritical, then, when we outline five profiles of tenants. Not so fast -these personalities span every class, religion, color, source of income, and other characteristics. Indeed, tenants are individuals, and after managing thousands of landlord-tenant relationships, we can provide a contextual framework on where individuals fall into this spectrum.

The political tenant

This tenant inherently sees the landlord-tenant relationship fraught with tension because it begins with the presumption that the landlord is powerful, and the tenant is weak. When the landlord communicates with the political tenant, the tenant is always wary that the landlord is attempting to exploit him or her.

The silent tenant

The silent tenant is just too busy to engage with the landlord and as a result, the landlord may be obstructed in the relationship. For example, the landlord may send letters that go unanswered. When the time comes to make repairs and proper notice is served on the silent tenant, perhaps the landlord still cannot gain access to the unit – the tenant just doesn’t want to be bothered.

Passive aggressive tenant

The passive aggressive tenant can be disappointing because these type of tenants are nice as pie and you think you have a great relationship with such pleasant people but in the end, the tenant takes a surprising turn for the worse.

Passive aggressive tenants are very polite and engaging when you interact with them and they seem to be ideal residents until asked for some sort of responsibility in return as part of a give-and-take relationship. Once they are reminded of their responsibilities, the passive-aggressive tenant takes a hostile stance.

Although they appear to be very nice when there are no underlying issues, these type of tenants will suggest that the landlord has done something wrong to them when concerns are raised or instructions made by the landlord.

The dysfunctional tenant

The dysfunctional tenant’s personal life is constantly embroiled in crisis, making it difficult for them to properly engage in a landlord-tenant relationship. Oftentimes, the dysfunctional tenant will articulate the source of dysfunction to the landlord, in an attempt to gain empathy or sympathy. When the personal crisis leads to nonpayment of rent or other problems in the rental unit, the dysfunctional tenant has no shortage of excuses.

The fifth profile is the perfect tenant who religiously pays rent on time, responds to requests, they are personable and honorable, and that’s the type of relationship landlords would most likely expect.

Let’s move on to how rental property owners can respond to each persona.

As for the political tenant, communication should not be about the relationship itself, but about best practices in the relationship. If, for example, the tenant who has politicized the relationship has not paid the rent on time, you can address the failure to pay rent by saying, “you promised to pay the rent on time, we have a contract – why have you failed to do so?” Both the landlord and tenant have mutual responsibilities, and it is important to set expectations based on this contractual obligation without getting bogged down in the acrimony the political tenant tends to lean towards.

Documentation is always prudent, but even more so with the silent tenant. When tenants do not have the inclination to interact with the owner, the landlord should document their attempts to reach the tenant and amplify their written correspondence with these muted residents. What we’d like to see at Bornstein Law is a paper trail that shows a good-faith effort on behalf of the landlord to have fluid dialog with a tenant who does not reciprocate, so that when there is a conflict later on – for example, when the silent tenant does not grant access to make repairs because he or she has been uncommunicative – you have documentation that shows you as a landlord did your part to have open transmission of information.

When the passive aggressive tenant becomes animated and the landlord believes the tenant is incorrect, landlords should not get involved with drama but instead, pacify the situation. These tenants have a propensity for long-winded dialogue and emails, which can consume a lot of time and energy. The best practice is to not enlarge the discussion but to pacify the tenant by agreeing to disagree, use limited language, and deflate the aggression by moving on.

What landlords should know about dysfunctional tenants is that it is important to compartmentalize their empathy towards a tenant, which can diminish the control of the situation, and the fundamental objective of effectively running a rental business. The key to dealing with dysfunctional tenants is to see beyond the underlying crisis in their life and be firm with expectations.

 

COPA will give “qualified nonprofits” a right of first offer and the right of first refusal when an owner decides to sell a multifamily property.

After a cantankerous and litigated battle to regulate tenant buyouts, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors has upped the ante in tinkering with buyers’ and sellers’ rights and obligations by ushering in the Community Opportunity to Purchase Act (COPA).

When a multifamily property is put up for sale, “qualified nonprofits” will be first in line to scoop them up. Landlords who are subject to the ordinance must let nonprofit organizations know they intend to sell and give these providers of affordable housing the first crack at a purchase offer, but it doesn’t end there.

If a nonprofit comes to the trough, they will be able to match the offer of a private buyer. The seller is not obligated to sell to a nonprofit, but they must give the organization preferential treatment.

How to alert nonprofits of an impending sale?

To give first dibs to nonprofits, multifamily property owners intending to sell will have to notify the Mayor’s Office of Housing and Community Development (MOHCD), a conduit between owners and a cherry-picked group of organizations dedicated to creating permanent affordable housing for low and moderate income residents.

These pre-selected nonprofits need more than the wherewithal to purchase the property; they must also demonstrate the ability to manage it. The legislation will apply to any residential building with at least three rental units or a vacant lot zoned for at least three units, though there are exceptions to every rule.

Get strapped in

COPA raises a number of weighty questions and our friends at the San Francisco Apartment Association have stated the legislation is illegal and unconstitutional. The law is patterned in some ways after Washington DC’s Tenant Opportunity to Purchase Act and the District Opportunity to Purchase Act. Both laws have been the subject of much controversy and numerous lawsuits. Rest assured, San Francisco’s new legislation will similarly be contested.

Sellers and buyers of multifamily properties are ordinarily urged to consider the legal aspects of a transaction, but it is even more imperative to seek the proper counsel of Bornstein Law as COPA begins to take shape.

In the progression of tenants’ rights, there is an interesting riddle being litigated: What, exactly, is a “single-family home” insulated from local rent regulations under the Costa Hawkins Act?

California voters rejected Proposition 10 in 2018 and by so doing, drew a line to temper a city’s impulse to impose rent and eviction controls on certain properties, including single-family homes in most cases. Yet words matter.

Rent control by semantics?

The will of the voters could be circumvented and the agenda of tenants’ rights advocates superimposed, of course, if  a “single family home” is redefined. If the law changes the meaning of a single-family home, it naturally follows that protections will be stripped away from unsuspecting owners who become subject to a new regulatory regime after the language has been altered.

It seems that courts are open to hearing the argument that individual living quarters are considered a “dwelling unit” and thus, subject to rent regulation.

An Alameda County judge recently ruled that the owner of a four-bedroom detached home was indeed answerable to Oakland’s Rent Adjustment Program (“RAP”).

In issuing his ruling, the judge noted that, “For the purpose of landlord-tenant law, a ‘dwelling or unit’ or a ‘dwelling unit’ is not the entire property to which an owner holds title; rather it is an area understood to be committed to the habitation of a given tenant or tenants to the exclusions of others.” Inquiring minds can read the full decision here.

The same logic was used in this Southern California case, where the court ruled that in order for the property to be exempt from the Los Angeles Rent Stabilization Ordinance, a single-family dwelling must be “detached.” It found that the tenants’ rentals are not detached, but that each is part of a single larger structure containing other rental units.

So, gaining steam is a new logic that separates the parts from the whole. If single-family homes are the total pie, living quarters rented out to tenants are a piece of the pie. Those slices of the pie, it is being successfully argued so far, are governed by the protections given to tenants under local ordinances.

An independent judiciary

While we understand in math that fractions are part of the whole, the law has no mathematical certainties. What we have in law are competing narratives. Bornstein Law trusts that the courts will see beyond the horizon of landlord-tenant disputes and ensure all interests are considered impartially.

Where Bornstein Law fits in

Long before new legal theories were articulated by tenant advocates, we have warned that so-called rooming or boarding houses present unique challenges and especially so when tenants move in at different times with multiple rental agreements. Not to mention myriad code issues such as padlocks on the doors of individual rooms, and so forth.

Normally, we would say the stakes are ratcheted up in rent-controlled jurisdictions, but if tenants’ advocates have their way with case law, there will be no distinction with single-family homes.

Rest assured, the law is increasingly turning against landlords who create improvised or crowded living quarters just because space exists, and this disfavor has now trickled down to homeowners who may just want to make ends meet or get a few extra bucks by renting out a room or two.

As always, you can count on Bornstein Law for proper counsel in any type of rental relationship, however mundane or complicated.

We’ve all seen the anti-tobacco propaganda plastering the airwaves, but a revolution against vaping has been long underway. In San Francisco, for example, over 68% of voters recently ushered in Proposition E, a ban on the sale of flavored tobacco products including e-cigarette liquids, flavored little cigars, and menthol cigarettes.

In case you were wondering, landlords can prohibit the use of electronic cigarettes, also known as e-cigs, vapes, vape pens, mods and tanks, among other terms. The newest craze is the brand-centric term of “JUULing.” Some e-cigarettes are designed to resemble a traditional cigarette, while others take the appearance of cigars, pipes, pens and even sleek USB flash drives.

However cleverly marketed as a tool to improve the lives of smokers with an alternative and to accelerate cigarette displacement, the California Business and Professions Code, as well as the California Health & Safety Code, makes no distinction. Vaping is considered smoking and tobacco products include any “device that delivers nicotine or other vaporized liquids to the person inhaling from the device, including, but limited to, an electronic cigarette, cigar, pipe, or hookah.” It is well settled, then, that vapers cannot circumvent prohibitions of smoking, and this extends to rental units.

Under Cal. Civ. Code §1947.5, a landlord of a residential dwelling may prohibit smoking of any tobacco product, including electronic cigarettes, on the property or any portion of the building.

Now that we know that landlords can ban e-cigarettes, let’s dive into the “why” and “how.”

Although chain-smoking tenants notoriously leave behind nicotine-stained film that discolors everything the smoke comes in contact with, e-cigarettes are no better. Vaping is a misleading term, because the vapor is not water, but glycerin. Although semi-transparent, it does not go “poof” and evaporate into the air. It is slightly oily and the emissions are closer to aerosol gas than actual water vapor, holding particles composed of chemicals, flavoring and preservatives. These agents stick to any surface they encounter and after a long while, these particles form a thick film that is extremely vexing to discard.

Carpets, painted surfaces, and ductwork are especially difficult and expensive to clean. If you’d like more on the science of cleaning the damage left in the wake of vaping, consult this article from Landlordology.

Quiet enjoyment

In many venues, we’ve said that implied in every California lease is the tenant’s right to use the property for its intended purpose without interference. The fruit or candy-flavored vapor of electronic cigarettes may very well violate this covenant.

One of the take-aways from our in-depth piece on the use or cultivation of cannabis in rental units was that while the people have spoken and many landlords have joined the chorus who have legalized marijuana, neighboring tenants may not enjoy the putrid odors. To mar the quote of one famous Supreme Court Justice,  your right to toke ends where someone else’s nose and lungs begin. So, landlords who condone the use of electronic cigarettes, cannabis, or any tobacco product for that matter, must consider not only his or her preferences, but the collateral damage inflicted on other bystanders.

Ceasing the use of nicotine-delivering devices

Of course, nicotine devices in whatever shape or form are addictive and so it’s not beyond the realm of possibility that renters will ignore the ban and smoke anyway, requiring landlords to act. Rental property owners should consult with an attorney to review the lease to see if it needs to be updated for the modern age of vaping and other circumstances that may not be anticipated in a stale or templated rental agreement. In some circumstances, a change of tenancy, with proper notice, may be required to effectuate new rules imposed by the owner.

If other building occupants complain about the noxious odors and/or vaping residue emanating from the tenants’ unit, you certainly could allege that the behavior constitutes a nuisance and possibly proceed on a nuisance eviction.  Typically, even if a tenant has the “right” to smoke in a unit, if others complain, our office is able to proceed on a theory of nuisance.

Bornstein Law warned the rental property industry that the defeat of Costa-Hawkins repeal would by no means deflate resilient tenant advocates who would surely bring their agenda to local municipalities, and if statewide rent control was too ambitious, owner rights would be chipped away in piecemeal, as if watching a candle slowly melt away.

By all accounts, our predictions have come to pass, but this agenda has now taken a turn by an inventive movement to unionize tenants, and this perversion of labor law is gaining steam in California’s statehouse.

In an earlier post that surveyed many proposals by tenant advocates that are advancing under the dome of the Capitol, we chimed in on SB 529, dubbed the “Tenant associations: eviction for cause: withholding payment of rent.” This measure would allow tenants to withhold rent payments in protest when rent hikes exceed the rate of inflation.

The bill’s author, Sen. Maria Elena Durazo (D-Los Angeles) says that rent increases qualifies as a “grievance” to go on a rent strike with impunity. In essence, the legislation would insulate protesting tenants from eviction, so long as the nonpayment of rent is part of a peaceful assembly.

Sen. Durazo is well versed in labor law, with deep experience in union work that propelled her to a senior role with the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor, AFL-CIO. Her distinguished service on the National AFL-CIO Executive Council should be recognized.

During the Labor Day holiday weekend, Bornstein Law has made it a longtime tradition on social media to pay homage to labor leaders who have advocated for safety and the fair treatment of workers, so we, for one, applaud the progress made in the storied history of organized labor.

What leaves us scratching our heads in the abstract is how hard-fought protections of workers can be extended in any stretch of the imagination to the unionization of tenants who have entered into a rental agreement. Even more disturbing, though, is the prospect of a landlord losing rental income in a process whereby tenants can simply come together in a smoke-filled room and allege a grievance or complaint without any due process or requirement that deferred rent is actually owed to a landlord’s breach of the rental agreement or violation of the law.

SB 529 would create a hardship for rental property owners not based on the merits of the dispute or the transgressions of the landlord, but on the ability for disgruntled tenants to form a mob to level grievances about the owner, however unfounded or undebated, and take the law into their own hands to deny rent.

One of our followers astutely noted that rental housing providers cannot protest their mortgage, another poses the question of why developers would build more housing if the measure is passed, and yet another observer likened the proposal to thievery.

Undoubtedly, there are some actual wrongs that can be righted based on legitimate grievances, and we have said in many venues that while there are always some bad apples, we operate on the working presumption there are good landlords and bad landlords and in like fashion, there are good tenants and bad tenants.

Yet, there are already mechanisms in place to arbitrate who are good or bad actors, in a more thoughtful, deliberate process. Tenants have the prerogative under state law to withhold rent so long as they follow the procedures in Civil Code 1942. Tenants have the unfettered right to form an association without any restriction from the state. Tenants certainly have many venues to air out grievances to housing situations, whether by seeking help from housing departments, a phalanx of housing inspectors, mediation programs, rent boards, or the courts, as the California Apartment Association has pointed out in this letter opposing the bill.

This requirement will lead to significantly higher rents and put good tenants in danger by making it extremely difficult to remove bad tenants who are engaged in illegal and nuisance activity.

~ CAA

We are encouraged that the latest iteration of legislation to institute statewide rent control has stalled, but as we said in our introduction, there will be more insidious means to advance the tenants’ rights agenda, and SB 529 is a case in point.

Tenants have no right to vote among themselves to withhold rent based on an alleged and undefined grievance they have with the landlord, and we trust that no such misplaced right is afforded with new laws. Just as with labor laws that protect not just workers but employers as well, landlords should have some protections in a balancing act.

There are many layers of safeguards for tenants, and we should trust that these institutions will correct any grievances. Let the system work without holding rent hostage.

In an era when political rhetoric often falls squarely on the side of tenants and even squatter rights, Bornstein Law aggressively advocates for the right of rental property owners. Contact us for informed advice.

 

 

We were recently invited to give a speech about domestic violence in rental units in general, and specifically, HUD’s application of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), a federal law that has been instrumental in bringing the once taboo of subject of abusive relationships to light. Since it was signed into law by President Bill Clinton, VAWA has expanded in size and scope, as evolving social values have redefined domestic partnerships and recognized more subtle forms of abuse.

Aside from physical and sexual abuse, behaviors that arouse fear, prevent a partner from doing what they wish or force them to behave in ways against their will, acts of emotional abuse and economic deprivation, threats and intimidation, and stalking after the relationship has ended, can now be considered a serious situation requiring intervention, prosecution, or protections. The National Domestic Hotline has done an excellent job in depicting the ugly head of domestic violence and early warning signs here.

The goals of federal law and California law are in unison, though VAWA has the resources to bring courts, law enforcement, prosecutors, victim services and other advocacy groups, the private bar and other parties together to work alongside each other in a coordinated effort that typically cannot be achieved with the limited assets of state and local governments.

An added benefit of VAWA is that protection orders can be enforced across jurisdictional lines, under the legal term “full faith and credit,” meaning a court in any jurisdiction will honor and enforce orders issued by a court in other jurisdictions.

So, for example, a victim of domestic violence in Boise, Idaho has a protection order and flees to San Francisco to remove themselves from the abuser, but the offender relocates to San Francisco to catch up with the victim. With the added teeth of VAWA, Idaho’s order can be enforced in the newfound surroundings of San Francisco. Our friends at the Battered Women’s Justice Project expounds on the concept of full faith and credit in this PDF.

In an earlier article, we noted that Civil Procedure §§ 1161 & 1161.3 attempts to ensure tenants who are subjected to domestic violence are not victimized twice by prohibiting landlords from terminating a tenancy or refusing to renew the tenancy based purely on acts of aggression and seeking emergency assistance and this sentiment is shared by HUD – its stated position is that “nobody should have to choose between an unsafe home and no home at all.”

HUD has provided a framework to handle instances of domestic violence, and the first priority is to slay the beast. Once the perpetrator of domestic violence is removed from the rental unit, the question is whether the offender is the only resident who established eligibility for assistance.

Clearly, if the bad actor is the only tenant who qualifies for housing vouchers, they may leave close family members in the lurch. HUD takes a humanistic approach by giving other remaining tenants in the unit – husband, wife, sons, daughters, etc – the opportunity to qualify for housing voucher assistance, or give them enough time to find another place to live.

If someone asserts they are a victim of domestic violence or he or she is in imminent danger, they may seek to be transferred to another apartment if one is available.

To get the full scoop, get it straight from the source by downloading HUD-5380, the Notice of Occupancy Rights Under the Violence Against Women Act.

Parting thoughts

Under recent California law and also echoed in HUD guidelines, sufferers of domestic abuse do not have to jump through so many hoops as before to claim their status as a victim – the documentation requirements have been relaxed. In some cases, this means that tenants can bow out of the lease prematurely, without penalty. Add in the casualties of other occupants in the rental unit, this can become tricky.

Whenever domestic violence rears its ugly head, many issues arise, and rental property owners are not expected to fully understand the morass in the normal scope of operating their rental business. It’s been said that home is where the heart is, but when the heart is broken, what happen to the home? That’s a question best approached with Bornstein Law.

 

 

 

If you ask the grandson of the iconic Flinstone house’s owner, Dino and Barney should keep smiling because it’s infectious. “I think the dinosaurs are beautiful. They make everyone smile and should stay.”

You’ll get some argument from Hillsborough officials, who have declared the bulbous, multicolored property dotted with dinosaurs a public nuisance. Assistant City Attorney Mark Hudak concedes the home is a site to be marveled but notes that other residents do not want to become the next Bedrock.

“It is one thing to spot this house when driving by on the freeway; you might find it amusing. It is a different thing to be a neighbor and see it all day, every day,” he told the New York Times. The town has filed a lawsuit in State Superior Court seeking to compel the owner to remove the menagerie of prehistoric animal statutes.

When we first shared the news on LinkedIn, it went viral and it’s interesting to view some of the comments by observers who, as of the date of this writing, were unanimous in their calls for the city to leave the 85-year old owner alone and continue the legacy endeared to so many.

What the law says

While being a bad neighbor is not itself a crime, there may be circumstances where a neighbor’s conduct is so egregious that it creates a public nuisance that affects the livability of the entire neighborhood. Of course, this is subject to interpretation. The underlying offense can mean anything from an owner letting their grass grow too tall, to operating a meth lab, and everything in between.

Ultimately, it will be up to a judge or jury to decide whether the reenactment of a 1960s prehistoric cartoon rises to the level of a public nuisance, defined in California Civil Code Section 3480 as a nuisance “which affects at the same time an entire community or neighborhood, or any considerable number of persons, although the extent of the annoyance or damage inflicted upon individuals may be unequal.”

There are some clear-cut examples of public nuisances that are injurious to neighbors or the community as a whole. For example, raucous parties being held every night of the week in a quiet neighborhood, or a homeowner who digs a large pit in his or her front yard, risking that playing children can fall into it.

The Flinstone house is not so clear cut. Although the structure is clearly an eccentric one that doesn’t conform with community standards, therein lies its appeal and one may argue it is to the benefit of the community. We hasten to say, however, that the city has some legitimate claims that need to be aired out.

Does the town have a case?

According to the complaint, the owner made several modifications to the property, such as the addition of a retaining wall, steps, gates and a parking strip which allegedly creates “life-safety hazards.” It is also alleged the large figurines are so tall, they are classified as “unenclosed structures,” which require a permit.

We can confirm that all structures need to conform with applicable building codes, and so we will keep a watchful eye on whether there are any serious violations of the town’s municipal code.

Not to burst the bubble of Flinstone lovers, but the City Attorney also has point in saying that the opinion of neighbors matter. Those within close proximity of the alleged public nuisance should be deferred more consideration than transient drivers who enjoy seeing the Flintstone house from afar while driving on the 280.

In law, what we have is competing narratives, and we will see which narrative prevails.

Our takes, for what it’s worth

The legal process must play itself out and we’ll see if there are any legitimate safety concerns, code violations, or detriment to the neighbors of the Flinstone house, but as the creative types, we celebrate diversity, art, and expression. If the only objection to the property is it stands out as an oddity, we are rooting for the owner.

Wilma!!

There’s been much news swirling around Section 8 housing, whether in Washington, the California statehouse or in the City by the Bay, where years of financial mismanagement has finally caught up with the San Francisco Housing Authority (SFHA).

Ben Carson muses about his future, but whenever he decides to bow out from heading HUD, he’ll leave behind a lot of ruffled feathers. Under his leadership, Carson has dialed back civil rights enforcement at the agency, suspended Obama-era rules that had been aimed at fighting housing segregation, and sought to triple the minimum rent paid by families on federal housing assistance.

For the embattled San Francisco Housing Authority, however, doubling the rent wasn’t an option. When HUD pressured the agency to bring in more money to cover budget shortfalls, SFHA balked at raising the minimum amount of rent housing voucher recipients have to pay, from $25 to $50 – the extra $25 was a deal breaker for the housing  authority.

When push came to shove, the federal government said: “You’re fired,” putting an end to a string of scandals and embarrassments. Rent relief for 14,000 low-income households is now in the City of San Francisco’s hands.

The conclusion of this debacle came not long after the federal government reopened for business after a protracted shutdown that forced many landlords to tap into their reserves. In an earlier article, we said that participation in Section 8 has always been a trade-off between guaranteed subsidies and other perks, and less endearing aspects of the program. Yet the government shutdown taught rental property owners that housing authorities could run out of money. The prospect of programs going broke fundamentally challenged the inviolability of rent security that has been so appealing to landlords who accept Section 8 vouchers. Without the assurance of the government’s regular checks, this give-and-take relationship crumbles and the system collapses with it.

Of course, the Section 8 program has never been big enough to subsidize everyone who qualifies to be on it and the program largely relies on willing private landlords who opt to work with housing agencies and voucher holders. Yet, whoever came up with the clever phrase that a rising tide lifts all ships clearly did not have Section 8 housing in mind. In today’s red-hot Bay Area real estate market, many landlords are giving Section 8 a cold shoulder, leading some cities to offer the promise of easing inspections and other reform, as well as to dangle carrots to attract more landlords. Oakland, for example, is offering financial incentives to hang on to more landlords.

Many of our clients, however, have found that once they opt-in, it’s until death do us part. The Oakland Housing Authority (OHA) will only sever ties when the lease has been terminated in accordance with the Just Cause for Eviction Ordinance and so, given the difficulty of exiting Oakland’s Section 8 program, owners are advised to do a careful cost/benefit analysis before taking the plunge.

No matter where you stand in the love-hate relationship with Section 8, Senator Holly Mitchell, a Democrat from Los Angeles, would compel rental housing providers to consider tenants who receive federal housing voucher assistance. If passed, SB 329 would make it illegal to deny a tenancy on the grounds of the applicant’s participation in the federal Housing Choice voucher program.

A law is already on the books prohibiting discrimination against a prospective tenant based on some sources of income (for example, Social Security, pensions, CalWorks, or the type of job one holds). California does not define Housing Choice Vouchers or other rental assistance programs as income, so the state law does not currently protect Section 8 clients.

Under the proposed legislation, this definition of source of income would be expanded to include housing subsidies paid by the government directly to landlords.

We hasten to say that while current federal law doesn’t make it illegal for landlords to deny a tenancy based on Section 8 participation, some municipalities such as Berkeley and San Francisco have filled the void. In case you were wondering, those type of ordinances have survived judicial challenges.

Landlords are reminded they can use their regular screening criteria regarding tenant history. Any reason that can be used to deny any other tenancy – a checkered rental history, for example – can also be used when the applicant is a voucher holder. Some owners mistakenly believe non-discrimination laws require them to rent to any voucher holder. While housing providers cannot refuse to accept a tenant based on his or her use of a voucher to help pay rent, more suitable tenants can be found when vetting a pool of candidates. When it comes to this type of communication, less is more.

Discriminatory advertising

Caution should be used when advertising the rental unit, as we have seen many apartment listings with exclusionary language that runs afoul of fair housing laws. When the language expresses a preference for certain groups or, conversely, attempts to discourage other groups from applying, it invites liability.  Property management companies that experience high employee turnover and a lack of formalized legal training are especially at risk of publishing ads like these.

Getting the elephant out of the room

Many landlords who give the cold shoulder to Section 8 applicants feel their position is justified by some preconceived belief that housing voucher recipients will cause damage to the rental unit or instigate other problems. Bornstein Law’s position has always been that no group should be painted with a broad brush.

We always operate under the assumption there are good landlords and bad landlords and in like fashion, there are good tenants and bad tenants. While there is a set of landlords who can relate horror studies about renting to Section 8 tenants, there is no shortage of bad experiences that can be told by landlords who rent to other tenants who do not hold housing choice vouchers. Indeed, many tenants who rely on these vouchers are extra studious tenants because he or she does not want to risk becoming ineligible for the program, so, once again, we urge proper screening to evaluate rental risks on a case-by-case basis.

Domestic violence in public housing

It’s been said that home is where the heart is, but what happens to the home when the heart is broken? When domestic violence rears its ugly head, it is a difficult subject that cannot be ignored. In our next article, we take on the Violence Against Women Act and HUD protections afforded to survivors of domestic violence. Subscribe here to stay in the know or follow us on Facebook.

Although potential minefields always await landlords, participating in Section 8 has its own unique challenges, paperwork, and rules. but you can count on Bornstein Law for proper counsel.

Wholesale expansion to rent control was rejected at the ballot box in November 2018 as Proposition 10 went down in flames, but we urged the rental property industry not to celebrate for too long – our fraternity won the battle for the time being, but the campaign for a new regulatory regime steams forward as resilient tenant advocates are taking the battle to local municipalities.

Oakland is perhaps the most vivid example. Just as the cypress trees do not grow in each other’s shadow, Oakland no longer plays second fiddle to its sibling of San Francisco and is now a force in its own right. Yet history has shown that growth begets calls for increased tenant protections. If the agenda for statewide eviction and rent increase regulations had been too ambitious, tenant advocates still are chipping away at owners’ rights in piecemeal fashion on the local level, and Oakland has become one of most successful sandboxes in tinkering with owner rights. Even as the city carved its own destiny, it remains in the shadow of San Francisco’s onerous rent control rules.

Although cities have been ground zero for tenant advocates, the chorus has sounded once again to the Statehouse. The California Legislature has rolled out hundreds of bills impacting the rental housing industry, and we look here at some of the worst offenders here.

SB 329

This proposal floated by Sen. Holly Mitchell, a Democrat from Los Angeles, would make it illegal to deny a tenancy based on the applicant’s participation in the federal Housing Choice voucher program. Under current law, it is illegal to discriminate against a prospective tenant based on the applicant’s source of income. At present, however, Section 8 housing vouchers do not legally meet the source-of-income standard. SB 329 would change the status quo by expanding the definition of source of income to include housing subsidies paid by the government directly to landlords.

We hasten to say that while state law has lacked consistent standards in this regard, some municipalities have enacted their own protections for Section 8 tenants and so even if state law is mute on a landlord’s discretion to deny Section 8 applicants, some cities have resolved the quandary by enacting their own ordinances.

Section 8 has always been a trade-off between inspections, red tape and other less endearing aspects of the program and counting on Uncle Sam to pay its share of the rent on time. Yet the government shutdown has taught us that housing authorities might run out of money, forcing landlords to tap into reserves and casting doubt on guaranteed rent. The San Francisco Housing Authority is particularly broke.

Although the envelope of protected classes is constantly being pushed, landlords do not have to accept Section 8 tenants. Any other valid reason that can be used to turn down an applicant can also be cited to deny tenancy to a housing voucher recipient – a blemished rental history, for example. More suitable candidates can be found, but where landlords and property managers get in trouble is when they make emphatic statements about who their ideal tenant is, or paint an exclusionary picture of groups who are not welcome in the rental unit. When it comes to this type of communication, less is more. For more background, visit our earlier article on Section 8. 

SB 18

We have chimed in many times on San Francisco’s ordinance dubbed “The No Eviction Without Representation Act,” but for Senator Nancy Skinner, a Democratic from Berkeley, the right to free legal counsel to evictees should be extended beyond 49 square miles. The Homelessness Prevention and Legal Aid Fund would be established to provide legal aid to tenants facing eviction or displacement, using competitive grants.

Bornstein Law can’t help but draw a parallel in the language of this bill with Oakland’s vacant property tax. In an earlier post on the punitive tax aimed to repopulate land deemed to be underutilized by the city, we said that property owners were assigned inordinate blame for the intractable homeless problem. SB 18 likewise gives owners a black eye for a difficult situation they did not create.

However ill-coined, this bill would ratchet up the legal costs for rental housing providers and be especially detrimental to mom and pop landlords who would be forced to defend against numerous gambits attorneys use to delay an unlawful detainer action and coerce owners to settle the case. If we didn’t steadily rail against free legal representation afforded to tenants, you might say we are opportunistic in predicting this bill will only be a boon to attorneys.

AB 53

In an earlier article, we submitted that the law and a culture of amnesty stand to conceal rental risks. Bornstein Law is all about second chances and forgiveness. We are also about transparency and equipping rental housing providers to connect the dots and mitigate risk. If Assemblyman Reginald Jones-Sawyer, a Democrat from Los Angeles, has his way, however, landlords would be banned from inquiring about criminal records during an “initial application phase.”

Our friends at the California Apartment Association were instrumental in defeating a similar bill floated by Jones-Sawyer and we are optimistic that AB 53 will share the same fate.

Regardless of the outcome, we note that while turning down a tenant because of a criminal record can be legally justified, blanket bans on ex-offenders can run afoul of fair housing laws and if criminal records are used as a consideration in approving or denying a tenancy, the policy must be narrowly tailored. Evaluating criminal history is a subject we took on here.

SB 529

Sen. Maria Elena Durazo, a Democrat from Los Angeles, wants to allow members of a tenant association, by a majority vote, to withhold rent payments for up to 30 days in response to grievances with the landlord.

The withholding of rent is something most commonly seen as part of an affirmative defense to an unlawful detainer (eviction) action whereby the tenant or the tenant’s attorney argues conditions are not livable, a topic we chimed in on here. Regardless of the merits of the underlying reason for the grievance, SB 539 would legalize a mob mentality, permitting tenants to hold rent payments hostage so long as they band together in a team effort.

AB 1110

Rent increases are already highly regulated, especially so in rent-controlled jurisdictions but for Assemblywoman Laura Friedman, a Democrat from Glendale, regulations don’t go far enough. This bill would increase the length of notice required for rent increases during month-to-month tenancies. 90 days’ notice for rent increases of more than 10 percent would be sufficient under the proposal and 120 days’ notice would be required for rent increases exceeding 15 percent.

More on the horizon

We are also following AB 36, a bill that lacks details, but is aimed at stabilizing rental prices and increasing affordable housing stock. In his State of the State speech, Gov. Newsom renewed his commitment to enacting some kind of tenant protections this year. “I want the best ideas,” the Governor said. To lawmakers: “Here is my promise to you: Get me a good package on rent stability this year and I will sign it.”

What the proposed law will look like is yet to be seen, but suffice it to say it will be consequential to rental housing providers. A recent LA Times editorial offers a premonition on what shape AB 36 will morph into.

Whether under the dome of the Capitol or in city halls, Bornstein Law is committed to keeping you abreast of changing laws and regulations.

In our earlier article, we said that what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence and stressed the importance of producing authentic testimony, documents, and other evidence in the event a landlord-tenant dispute is enlarged and lands up on the courthouse steps.

When a client comes into our office, we can immediately get a gut level reading of the quality of their documentation. Some of our clients have beautiful files, in perfect chronological order, with leases, rent increases, and tenant correspondence, even a log of telephone calls in the actual file. Other clients’ files look like a hurricane and this disorganization or lack of documentation becomes problematic in the unfortunate event litigation arises out of a failed rental relationship.

Property management companies tasked with overseeing bookkeeping, trust accounts, and complying with DRE rules and regulations have their own unique risks in their fiduciary duty if bookkeeping is not meticulously in order. When the California Department of Real Estate knocks on the door and discovers untidy books, the property management company can lose its license. Further, if any irregularities are discovered in client accounting statements, it can be calamitous. Daniel Bornstein addresses this more at length in this webinar on the top 10 pitfalls for property managers, but let’s move onto how long a landlord should keep documents after the tenancy has been terminated.

Once a tenant moves out, how long should documents be preserved?

This question is one of cauterizing risk and the short answer is that documents should be preserved until you are no longer liable in a potential criminal or civil lawsuit. In one of our most widely disseminated posts, we noted that tenant lawsuits are proliferating throughout the Bay Area, and even the most studious of landlords are susceptible.

Perilous actions take many forms, be it wrongful eviction, constructive eviction, harassment, myriad breaches of the rental agreement, violation of any number of local ordinances, personal injury or negligence, and more. Contact our offices to learn how long the tenant has to raise claims after he or she has moved out.

Also, keep in mind that keeping documents accessible may be prudent in the event of a state or federal tax audit. Generally speaking, the IRS can audit a landlord’s tax return for up to six years or even longer if fraud is suspected.

The preservation of documents is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, it is helpful for the purposes of recordkeeping and may be a source of exculpatory evidence against the claims of a disgruntled tenant. On the other hand, an enterprising tenant attorney may request archived documents be produced as part of an onerous and expensive discovery process.

If it’s the landlord’s policy of destroying documents, this should not be a shredding party but rather, the owner should use discretion. If there is a claim at hand, deleting documents relevant to the case will raise eyebrows.

Did the tenant move in like a lamb and move out like a lion?

How long to preserve documentation and correspondence will be shaped, in part, by the nature of the client’s departure.

From our hard-won experience, when the tenancy ends amicably with the residents vacating at their own volition without a dark cloud of notices, prodding, haggling, arguing or rent board appearances, the chance for any residue is small. When there is a history of acrimony between the landlord and tenant, however, your odds at facing a lawsuit down the road increase exponentially. Whenever possible, Bornstein Law likes to obtain a release of claims from tenants, but this goes beyond the scope of this article.

In conclusion

We are sticklers for documentation at Bornstein Law, and generally speaking, the more documentation, the better. This should be well-organized and thought out policy evenly applied. The life cycle of documents begins even before the tenancy begins and continues throughout the duration of the rental relationship, and even beyond.

Perhaps you do not have an imminent dispute, but like going to the dentist for a routine check-up and cleaning, perhaps it’s time to sit down with an attorney to ensure your lease is up to date and your documents are in order. Don’t do the heavy lifting later – an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

At Bornstein Law, we’ve always likened litigation to a game of tug of war – the harder each side tries to win and pulls on the rope, the tighter the knot becomes. With that in mind, our approach is to untangle the knot and not enlarge the dispute. Generally speaking, 99% of cases settle and ideally, disputes are resolved amicably with the least cost and complications, but we all know it’s not a perfect world we live in. Let’s assume the tenant strenuously pulls and the situation is in fact enlarged.

When you get the dreaded call from our office to inform you the tenants are disputing an eviction, beads of sweat may spill from your brow, but it’s time to be composed and get all of your ducks in a row.

It’s been said that what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.

Whether the underlying eviction action is based on unpaid rent or eviction for cause, the plaintiff (landlord) has the burden of proof at trial and it is their duty to prove that either there is rent owed or the tenants are in violation of one or more lease provisions.

In law, what we have are competing narratives, and if the unlawful detainer lawsuit goes to trial, it will ultimately be up to a judge or jury which narrative prevails, after reviewing the testimony, documents and other evidence presented by each of the parties.

Getting your financial house in order

Many overexuberant owners of rental property march into court with oral claims of non-payment of rent without bank statements and tenant ledgers, and other supporting evidence. To obtain a Judgment and a Writ of Possession to evict a tenant, the landlord must prove each of the following elements of the case through a combination of witnesses and documentary evidence:

  • The existence of a written or oral lease
  • The occupancy of the leased premises by the tenant
  • The amount of the agreed-upon rent
  • The failure of the tenant to pay the rent

A rent receipt or a canceled check, of course, would be the easiest way for a tenant to prove that rent was paid. Every so often, we encounter landlords who mistakenly accept rent payments after the unlawful detainer action has commenced. This is a cardinal sin because if the landlord deposits any money from the tenant during the unlawful detainer process, the tenancy has begun anew – the owner has forfeited the right to proceed. Taking rent after the expiration of the 3-day notice to pay rent or quit is so egregious, it made our list of the top 5 reasons why landlords lose unlawful detainer actions. Take a look.

Like unpaid rent cases, sufficient evidence should be gathered to prove other lease violations that precipitate the unlawful detainer action. For example, if the evictee caused damage to the rental unit, it is important to bring along pictures, videos, or any other proof that would back up the landlord’s claim.

What to bring to court

The following list is not exhaustive but serves as a good starting point on what rental property owners should be armed with on the day of reckoning in court. Remember, this is not a platform to angrily vent your grievances about a nightmare tenant, but to submit appropriate, authentic evidence to paint a compelling reason as to why the tenant should be transitioned out of the unit.

  • The Notice to Pay Rent or Quit, or the Notice to Cure or Quit if based on another reason;
  • The lease agreement with the tenant’s signature;
  • Correspondence with the tenant, which may include letters you wrote or received about the rental unit, emails, text messages, etc.
  • Photos or videos that show unsafe or unhealthy conditions if the landlord alleges the tenant damaged the unit;
  • Building inspection reports, if applicable;
  • Bills from any contractors you hired to fix alleged damages;
  • Evidence from neighbors of the tenant if they lodged complaints against the tenant you are attempting to evict
  • Other witnesses who have personal knowledge of the facts.

In the event witness testimony is warranted, it is best to get a subpoena issued and properly served to compel his or her presence in court. This is true with willing, cooperative witnesses whose employers require that a subpoena be served on the employee to allow time off to court.

Tenant defenses

At Bornstein Law, we’ve had cases that seemed to be complicated, only to be resolved painlessly. When we broker a successful outcome for landlords, their praise is often prolific, although, in the back of our mind, we breathe a sigh of relief and say, “wow, we were lucky.” Conversely, we’ve had cases that had all of the indications of being easy, only to have what would be a perfunctory unlawful detainer action turn on us and become mired in complications.

One of the biggest variables in this equation is whether the defendant is represented by any number of ferocious tenant attorneys that are prone to articulating affirmative defenses to the unlawful detainer action, so let’s talk about them.

We noted in an earlier post on California’s implied warranty of habitability that a favorite gambit of tenant attorneys is to allege the rental unit is unfit or unsafe for humans to occupy and thus, the tenant is absolved of responsibility to pay rent for the substandard unit.

Indeed, landlords have the duty to maintain a rental unit according to a set of minimum standards, codified in Cal. Civ. Code §1941, 1941.1, and 1941.3. In this video, we’ve outlined nine bulleted points on what these standards are.

We hasten to say that in addition to relevant state law, there may be local ordinances and building codes that dictate what constitutes a habitable rental unit and so landlords otherwise compliant with statutes may be in violation of rules closer to home.

The tenant or his or her counsel commonly argues that since the rental unit is not in liveable condition, withholding rent is justified, an argument that holds water under Cal. Civ. Code § 1942 and the seminal case of Green v. Superior Court.

The importance of providing evidence extends to the tenant and the burden of proof is shifted to the tenant when this affirmative defense is asserted. Other stalling tactics include any number of frivolous pre-trial motions, such as a “motion to quash service,” motion to strike, allegations of discrimination, and still more demurrers designed to put a monkey wrench into the court case and ratchet up the legal costs of owners.

Parting thoughts

When landlord-tenant relationships reach a boiling point and arrive at the courthouse steps, sound evidence is critical to gaining an upper hand during the proceedings. Regardless of the merits of the case, a lack of evidence not only will dampen a landlord’s chances of effectuating a legal eviction. Without evidence in the unlawful detainer action, the process can deliberately drag on for months and ensure the tenant lives rent-free.

Bornstein Law can stop the madness – please consult us first before going down a rabbit hole of complexity that surrounds disputed eviction actions.

 

 

It’s back to basics at Bornstein Law. While our latest articles on Oakland’s slippery slope towards expanded rent control and other posts have been reactionary, certain immutable rules do not blow in the political winds. One of them is state law concerning security deposits.

A bit of trivia: Disputes over security deposits are the most common reason why landlords are dragged over the coals in Small Claims Court, and it’s no mystery why. Rest assured, one of the first things on the mind of outgoing tenants – even before they ask themselves how to get that giant sofa around the narrow doorway – is how they are going to get their security deposit back on moving day. Yet dealing with these disputes are anything but trivial.

This topic recently graced itself in the media after a California billionaire developer has been accused of wrongly keeping millions of dollars in rental security deposits from thousands of tenants. Former tenants also claim they were not provided adequate reasons for damages in apartments when they moved out, as required by state law. Instead, reads the lawsuit, generic descriptions such as “maintenance charge,” or, “cleaning charge” are listed.

Presumably, the billionaire has some financial cushion and can take a hit, but other landlords don’t have the luxury to be so heedless – a costly lawsuit can decimate their rental business.

Security deposit rules are codified in California Civil Code Section 1950.5 and spell out four categories as lawful deductions from security deposits. Landlords may be able to keep all or a portion of the tenant’s security deposit for enumerated reasons:

  • Repayment of back rent at the end of the tenancy;
  • Repair damage to the unit that is not ordinary wear and tear;
  • Cleaning the premises to restore it to the condition at the beginning of the tenancy; and
  • to remedy other defaults that may be designated by the rental agreement.

The law cannot anticipate all circumstances, and so it’s plausible that other charges can be justified on a case-by-case basis.

What is normal wear and tear anyway?

When a tenant absolutely shredded the carpet or completely stained countertops bright red, it’s a clear reason to deduct from the tenants’ security deposit. Ditto for the condition of this apartment – when we shared this photo, it went viral.

For less egregious defects, it’s a judgment call.

Wear and tear is the average deterioration of furniture, carpets, and fixtures of a rental property due to regular use over time and although California vaguely defines this term, there is ample case law that provides guidance. Scuff marks on the wall, small chips of paint from door frames, tread and dirt in carpets, small nail holes in the wall, minor wear on appliances, and the natural decrease of useful life for appliances and carpeting can be considered the result of the tenant using the property for its intended purpose.

For those of you who are visual, we’ve put together a handy, one-page PDF that provides a framework to determine whether defects rise to the level of neglect or if blemishes are to be expected in the natural course of the tenancy.

Download our Security Deposit Deduction Guide…

Bornstein Law has a keen eye for what is reasonable wear and tear and what is not – when in doubt, please consult us first.

Security deposits can come in many shapes and forms

They can be called last month’s rent deposits, pet deposits, key deposits, and others, but don’t let these names fool you. Under the law, they are considered the security deposit period, and cannot exceed legal limits when they are all added up.

Also, keep in mind that certain courts have said itemized deposits can only be used for its stated purpose. For example, pet deposits can only be used for the damage that Fluffy wreaked in the apartment, and not for any other damages unrelated to the pet. To avoid exceeding the statutory maximum and ensure the deposit can be used towards any loss, we advise having a single security deposit.

What the landlord can ask for

California prescribes the maximum dollar amount owners can charge. For unfurnished apartments, landlords can ask for a maximum of two months’ rent if the apartment is unfurnished and up to three months’ rent if the residence is furnished. Owners are entitled to ask for an additional half-months’ rent when the tenant has a waterbed.

Although state law does not require landlords to pay a tenant interest on the retained security deposit, some rent-controlled cities do mandate this. San Francisco is in a rather exclusive club of cities that specify the interest rate to be paid. The rate of interest owed on deposits is established by the Rent Board.

A word about “non-refundable” deposits

If you have “non-refundable” deposit, for example, an automatic deduction for flea spraying if a pet was on the premises, or a deduction for painting, steam cleaning, replacing the carpets and the like, this flies in the face of the law. When a tenant complies with the lease terms, he or she is entitled to all of the security deposit back unless there was serious damage.

Move-out inspections

California has one of the most cumbersome security accounting rules. Every tenant has the right to a pre-move-out inspection on the eve of vacating the premises. If the tenant waives this right, you have no worries. However, if a tenant asserts his or right to a pre-move out inspection, he or she must be afforded the opportunity to be present during the walk-through inspection.

This exercise must take place 14 days prior to the tenant’s actual transition. Any deductions the landlord intends to take after his or her observations of the unit’s conditions must be itemized in writing. During this period of time, the tenant has the ability to remedy any itemized deductions in order to preclude the owner from taking them.

When the tenant finally delivers possession of the unit, it’s time to conduct security deposit accounting, whereby the landlord documents any deductions. Landlords have 21 days to perform this accounting and return a tenant’s security deposit in full or partially.

If any deductions are taken from the tenant’s security deposit, the partial refund check must be accompanied by a written itemized statement that lists the amounts deducted and the reasons for the deductions.

If the deduction exceeds $126, the landlord must share copies of receipts for the charges incurred to repair or clean the unit. If the tenant takes issue with deductions or he or she did not receive an itemization accompanied by receipts, they can send a letter to the landlord, and even though the tenancy has ended by this point, any correspondence should be taken seriously – if the landlord does not respond within a reasonable time, it is ripe for a Small Claims Court Action.

Parting thoughts

We remind landlords that when the carefully choreographed steps of the security deposit are ignored, liability is not limited to the dollar amount of the security deposit. Courts are all too willing to punish nonchalant owners who hold tenants hostage with the security deposit and unnecessarily pocket money just because the tenant forked it over. A phalanx of tenant attorneys will gladly help tenants settle the score.

When it comes to security deposits, documentation is specialized, timelines are unforgiving, and the rules must be followed to the letter. Bornstein Law is very good at managing landlord-tenant relationships from the cradle to the grave of the tenancy – contact our offices to avoid or resolve conflicts and cauterize risk.

It’s been a bumpy ride lately for owner-occupied duplexes and triplexes. Following a spirited debate, these units are now subject to rent control after Oakland City Council voted to place a 180-day moratorium limiting rent increases to the annual CPI adjustment and entitle tenants to a wide range of added protections, including the right to treble damages, attorneys fees and costs.

Tenant rights under The Rent Adjustment Program begin no sooner than when the tenant moves in – per the program’s requirements, landlords are to give incoming residents formalized notice of tenant rights, known as the Oakland RAP notice.

There was a flicker of hope for owners as the democratic process was seemingly playing itself out. Landlords outnumbered red-shirt toting tenants on Tuesday, February 5 in front of the Community and Economic Development Committee. In the sometimes raucous hearing, befuddled owners left the corridors, chamber, and galleries with more questions than answers after the Council delayed a much-anticipated vote, based on the recommendation of City Attorney Doryanna Moreno, who cited unspecified legal issues brought to her attention.

Although there was no resolution either way, the pause was welcome for a group of landlords who felt confident the proposal would at least be put under further scrutiny, if not defeated on the 26th. This hope was dashed with an Interim Emergency Ordinance.

For City Councilmember Nikki Fortunato Bas and Lynette Gibon McElhaney, relief from rising rents couldn’t come soon enough. The pair floated an Interim Emergency Ordinance to temporarily eliminate exemptions from the Rent Adjustment Ordinance for owner-occupied parcels with two or three units, and a newly minted council sympathetic to tenants’ rights pushed the emergency amendment through Thursday in an effort to curb rent increases. The Ordinance is implemented immediately, not open to further debate or discussion. You can view the ordinance on our website here.

RELATED ARTICLE: We told Mercury News that being proactive and considering preemptive rent increases is good legal counseling. 

This ends a long era of protecting mom and pop owners of two and three-unit buildings from rent and eviction control measures after a long and storied campaign by tenant advocates to put exemptions on the chopping block. Some background is in order.

It’s important to make a distinction between two components of the Oakland Rent Adjustments and Evictions Ordinance. One pertains to rent control and spells out tenants’ rights, while the other establishes eviction protections by delineating the reasons why a tenant can be evicted legally.

The Oakland Residential Rent Adjustment Program (O.M.C. 8.22.030) applies to buildings that have a certificate of occupancy prior to January 1, 1983, but a notable exemption was carved out for duplexes and triplexes when the landlord occupies one of the units as his or her principal residence for at least a year.

Historically, owner-occupied duplexes and triplexes were also exempted from just-cause eviction protections, but the status quo was changed on November 6, 2018, when over 58% of Oakland voters passed Measure Y. Take a look at the storyline leading up to the proposal that sailed through to victory.

Removing the so-called “eviction loophole” wasn’t enough – it was just the opening salvo in efforts to erode the rights of small property owners and remove exemptions altogether. Act Two: as a companion to Measure Y, Councilmembers Dan Kalb (District 1) and Noel Gallo (District 5) floated a proposal to apply the Rent Adjustment Ordinance, better known as rent control, to duplexes and triplexes that house the owners and tenants. To Kalb, it’s all about uniformity.

“The key here is we’re trying to make all of our rent laws consistent with each other and cover the same types of units … this is an effort to conform with Measure Y that was passed by voters last year.”

Fair return

A property owner of a newly covered unit who feels he or she is being denied a fair return on the investment may file a petition with the Rent Program and submit evidence that in the wake of allowable rent caps under the moratorium, the return on investment is less than the return for a similar risk. To request relief, owners must have several things in hand, but this goes beyond the scope of this article. Suffice it to say landlords must have all of their ducks in a row, with the guidance of proper counsel.

Our takeaways

We predict that an already deluged Rent Board will handle many more complaints and new lawsuits will sprout up for an expanded pool of potential litigants. If we did not steadily rail against expanded rent control, you might think we are opportunistic in saying the moratorium will only be a boon for attorneys. Expanded rent control will also put a damper on the construction of Accessory Dwelling Units at a time when these pint-sized units are sorely needed to ease the housing shortage.

Of course, owners of units newly subject to rent control will be exposed to a regulatory regime previously foreign to them. For those owners who are cast into an unfamiliar labyrinth of rules and heightened risk, you can rely on Bornstein Law to get you up to speed on the lay of the land and provide a counter-narrative to newly emboldened tenants and their attorneys. Contact our office for informed advice.

Editorial note: In this new “offbeat” section of our blog, we attempt to make sense of nonsense, taking on odd and humorous news before imparting serious conclusions for rental property owners.

27-year old Mumbai businessman Raphael Samuel intends to sue his parents for giving birth to him without his consent. Mr. Samuel concedes that parents cannot seek their unborn children’s consent, but insists that “it was not our decision to be born”.

Since we didn’t ask to be born, it follows that we should be paid for the rest of our lives to live, he submits.

“If we are born without our consent, we should be maintained for our life. We should be paid by our parents to live.”

Such an outlandish demand has the potential for causing a rift with any family, but by all accounts, the Samuels are getting along well and taking the recent upheaval with humor. The dinger? The son’s parents are both attorneys, something that doesn’t escape his mother.

In a statement, Kavita Karnad Samuel says, “I must admire my son’s temerity to want to take his parents to court knowing both of us are lawyers. And if Raphael could come up with a rational explanation as to how we could have sought his consent to be born, I will accept my fault.”

Mr. Samuel’s belief is rooted in an increasingly popular yet bizarre ideology that argues that life is so full of misery that people should stop procreating immediately.

If the action proceeds, it would have some interesting legal implications. Every human being would qualify an eligible plaintiff. It stands to upend California’s Probate Code – if the parents are deceased, the children would have a viable claim against the parent’s estate, regardless of the will or any exercise in the equitable distribution of assets since they are all equally damned by birth.

Can we make any serious observations from this?

However silly, the crackpot lawsuit contemplated reminds of us of a real-life eviction case. Some of you may recall that 30-year-old Michael Rotondo was ordered by a judge to vacate his parents’ home after living rent-free for nearly a decade. After repeated entreaties and offers of cash assistance for their son to move out of their Camillus, New York home, Rotondo stayed implanted and the court was tasked with deciding where the parent’s responsibility ends and where the child’s responsibility begins outside the womb.

Although the case was the butt of jokes on the late night talk show circuit, we attempted to draw some serious takeaways in an earlier article. There, we said the action bespeaks alarming abuse of vulnerable property owners who are not ensnarled by the typical fraudsters, but by family members, friends, caregivers, and other trusted advisors. Bornstein Law has been asked to intervene in many extended stays and if push comes to shove, commence a forcible detainer action.

Transitioning a relative out of the rental unit, of course, can be a harrowing experience with unique pitfalls that we don’t see with other perfunctory evictions. We take them on in this article on the difficult prospect of evicting a relative.

With a notoriously high cost of living in the Bay Area, it’s not surprising that one study estimates that nearly 1 in 3 Millenials are living with their parents. Coupled with the growing number of multigenerational families living under the same roof, the elements are rife for potential conflict for families living in close quarters.

Remove yourself from the emotional fray

Being sued by your son or daughter for being born is not so commonplace, but other disputes among relatives are not rare. Bornstein Law can be a voice of reason and lower the temperature of the dispute, or provide sound legal advice on your options in the unfortunate event familial friction can’t be resolved on its own.

A popular real estate agent in South Jordan, Utah, dad of four and a pillar of the community was tragically slain when attempting to evict two tenants. David Stokoe was believed to visit the rental unit and order the pair to leave the premises by 6:00 p.m. Pursuing a report that Stokoe was missing, police learned his last known whereabouts that evening was the apartment and later found his body in a concealed crawl space.

According to court documents, the tenants took issue with the landlord because they felt he was “overstepping his legal rights by entering the apartment without [the renters’] permission.” One suspect told police that Stokoe forcibly entered by kicking down the door, leading to a physical altercation. The tenants claim Stokoe put one resident into a “very serious” chokehold in the ensuing struggle.

Many tributes are pouring in from people who knew Stokoe, and there are no indications from the remembrances that he would instigate violence. While the investigation is ongoing, the suspect’s account of the events leading up to the homicide should be met with skepticism. The tragic event does, however, highlight the dangers of removing disgruntled tenants from rental units without the assistance of law enforcement.

Bornstein Law strongly dissuades our clients from resorting to “self-help” eviction measures that circumvent the legal eviction process. These self-help measures may include changing locks, cutting off utilities, removing tenants’ property, making threats and other heavy-handed antics that amount to landlord harassment. We remind rental property owners that eviction procedures apply regardless of what the tenant has done or how a tenant behaves.

After a writ of eviction is issued, it is the responsibility of the Sheriff’s office to notify residents that they have to vacate by a time certain and ensuring the tenants are removed from the property. When a landlord takes measures into their own hands, it is at their peril.

Courts and rent boards frown upon vigilante landlords who attempt to uproot residents through harassment and intimidation and it is all too common for tenants to be awarded damages for an illegal removal. Aside from the significant civil liability owners expose themselves to by trying to nudge tenants out with graceless means, the landlord can face criminal charges. In our latest video, we also noted that failing to correct, much less creating inhabitable conditions is one surefire way to losing an unlawful detainer action. Other consequences can result from self-help evictions too numerous to name here, but suffice it to say you do not want to defend against them.

Evicting tenants is one of an owner’s most thankless but sometimes necessary tasks. Fortunately, you can rely on proper counsel to manage landlord-tenant relationships and as a last resort, effectuate a legal transition of tenants out of the rental unit while cauterizing risk.

Third-party rent payments can come in many forms, such as individuals like family members or caretakers, social services agencies, or programs spawned by local municipalities or nonprofits. Many landlords have been reluctant to accept payments made on behalf of others, for concerns that a third party would claim a right to possession of the unit.

AB 2219 has assuaged landlord concerns by providing that a landlord can require a third party to sign a document acknowledging that the transaction does not make the payor a tenant. The law amends Civil Code §1947.3. Although this law permits under certain circumstances a tenant to pay through a party, the landlord or his or agent is not required to accept the rent payment tendered by a third party unless an acknowledgment is inked to the effect that no new tenancy is created.

Don’t worry, we have the acknowledgment prepared and as a professional courtesy to our clients, have uploaded it to our website, along with other helpful resources.

Can a landlord demand cash payments?

Although the law allows the tenant to pay rent and deposit of security by at least one form of payment that is neither cash nor electronic funds transfer, an exception is carved out for bounced checks in Civil Code §1947.3 (2), which reads:

A landlord or a landlord’s agent may demand or require cash as the exclusive form of payment of rent or deposit of security if the tenant has previously attempted to pay the landlord or landlord’s agent with a check drawn on insufficient funds or the tenant has instructed the drawee to stop payment on a check, draft, or order for the payment of money. The landlord may demand or require cash as the exclusive form of payment only for a period not exceeding three months following an attempt to pay with a check on insufficient funds or following a tenant’s instruction to stop payment. If the landlord chooses to demand or require cash payment under these circumstances, the landlord shall give the tenant a written notice stating that the payment instrument was dishonored and informing the tenant that the tenant shall pay in cash for a period determined by the landlord, not to exceed three months, and attach a copy of the dishonored instrument to the notice. The notice shall comply with Section 827 if demanding or requiring payment in cash constitutes a change in the terms of the lease.

If you have any questions surrounding this law or other terms and conditions of your tenancy, contact our office for informed advice.

Redwood City’s newly minted minimum lease requirements and relocation payment assistance ordinances read a little like a prenuptial agreement, depending on how long the landlord and tenant remain in the rental relationship.

Redwood City may have its most memorable slogan as the “Climate Best by Government Test,” but its latest test is for landlords who must now contend with added tenant protections imposed by the government. With over half of Redwood City’s residents renting their home, the seminal Managing Growth Study put tenant protections in the spotlight as part of the city’s brainstorming session on growth and addressing community concerns.

Unlike many other rent-controlled jurisdictions in the Bay Area that have implemented “just cause” eviction measures along with prescribed amounts the rent can be raised,  the entertainment hub of the San Francisco Penninsula has taken an inventive approach to support housing security for renters by focusing on the longevity of the tenancy. It provides carrots and sticks to prolong the rental relationship.

Redwood City’s ordinances require longer-term leases at the inception of the rental relationship and it creates a disincentive for a landlord to evict the tenant before the lease expires by mandating relocation payment assistance in certain circumstances, to cushion the displacement of low-income tenants.

Although the owner must offer a written lease which has a minimum of one year, there is wiggle room at the discretion of the tenant – there is flexibility for the incoming tenant and landlord to negotiate the term of the lease. If the tenant turns down the 12-month rental agreement and enters into another arrangement, though, they must state so in writing to make absolutely sure they know what they are agreeing to and are not bamboozled.

Several exceptions and nuances apply, and you can read the entirety of the law here.

Minimum Lease Terms Ordinance
Relocation Assistance Ordinance

We won’t get lost in the weeds of the ordinances, but instead, pivot to our takes for rental property owners.

Making smart rental decisions

Given that landlord-tenant relationships in Redwood City will often last a full year under the provisions of the new ordinances, we emphasize a heightened need for tenant screening. In an earlier post, we noted that while vetting tenants are a crucially important aspect of landlording, the law and a culture of forgiveness stand to conceal risks. This makes it imperative for all landlords to leave no stone unturned in the tenant screening process and especially Redwood City, where investment property owners may have little choice but to honor a long-term lease.  Daniel touched on the subject of tenant screening here.

A heart to heart conversation about rent amounts?

A fair and balanced article in Mercury News reported some landlords were raising rents with the contingency of Proposition 10 passing, and we were asked to chime in. There, we said that being proactive is good legal counseling and perhaps, raising rents of below-market rates may be prudent in order to anticipate future regulation of rent increases.

In the same spirit, Redwood City landlords should have the same exercise of examing whether current rent amounts are sustainable with fresh tenancies commenced after January 1st, as there will be a scarce opportunity to raise rents once the tenancy starts.

At any rate, rent ordinances, rent increases and relocation payments in any jurisdiction are murky subjects that are best approached with the informed guidance of an attorney. Contact our office for informed advice.

We have said in many venues that rental property owners in Oakland are swimming upstream against an ever-expanding regulatory regime. Now, “vacant” property owners – loosely defined as owners of properties that go “unused” for more than 50 days – will be hit directly in their checkbook, thanks to the passage of Measure W, also known as the Oakland Vacant Property Tax.

Voters resoundingly said yes for the measure, aimed to fund homeless programs and services, affordable housing, code enforcement, cleaning up blighted properties and illegal dumping. The law was cleverly marketed – who can be against ending endemic homelessness and removing eyesores from the neighborhood?

Bornstein Law applauds efforts to tackle these problems, but we think that property owners have been saddled with an inordinate amount of blame. There are a multiplicity of factors that have contributed to Oakland’s growing pains, but it seems that the owners of underutilized properties are an easy but misplaced target for a punitive tax.

In the news: Other people agree with our sentiment that the law lacks clarity. Get a backdrop here.

In our viewpoint, a better course of action would be to remove maddening regulations that stand in the way of owners who want to build on their so-called vacant land.

Our opinion notwithstanding, our job is not to legislate, but to educate property owners on the laws on the books. There’s much we know about Measure W, and much that is up in the air as its implementation takes shape, so let’s start with what we know.

What the law says

Starting July 1, 2020, properties deemed vacant will be taxed $6,000 annually if it is a residential, non-residential and otherwise undeveloped property. A $3,000 annual tax will be imposed on vacant condominiums, townhouses and duplex units.  Ditto for ground floor commercial space parcels, which will also be taxed $3,000.

These funds will go into the coffers of the County of Alameda. The first billing will be in included in the Fiscal Year 2020-2021 Secured Property Tax Bill, which covers the period of July 1, 2020, through June 30, 2021, for property deemed vacant in 2019. The payment due dates and the collection of delinquent Vacant Property Tax are at the same time and in the same manner and subject to the same penalties and procedures as the Secured Property Tax Bill by the County of Alameda.

Exemptions are made for very low-income households, low-income seniors and individuals with disabilities. Owners who can demonstrate that the tax would lead to financial or other hardship are also exempted. We might submit that the tax would constitute a hardship for anyone affected, and so it’s unclear how the city will define this ambiguous term. It seems that Oakland will recognize effort – owners of properties being developed will be spared of the tax, as will non-profit owners.

A commission on homelessness will guard the cookie jar by overseeing how the funds are allocated, with the City Auditor checking in every now and then, and so while we noted earlier that owners of vacant properties should not shoulder the expense of solving intractable problems, there appear to be layers of transparency to ensure the funds are being put to good use.

Much remains uncertain

Like most other matters that cross our desks, the law is cleaner on the page than it is in real life, and the City’s Finance Department seems to agree. That body is tasked with the tall order of formulating a plan for City Council to implement and administer the ordinance, and so there are many unknowns. To their credit, the Finance Department has welcomed public comment and has come up with the following timeline in the deliberative process.

In an introductory letter sent to property owners as part of a public awareness campaign, the city concedes there will be many wrinkles to be ironed out and that there is not enough staff to respond to inquiries.

Bornstein Law, however, has the time and resources to engage. Contact our office for informed advice on how this and other laws impact your bottom line as a property owner.

There’s a lot to fall in love with the New Year. A clean slate and a fresh start, the feeling that everything is possible, and of course, the best parties.

For the rental housing industry, however, the exuberance over new beginnings should be tempered with the reality there are a new set of laws to obey.

As we look into the back mirror of an eventful year, one of the highlights has been the defeat of efforts to repeal the Costa Hawkins Rental Housing Act. Our fraternity’s successful outcome in the epic battle against Proposition 10, however, has obscured less prominent initiatives that were successfully passed and we summarize some of them here.

Senate Bill 407 – Retiring water-wasting plumbing fixtures

The water-conservation requirements of Senate Bill 407 have been rolled out in stages and the last hurrah goes into effect January 1, 2009. Effective this New Year, owners of pre-1994 multifamily properties must bring any water-wasting toilets, showerheads or faucets up to specs. To avoid getting a knock on the door from the toilet police, consult our earlier article.

Assembly Bill 1919 – Price gouging bans

In the wake of the tragic fires, now is a time for Californians to come together and help those in need, not for opportunistic landlords and merchants to exploit people in desperate need of goods and housing. That is why the Governor used executive powers to prohibit price gouging and extend the bans when further disasters ensued.

There was a great deal of confusion, however, on how and when California’s price gouging protections would be applied. Although we noted in an earlier article that the attorney general attempted to provide guidance, it was the onus of the legislative branch to codify the disfavor of price gouging into law. AB 1919 criminalizes rent increases north of 10% after a state emergency is declared and also makes it illegal for landlords to evict a tenant after the proclamation of a state emergency and then rent the newly vacant unit at a higher rental price than the tenant could be charged.

Revisions to Bill 2164 – Landlord culpability in cannabis growing

We have long predicted that after the people have spoken by legalizing the recreational use of cannabis, there would be a lot of wrinkles to be ironed out in city halls and in the courts, and we are encouraged that the voice of landlords was not left out. This bill would add protections to unsuspecting landlords who have tenants engaged in the illegal cultivation of cannabis in the property.

This legislation affords owners the right to correct the underlying violation without being automatically slapped with a hefty fine by a municipality when a rogue tenant turns the rental unit into a greenhouse and the landlord had no knowledge. For more background, visit our earlier post on this subject.

Assembly Bill 2343 – Tenants given more time to respond to resolve evictions

Beginning in September, tenants staring at eviction will be afforded additional time to pay past due rent or defend against an unlawful detainer action – weekends and holidays will no longer count towards the previously set statutory limits for tenants to respond to answer eviction proceedings, a subject we dive deeper into this article.

Proposition F – San Francisco Evictees entitled to the right to counsel

San Francisco’s Proposition F guaranteed city-funded legal representation for tenants facing eviction. One of our main takeaways in an earlier article was that tenant attorneys will create logjams and delays in what would otherwise be swift and perfunctory evictions. It was unclear exactly how this newly minted law would be implemented, but the program is gaining steam as Mayor Breed’s office is starting to get their hands on the funds necessary to pay for the free legal counsel. Expect all of the machinery to come together in 2019.

Senate Bill 721 – ensuring balconies are not a death trap

Do you have a deck, balcony, or elevated walkway of more than 6 feet above ground level in a property with 3 or more multifamily units? If the answer is in the affirmative, SB 721 mandates that a licensed inspector stop by to ensure the structures are up to par so that these valuable open spaces do not create injury or death when a tenant enjoys a respite from cramped apartment life.

Redwood City tenant protections

Landlords in Redwood City will have to contend with newfound regulations, and we will reserve our commentary for a future article, but in the interim, you can get the official scoop from the city here.

Start 2019 on the right foot

The above changes in the lay of the land are not exhaustive, and surely more changes will be forthcoming – it’s a little like taking a drink out of a fire hose. You don’t have to make sense of it all – that’s our job at Bornstein Law.

 

There are tenants with many horror stories to tell about irresponsible landlords and the menagerie of shocking abuses are often plastered in the headlines. It’s much rarer, however, to see stories of landlords being abused, and so we were interested to come across the plight of these Oakland homeowners who were on active duty in the Air Force.

That duty called when the couple was temporarily stationed in Maryland, and so they rented out their home on a month-to-month basis to tech service tenants. When it was time to come back home after their assignment was complete, however, the service members with two young children were forced to pay nearly $7,000 in relocation payments because of Oakland’s Uniform Residential Tenant Relocation Ordinance, a law we chimed in on here.

The law took effect in January and is intended to help tenants who are displaced when property owners want to take their property off the rental market so that they or a relative can live there. Owners can turn out tenants only if relocation fees – $6,875.58 – $10,445.60  depending on the type of unit – regardless of the tenants’ income or if they actually use the funds to relocate.  An additional payment of $2,500 is due for families of lower income, containing elderly individuals and/or minor children.  Further, the relocation payments will increase on a yearly basis.

The Oakland couple has now attacked the ordinance in a federal lawsuit filed against the city. Ballinger v. City of Oakland alleges the law is not only misguided but violates the owner’s Fifth Amendment’s Takings and Public Use Clauses, as well as due process.

The plaintiffs’ attorney, Meriem Hubbard, explains why the ordinance doesn’t pass constitutional muster.

California, especially the larger cities, (has) a real housing problem — and that problem is not created by the people who want to move back into their own homes… So we are saying that that is a Fifth Amendment taking (of private property).

Our takes

Relocation payments have been judicially challenged before. In an earlier post, we noted that courts have likened unreasonable relocation payments to “ransom.” This is, however, the first time we’ve seen a tenant relocation scheme attacked on constitutional grounds in federal court. If the plaintiffs prevail, it would have some interesting implications in unraveling other ordinances, though the facts of this case are a bit unusual because the property owners are in the service.

A higher loyalty than rent ordinances?

It will be interesting to see whether the court gives some sort of deference to military service members who are also landlords when an order comes down for them to relocate elsewhere, whether from California to Maryland or being deployed oceans away.

The law has given preferential treatment to tenants when duty calls – although tenants cannot prematurely break their lease in ordinary circumstances, we explained earlier that an exception has been carved out for military personnel, a group who can end their leases without penalty if certain criteria are met. Will the same latitude be given to service members who own a rental property? Will armed forces members be absolved of doling out relocation payments?

If so, two “protected” classes would be pitted against each other – one the outgoing tenant and the other, the property owner, ironically both relocated.

A rising movement

Although the Bay Area has arguably been the biggest laboratory of tenant protection measures, they have been exported elsewhere. Portland has pushed the envelope when it comes to relocation payments and its ordinance, too, is being challenged in court by landlords who say they are stymied by the draconian ordinance.

Calls for expanded relocation assistance payments have been spreading in tandem with rising costs of living and a sense of unfairness that tenants reenter a merciless rental market, yet the case at hand illustrates that owners have hardships of their own. In the debate for relocation payments, owners are often mischaracterized as greed-fueled landlords whose immoral acts have fomented a homeless crisis, when in fact, mom and pop rental property owners are good stewards who treat their tenants with respect and provide cities like Oakland with its largest segment of safe, clean and affordable rental housing. They also are saddled with already high and steadily rising costs, just like everyone else.

We love this piece by the EBRHA that puts a human element on several landlords whose voices go unheard in the fevered pitch for tenant relocation payments.

Of course, Bornstein Law will keep you up to date as the Oakland lawsuit progresses, as well as other developments the rental housing industry should be aware of – we invite you to follow us on Facebook to stay in the know.

In future posts, we will dive into the relocation payment ordinances by city but until then, we wish you a happy holiday season and renew our commitment to helping owners power through their real estate challenges – contact our office for informed advise.

 

Renters who rely on Social Security Disability have no control over when they receive their check in the mail and so landlords who have a blanket policy of demanding rent on the first of the month may have to bend a little to accommodate SSDI recipients, suggests a federal court ruling. First, some backdrop.

Landlords are always a moving target when it comes to costly housing discrimination lawsuits and especially in California, a state which defines discrimination much broader than federal law. Tenants who profess a need for comfort animals or medical cannabis, recipients of housing vouchers, illegal immigrants and several other groups have successfully lobbied for added protections.

With the envelope of protected classes constantly being pushed, landlords find themselves walking on eggshells when denying tenancies or setting rules that may be perceived as favoring any group over another. Although California has defined disability more expansively than the federal government and has carved out new categories of renters entitled to increased safeguards, there are efforts underway in Congress to add teeth to tenant protections. This Kaine-Hatch bill would expand the Fair Housing Act and ban discrimination based on the source of income or veteran status.

Courts warming up, too

Fair Housing Rights Center in Pennsylvania v. Morgan Properties Management Company, LLC is a case that has percolated to our radar after a federal district judge in Pennsylvania ruled that landlords can expose themselves to liability if they refuse to adjust due dates for SSDI recipients who may get their checks after the first of the month. Landlords who do not budge on when the rent is due can create a “disparate impact” on disabled tenants, the court ruled.

Although the case can be considered persuasive law and is not binding in California, it sets a precedent and there is no reason to believe that its logic will not be transplanted in a state that has more ensconced protections than any other in the Union.

Parting thoughts & takeaways

Landlords should always exercise caution when fielding rental applications and talking with tenants on source of income, among other swampy subjects that can invite potential liability. We noted in an earlier post that when it comes to this type of communication, less is more. This is all the more true because there are “testers” who attempt to entrap landlords by documenting acts of discrimination. That’s right – their sole intention is to catch a landlord in the act of violating fair housing laws. In our day and age, then, every request for an accommodation should be treated as a potential test case intended to ensnarl the landlord in a costly lawsuit, the likes of which are proliferating throughout the Bay Area.

Finally,  Bornstein Law admonishes landlords and property managers to establish well thought out policies that are uniform, and we are strong advocates for education. If there is any slip up when it comes to fair housing laws, courts will make no distinction between the landlord and his or her agents.

When in doubt, contact our office for informed advice.

Owners of pre-1994 multifamily properties have a short window of opportunity to comply with the water-conservation requirements of Senate Bill 407 or risk getting a knock on the door from the toilet police this New Year.

If your rental property still has the original toilets, showerheads, or faucets, it’s time to get off the pot and replace these water-wasting fixtures. The law was passed in 2009 but has been rolled out in stages. The mandate for water-efficient plumbing fixtures is the last piece of the legislation to be enforced, with a January 1, 2019 deadline.

Compliance flows for plumbing fixtures are as follows:

Showerheads: The flow rate must be 2.5 gallons per minute or less.
Aerators: 2 gallons per minute or less.
Toilets: They must use 1.6 gallons or less.

How, exactly, does a landlord ascertain if his or her devices are compliant?

The flow rate is sometimes listed on showerheads and aerators, but the numbers may have faded like an Egyptian scroll depending on their age.

According to our friends at the California Apartment Association, a low-tech solution is to use a flow bag. That is, you can hold the bag under the aerator or showerhead, turn on the water and wait five seconds. After running for five seconds, it will reveal the gallons flowed. Local water utilities often provide the bags or they can be found online.

Toilets can be a little trickier. If you can stomach the ickiness, they typically have a date stamped inside the tank that can be found to discover whether it is an uncompliant 3.5 or 5-gallon toilet or if uses 1.6 gallons or less. Another creative way to flush out whether the toilet passes the new standards is to open the tank lid is to measure from the bottom of the water line and the full flush water line. The difference between the pre-flush water line and the full flush water line will be a number of inches. If the drop is four inches or more, you have an older 3.5 or 5-gallon toilet. If its 3 inches or less, then you have 1.6 gallon or less toilet.

The CAA’s trusted vendors contained in its Industry Directory can assist landlords in this thankless process.

Is there really toilet police?

No actual police force, but if there were, the officer might look like this guy, who you’ve likely seen in your bathroom before.

In all seriousness, heavy fines can be levied on owners when upon inspection, plumbing fixtures are not up to specs, and so we admonish all landlords to take the law seriously. California lawmakers have declared adequate water supply reliability is critical to the state and is committed to protecting aquatic resources, and so the Senate Bill is not a water-saving tip – it’s the law, with consequences for not following it.

As always, you are always welcome to contact our offices with any questions on this law and any other landlord-tenant concerns.

With the holiday season nearing, the traditional images conjured are families gathering to feast and enjoy quality time together, yet we all know that not all families are so harmonious. When conflicts reach a boiling point with family members living in close quarters, the status quo may no longer be sustainable.

Transitioning relatives out of a property can clearly be a gut-wrenching decision that many families face, and with the rising rate of adult children living with their parents and a growing number of multigenerational households, these tortuous decisions are being made with greater frequency.

One study found that 15 percent of Millennials aged 25 to 35 were living in their parents’ homes. To put that in perspective, that’s five percentage points higher than the previous generation and almost double that of the Boomer and Silent generations, eight percent of whom lived at home in 1981 and 1964, respectively.

With a notoriously high cost of living in the Bay Area, it’s not surprising that the numbers here exceed the national average, with another study estimating that nearly 1 in 3 Millenials are living with their parents. Coupled with the growing number of multigenerational families living under the same roof, the elements are rife for potential conflict.

There may be a feeling of guilt over the prospect of evicting a family member, but this may be the last resort when all else fails. If you are tasked with the thankless but necessary chore of removing someone close, it’s important to understand what you can and cannot do as a landlord.

For example, when tensions run high, you cannot use “self-help” eviction measures such as locking the doors if you want to go to sleep and a family member flops in too late at night. In rent-controlled jurisdictions, the tenant can only be evicted for a limited set of reasons – family drama is not a “just cause” under any rent control ordinance. A common theme we see, then, are owners circumventing eviction rules when the tenant is related, which can make an unfortunate set of circumstances even worse if the dispute is aired out in front of the rent board or in court.

Is the relative a tenant or licensee?

Often, when an owner rents to a relative, it is a casual relationship with no written lease.  Whenever rent exchanges hands, however, a tenancy is commenced.  Accordingly, the relative/tenant is entitled to proper written notice to leave the residence. Barring a written agreement, the tenant is on a month-to-month tenancy, requiring a written notice to move with a date specifying when the tenancy will end. The tenant will be allowed 30 days to move unless the tenant has lived in the rental a year or more, then it is 60 days to vacate. Check California state law (Cal. Civ. Code § 1946 & § 827a) for the exact rules and procedures for how landlords must prepare and serve termination notices.

Eviction is a carefully choreographed process, and now is not the time to be casual. The court will make no distinction between your familial relationship with the tenant, and a non-relative – the rules surrounding every other eviction will apply when transitioning relatives out of a rental unit.

If there is a lease with the tenant, the provisions of the lease must be followed and the process for evicting relatives is the same for evicting any other tenant. This includes written notice and if the tenant does not move out or fix bad behavior – for instance, paying the rent or correcting lease violations – then the landlord can file an unlawful detainer suit, trade word for eviction.

But what if the relative has not paid rent and no tenancy was established? In the eyes of the law, he or she is considered a guest who has worn out their welcome – in legalese terms, the relative is a licensee. A simple analogy is when you invite someone over to dinner, granting a license to your guest and that license lasts until the meal ends or at such time you want the guest to leave.

Forcible Detainers

When no tenancy was ever established, the owner can file a forcible detainer action. This remedy is similar to the more common unlawful detainer action, but it is usually used when the landlord alleges that the tenant has stayed in the unit without his or her permission.

Many of you may recall 30-year old Michael Rotondo, who infamously made the headlines after being evicted from his parents’ house in Upstate New York without paying rent. Take a look at Mr. Rotondo’s story which ended up with a judge giving him the boot and referring the case to an adult protective services agency to investigate possible abuse, neglect or exploitation of his parents.

The case bespeaks alarming abuse of vulnerable property owners who are not ensnarled by the typical fraudsters, but by family members, friends, caregivers and other trusted advisors within their circles. We’ve encountered this all too often at Bornstein Law and take great solace in halting these extended stays, if not averting abuse of the owner.

Before filing the forcible detainer action, the landlord must serve the tenant with a demand that the relative surrender the rental unit within five days from the date of service. To prove his or her case, the landlord must show that the landlord was in actual possession of the apartment at the time of entry and that a forcible entry has occurred, meaning the landlord did not consent to the tenant’s possession. The complaint must also state that the landlord was deprived of possession of the apartment; the landlord is seeking to recover possession; the landlord sent the tenant a demand for possession,  the tenant refused to vacate and the landlord is entitled to possession.

Like its’ sister proceeding for unlawful detainer, a forcible detainer is a summary proceeding and the tenant is afforded the opportunity to file a responsive pleading within five days after being served. If the unwelcome relative chooses to file an answer, he or she has limited defenses.

Potential pitfalls

Once an eviction action has started, the landlord cannot accept a penny more from the tenant because in doing so, the tenancy has begun anew and the landlord forfeits his or her rights to pursue the unlawful detainer. For more surefire ways to lose your case, consult our earlier article.

Try to work it out?

In the end, paying a relative to leave and helping them get onto their feet might be faster and less expensive than trying to evict them. Eviction can be costly, especially if it goes to trial. Family counseling sessions to foster a more harmonious relationship might have their merit and may even be more economical than a protracted battle in court.

Informed advice removed from the emotional fray

One of the most thankless and trying, but necessary duties of a landlord is evicting tenants, but transitioning relatives out of a unit can be exponentially more difficult. While legal counsel is always advisable when rental relationships fail, it is even more important to consult an attorney when relatives are involved because it is rather easy for owners to make rash decisions and understandably have their decisions be clouded by emotion. For informed advice, contact our offices.

Before we dive into the laws relating to squatters and how to remove them, we’ll share a shocking story originally reported here that illustrates the havoc unwelcome dwellers wreak on landlords who are often forced to arduously fight to take back their property.

The tale takes place  on the 22000 block of Ladeene Avenue, a quiet neighborhood on Torrance’ west side. A bewildered property owner was attempting to rent her yellow, four-bedroom rental home, only to discover it was already being occupied by an unknown trio who were living in the property rent-free. When her property manager noticed the oddity of a changed doorknob, he probed further to discover several boxes and a boogie board. Returning later that day, the stunned property manager discovered three squatters camping out. The dwellers stayed implanted after the police were called because the dispute was deemed a civil matter and worse yet, the unwelcome guests were believed to be subletting rooms to other unsuspecting tenants.

The squatters claimed they were victims of a scam after paying a security deposit and the first month’s rent to a mysterious middleman who can’t be found, but more likely, the unwanted residents were the scam artists, since they were unable to produce a copy of the fraudulent lease and refused to sign a rental application with the rightful owner.

The squatters were courteous enough, however, to attract other people off the street who agreed to fill out the rental application, in essence turning the property into a boarding house. One squatter even shared the good news with the owner that suitable housemates were found, but it was with little comfort that the core group of squatters was now opening the doors to more unauthorized tenants.

Out of at least $12,000 in unpaid rent, the loss of a security deposit among other expenses, the rental property owner has started a forcible detainer action to end her nightmare, though she is sure to incur more losses by doling out attorneys fees’.

Squatter rights difficult to be abridged

With high rents and fears of gentrification, California’s political and legal ecosystem seems to favor tenants and even those who have no legal possession. Translation: landlords may have to undergo a lengthy eviction process to remove squatters, especially when the unwelcome tenant comes equipped with a seemingly authentic property claim that has to be sorted out.

State law is not mute on this subject

A law was enacted in 1872 to prevent abandoned rural properties from going uncultivated and established the concept of “adverse possession.” This doctrine essentially allows a trespasser onto a piece of land to gain ownership of that land if the true owner fails to object within a certain period of time and if the trespasser pays faithful property taxes on the subject land. The trespasser is sometimes a stranger but more often a neighbor. 

Fast forward to 2018. In modern times, adverse possession is mostly cited when there is a dispute over property lines. Yet the standard of proof is high – in order for someone else to gain legal title over someone else’s land by claiming adverse possession, the person must prove continuous possession for at least five years and dutifully make property tax payments over a continuous 5-year period, among other things. 

In theory, then, when a squatter lives in a property long enough, and the owner does nothing about it, the squatter can end up owning the property. Of course, most squatters stop hunkering down or are exposed before completing the adverse possession process and so it’s improbable that the trespasser will meet the burden of proof to take over legal title to the property. 

They can, however, assert that there is a written, oral or implied rental contract with the owner, even present authentic looking leases or ownership documents to authorities when confronted. They have also been known to say that they have paid some form of rent by watching over or making repairs to the property or otherwise claim a bogus tenancy that will rarely hold up in court, but these smoke and mirrors can delay their eviction from the vacant unit and drive up the litigation costs of the owner.

Since 99% of cases settle, an enterprising squatter may prolong the eviction action in order to persuade the property owner to make a cash payment to move out. 

An organized effort

For an arm of the San Francisco Tenant Rights Union, squatting is not only a viable option to meet housing needs, but it is an economic necessity. The organization – dubbed Homes Not Jails – links to a list of vacant properties and while conceding it is difficult, instructs squatters how to gain tenants’ rights. This includes trying to find some other “consideration” besides rent in exchange for staying in the vacant property. In the absence of a written rental agreement, squatters are urged to be inventive in arguing a rental agreement exists, however far of a stretch it may be.

The group claims that it successfully established tenants’ rights when a landlord was aware of the squatter and gave up trying to get rid of them. By doing so, the argument was that there was an agreement to live in the vacant property in exchange for maintenance and security. Furnishings, setting up utilities in the squatter’s name and getting mail goes a long way toward a lengthy stay, the organization notes along with other tips. We found a handful of other “how-to” websites chock-full of advice on how squatters can avoid detection.

A legal remedy exists

A forcible detainer claim can be commenced where the occupant is living in the rental property without the owner’s permission or consent. This vehicle is similar to an unlawful detainer, but the forcible detainer is appropriate when no tenancy was established. To prove the action, the owner must be able to show:

(1) the occupant does not have the owner’s expressed or implied permission to occupy the rental unit;
(2) the owner of the real property has been displaced from the real property;
(3) lawful service of a 5 Day Notice to Quit;
(4) the occupants’ continued possession of the rental property after the expiration of the notice; and
(5) the fair daily rental value of the real property.

As with most unlawful detainer actions, this type of eviction begins with the service a 5-Day Notice to Quit. This notice must be served personally or by posting the notice on a conspicuous place on the rental property and mailing a copy to the occupant by regular or certified mail. If the name of the squatter or squatters is unknown, a fictitious name like John or Jane Doe can be used.

If the squatters remain in the rental unit past the expiration of the 5-Day Notice, a forcible detainer lawsuit can be filed. Assuming proper notice, if the occupant has failed to file a response to the Complaint within five days of service, the owner should file a Request for Entry of Default/Default Judgement with the clerk of the court, which will be entered if the clerk of the court finds that the Summons and Complaint have been properly served.

If the occupant of the rental property has been properly served and has not filed a response to the Complaint within five days of service the owner of the rental property should file a Request for Entry of Default/Default Judgment with the clerk of the court, which will be entered if the clerk of the court finds that the Summons and Complaint have been properly served. If, however, the occupant files a response, the owner can obtain a trial date.

Both parties must appear at trial to prove their case. For the owner, this means proving by testimony and documentary evidence that:

(1) he/she/it is the owner of the rental property;
(2)  the occupant of the rental property does not have the  owner’s permission or consent to occupy the rental property;
(3) the owner of the rental property was displaced from his/her/its right of possession of the rental property by the conduct of the occupant(s);
(4) lawful service of the 5-Day Notice to Quit; and
(5) the fair market daily rental value of the rental property (called holdover damages).

Whether obtained by default or at trial, once the judgment is entered, a Writ of Possession must be applied for and issued by the court, and this is then forwarded to the Sheriff’s Department, tasked with serving the Writ of Possession on the squatter(s) and posting a lockout notice on the front door with a time certain for the unwanted residents to vacate. If they remain past this date, the squatter(s) will be removed by the Sheriff’s Department.

Tenant attorneys can muddle the case

In an earlier article on San Francisco’s ballot initiative that entitles San Francisco tenants facing eviction to free legal representation, we noted that clever tenant attorneys reach into a toolbox of demurrers to delay eviction actions and ratchet up the legal expenses of property owners. Frivolous pre-trial motions, depositions, written discovery, and demands for a jury trial are some of the expensive mechanisms of litigation. Many squatters attempt to prolong the eviction action in hopes the owner will dangle money to entice the unauthorized occupant to move out. This legal extortion plot is all the more unseemly when the squatter is represented by free counsel. 

As you can see, encountering squatters is a harrowing experience and the ensuing court process is not so simple, making it imperative that you consult with the landlord attorneys of Bornstein Law to restore sanity.

 

In California, the citizen is the legislator if they pay $200 and manage to get a few hundred thousand signatures with a clipboard to qualify their idea for the ballot. There have been some crackpot initiatives – the state will not secede from the United States, and eating shellfish will not earn you a $666,000 fine per consumption or an imprisonment of up to six years – yet there are measures that usher in far-reaching changes.

One of the winners of last night’s election are hens, who will now enjoy more room to peck as voters said yes to the Proposition 12 chicken cage ban, but what about landlord rights? We are still digesting the election results, but here are some early observations that have jumped off the page.

Proposition 10 is rejected

In a blow to tenant activists and a win for landlords, Proposition 10 has failed at the ballot box, leaving California’s limits on rent control intact. There is no indication that tenant advocates have been deflated, as they look for the next fight and take their calls for expanded rent control in cities throughout the state. For the time being, rental property owners have dodged a bullet after voters overwhelmingly agreed that repealing Costa Hawkins would only exacerbate the dearth of affordable housing.

Proposition 5 shot down

Championed by the California Association of Realtors, this initiative would allow homeowners age 55 or older and those with a severe disability to take their property tax savings with them when buying a new residence, no matter the value of the new home, its location or how many times the buyer has moved. The argument that seniors can move to a home better suited to their needs without facing higher property taxes was rejected at the polls.

The current law remains on the books, and so eligible buyers can transfer a tax assessment if their new home is of equal or lesser value of their old home and only once per lifetime.

Oakland continues its trek down a slippery slope

As proud East Bay residents, we have been elated to witness Oakland’s growth but alarmed that it has become the latest bastion of tenant protections. Election night did little to reverse this trend and made further dents into owner rights.

The biggest newsflash for Oakland landlords is the passage of Measure Y, which removes the owner-occupied exemption from just cause evictions and allows the addition of eviction defenses. We have strongly opposed the measure to peel back landlord protections of an eviction ordinance passed 15 years ago, but the voters have now ushered in additional regulations for small owners who rely on rental income for their subsistence.

If you own a vacant property in Oakland, you will now get a hefty tax under Measure W, an initiative that aims to incentivize owners to put land and housing into use. Empty lots or buildings and condos that are used less than 50 days out of the year will be levied with a $3,000 to $6,000 parcel tax. There are exemptions for low-income seniors but for the rest of owners sitting on empty properties, they will be funding homeless services and illegal dumping cleanup.

The voters have also infused an estimated $9 million a year in new revenue for the city by passing Measure X, a progressive real estate transfer tax that is similar to the one San Francisco has. Most Oaklanders will won’t be affected because the transfer tax rate will remain at 1.5 percent, but land and buildings that sell for between $2 million and $5 million, the tax rate will bump up to 1.75 percent. More expensive properties that sell north of $5 million will be taxed 2.5 percent.

By saying no to Measure AA, Oaklanders stopped short of amending the city charter to establish a parcel tax – a kind of property tax based on units of property rather than assessed value – at the rate of $198 per parcel for 30 years to fund education services for pre-K through college students and career readiness.

San Francisco’s Proposition A sails through

Voters approved Proposition A by a comfortable margin, authorizing the city and county of San Francisco to issue up to $425 million in bonds at an estimated tax rate of $0.013 per $100 of assessed value to fund repairs and improvements the Embarcadero Seawall and Embarcadero infrastructure and utilities for earthquake and flood safety.
Landlords are authorized to pass-through 50% of the property tax increase to residential tenants, in accordance with Administrative Code, Chapter 37.

Pivoting to Berkeley

We noted in an earlier post that forward-thinking municipalities were taking a hard look at their rent control ordinances and how to modify them in the event that Proposition 10 passed. In Berkeley, Measure Q was mostly designed to position the city for a post-Costa-Hawkins world. Although Proposition 10 was scuttled, a provision of Measure Q exempting accessory dwelling units from rent control will become the law of the land.

The exemption does not apply for tenancies created before November 7, 2018 and portions contingent on the passage of Proposition 10 are preempted.

While we applaud Measure Q, we regret to inform owners that by passing Measure P, the voters have increased the tax on the transfer of real property from 1.5 percent to 2.5 percent for property sales and transfers over $1.5 million to fund general city purposes and the establishment of a homeless services panel.

Santa Cruz landlords score a major victory

Santa Cruz rent control advocates couldn’t sell Measure M to voters. With a total of $850,000 raised, the campaign was one of the most expensive in the city’s history but in the end, voters rejected the measure, which would restrict evictions, limit rent increases and create a board to enforce the rules.

Under a newly minted law, California businesses – including those in the rental housing industry – must conduct training that educates employees about sexual harassment and slays the beast.

The viral hashtag campaign #MeToo has exposed sexual harassment and sexual assault wherever it has reared its ugly head and has created a seismic shift in the workplace culture. After rocking every other facet of society, we noted in an earlier article that it was only a matter of time before inappropriate behavior in the rental housing industry was exposed.

In one way, the rental housing industry is particularly susceptible to abusive behavior, because a common theme we have observed with the spate of fallen high-profile figures is that they often appeared to be intoxicated by power and were in a position to influence the careers of their victims, many of whom acquiesced to the harassment or assaults for fear that reporting it would lead to their detriment.

With affordable housing such a rare commodity in the Bay Area, landlords and their agents similarily exert an inordinate amount of influence on one of life’s most basic needs – shelter. Unsavory housing providers can easily take advantage of this inherent power by demanding sexual acts in order to rent or continue living in a unit or make it difficult to feel comfortable in their home. At least one apartment dweller thought she found a gem in a $1,200 apartment in pricey San Francisco, only to find it came with lewd text messages and sexual entreaties. 

While this egregious case made the headlines, the phenomena is likely widespread, because tenants often don’t report it – many are captive because they can’t afford to move out.

New law expands training

Until now, only businesses with 50 or more employees were required to provide sexual harassment prevention training, but SB 1343 will mandate training to businesses with five or more employees, including temporary and seasonal workers. The author of the bill, Senator Holly Mitchell, D-Los Angeles, says this will fill a gaping void.

Millions of California’s most vulnerable workers are not being informed of their rights and protections nor trained on how to detect work-inappropriate behaviors and how to report those behaviors… In order for an adequate culture shift to take place around this issue, all employees need to feel confident that they are adequately protected by their employers’ policies and procedures when it comes to safeguarding against sexual harassment.

Immediate action is in order

The law prescribes that affected employees must undergo expanded training by January 1, 2020. If the requisite training occurs in 2019 it need not be repeated before this deadline. The training mandates at least two hours of sexual harassment prevention training for all supervisory employees and at a minimum, one hour of sexual harassment training to employees in non-supervisory roles. Once an employee is appointed to his or her position, training must be conducted within six months and then every two years. 

Bornstein Law has always advised clients not to kick the can down the road, and this is no exception. The rental housing industry should not get a false sense of comfort because the law goes into effect far-flung in the future. Given the pervasiveness of the problem and the consequences of sexual harassment, we urge that a zero-tolerance policy is set today and is not viewed as a perfunctory compliance issue later on. 

Some time has elapsed since Proposition 64 has passed. Since the voters have legalized the recreational use of cannabis and its cultivation (with several caveats), there were a lot of irons to be wrinkled out in City Halls and in the courts. We are encouraged that in this circuitous process, the law has acknowledged the rights of law-abiding landlords who are not complicit in their tenants’ abuse of the people’s choice. First, some backdrop.

It should be clear to rental property owners by now that they can put the kibosh on cannabis in their units, just as they can ban smoking. This prohibition is best spelled out in an ironclad lease and if there is no cannabis clause in your lease, it is likely time to revisit a stale document.

Of course, we are aware that in this democracy, there is a contingency of landlords who voted for Proposition 64. To the group of landlords who condone cannabis, we warned that liability can result from exposing neighboring tenants to harmful chemicals and that the owner is an easy target for claims that he or she violated California’s implied warranty of habitability by letting the residual effects of cannabis spill into the units of other residents who do not enjoy the leafy substance.

There is another category of studious landlords who have had the wool pulled over their eyes by tenants intent on concealing their behavior.

While Bornstein Law has always maintained that owners should be the eyes and ears of their rental units, sometimes tenants go through great lengths to hide activities going on behind closed doors, and in a cat and mouse game, landlords can be misled and obstructed. We have even seen tenants in bedbug-infested units deny entry to exterminators to obscure what is going on in the dwelling to any prying eyes.

As it was originally drafted, AB 2164 gave cities the prerogative to immediately penalize individuals accused of violating local cannabis laws without due process or even a chance to remedy the violation. Translation: the bill would have left innocent rental property owners vulnerable to stiff penalties, with no ability to correct the problem and without any means to appeal.

Thanks to an amendment by Assemblyman Ken Cooley, D-Rancho Cordova, landlords will be afforded the chance to fix cannabis-related violations without being summarily punished for the actions of rogue tenants.

Under the revisions – also brokered by the California Apartment Association – three elements must apply.

  • A tenant is in possession of the unit where the violation occurred.
  • The owner had no actual knowledge that the tenant was cultivating cannabis.
  • And the owner has a lease agreement that prohibits the illegal activity.

The legislative intent was to deal with transient cannabis growers who violate local laws but effectively avoid fines by leaving and setting up shop elsewhere, essentially curing the violation before fines can be levied. Assemblyman Cooley explains.

“AB 2164 allows but does not require, local governments to amend their ordinances to remove the time period to correct a violation in cases of cannabis cultivation only… This removes at least one monetary incentive for illicit grows to continually move while also giving local governments the ability to bring meaningful penalties on willfully illegal growers.”

AB 2164 gives municipalities the option of removing the time to correct problems before fines are levied only apply to cannabis-related offenses, though local governments would still have to allow individuals to get back in good graces and avoid fines by swiftly fixing problems surrounding building, plumbing, electrical, or other similar structural or zoning issues when these gaffes do not pose an immediate danger.

Keeping tabs on your property may avoid units becoming a source of stench, a breeding ground for mold and a guzzler of utility costs, along with many other problems associated with a growing operation. Yet even the most observant landlords can be bamboozled. We applaud the amendment because these unsuspecting landlords can take action without a city being the judge, jury, and executioner.

We would be remiss not to warn owners that over policing their units may fly in the face of a tenant’s right to “quiet enjoyment” of the premises. In our recent article on handling criminal activity in rental units, we reminded landlords that he or she can only enter a unit with a permissible purpose, and then only with proper notice.

Are your leases in compliance in the era of legalized cannabis and up-to-date with the breakneck changes of other laws, or has it lagged behind the times? When in doubt, contact our office.

Starting in September 2019, tenants facing evictions will be afforded more time to answer eviction proceedings under a new bill recently signed into law. AB 2343 will give tenants three “court days” to fork over overdue rent or comply with other terms of the lease, and a full five court days to respond to an unlawful detainer lawsuit. The law amends Sections 1161 and 1167 of the California Code of Civil Procedure.

Under the current law surrounding unlawful detainer actions:

  • A tenant has three calendar days following receipt of the landlord’s notice to cure a lease violation (e.g. pay rent or any other breach of lease) or vacate the leased premises.
  • A tenant has five calendar days following service of summons to respond to an eviction lawsuit (i.e., an unlawful detainer action) filed by the landlord.

The newly minted law extends a tenant’s 3-day and 5-day response periods in an unlawful detainer action to exclude Saturdays, Sundays, and judicially observed holidays.

As one of the most prolific authors of tenant rights bills, it’s with little surprise that Assemblymember David Chiu, D-San Francisco was the chief architect of this measure.

“Legal aid attorneys across California have reported incidents in which tenants are presented with a notice on a Friday before a holiday weekend and are essentially barred from correcting a breach of a lease or responding to a court summons because courthouses are closed or they cannot secure legal representation over a long weekend. AB 2343 will restore some fairness to the process and give tenants a chance to stay in their homes.”

Renter rights advocacy group Tenants Together claim that there are a staggering amount of default judgments entered against tenants when they fail to respond within five calendar days to their eviction lawsuit or have not filled out the forms properly and that AB 2343 will restore fairness to the process. 

Although landlords will have to wait longer under the new law, it is not eternity. The original proposal was to allow tenants 10 days to pay back rent and have 14 days to respond to an unlawful detainer action, so it’s not as bad as it could have been.

Make no mistake, political rhetoric often sides squarely on the side of tenants, and this law is just one win in the column of an energized tenant rights movement that must be met with equally aggressive representation from landlord attorneys who have been advocating for owner rights for over 23 years.

 

When Senator Bill Dodd was forced to evacuate his NAPA home around midnight on the first night of the October fires, he couldn’t open his heavy wooden garage doors to use as an escape route. With widespread power outages, the garage door motor wasn’t working, but thankfully, a good neighbor came to his aide. One trapped neighbor encountering the same problem was actually forced to drive through his garage door.

“This isn’t a problem most people have thought of,” the Senator says in a news release, but he brought it to the forefront by introducing SB 969, co-authored by Assemblywoman Cecilia Aguiar-Curry, D-Winters and supported by the Consumer Federation of California.

Under the new law, landlords and other property owners will no longer be able to install automatic garage doors unless they have a battery backup function designed to operate during an electoral outage. The bill’s requirements will be enforceable next summer.

For Dodd, the fire season exposed several vulnerabilities and underscored the need to be proactive in adopting policies that make communities safer in the wake of a disaster. Ensuring battery backups for garage doors is “a small step that can literally save lives,” he goes onto say.

At least five of the 40 people who died in the North Bay during the fires did not or could manually open their garages, The Press Democrat reported in December. Seniors and those with heavy wooden doors are especially at risk.

What the law means for rental property owners

Landlords are not required to proactively install new automatic garage doors, but any replacement door installed on or after July 1, 2019, must have the battery backup feature. Owners face a $1,000 civil penalty for failure to comply.

We applaud the bill and have always maintained that owners should develop an emergency preparedness plan before a disaster strikes, to protect, life, limb, and property.

Some habits are annoying to this author, but it might be okay with you, and you might even be the perpetrator of the peeving behavior. Likewise, you might consider me to be a little bothersome at times but in a perfect world, we all come together, celebrate our differences, and get along. Yet we all know that not all human interactions are so harmonious, especially when living in close quarters.

Barring egregious acts or illegal behavior, what constitutes a nuisance has always been somewhat ambiguous, and in an unlawful detainer action (i.e. “eviction”), it will ultimately be up to a judge or jury to decide if the underlying behavior warrants the removal of the tenant.

In a recent lawsuit, however, the city of Oakland and the Oakland Housing Authority Police Department are accused of overstepping their police powers by using a loitering ordinance to maneuver residents and guests, telling them “they can’t be where they are, they have to leave, and they can’t associate with friends and family in public spaces,” in the words of Jude Pond with the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area, a group that joined the ACLU in the litigation.

Some residents purportedly fear to gather outside their own yards or risk being stopped, handcuffed, or fined hundreds of dollars for acts as abominable as sitting in a lawn chair.

We are hard-pressed to offer much commentary on the 161-page lawsuit, except to say it brings up some interesting constitutional questions as to whether the police should be arbiters of who should stay and who should be dispersed when congregating around a rental unit. The lawsuit alleges that under the guise of enforcing the ordinance, police have “broken up family barbecues, and have dispersed groups of friends simply hanging out and getting fresh air,” even questioning a resident as bereaved friends and relatives were gathering for a funeral, in violation of due process and freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures.

The loitering ordinance uses vague phrases that criminalize anyone who “loiters, prowls, wanders, or is present without lawful business” and expresses disfavor for anyone who delays, lingers, or idles about Housing Authority property without a lawful purpose.

It’s submitted that the ordinance applies excessively to black men and is even likened to “loitering ordinances that were used to control black residents of the South in the Jim Crow era,” and that these kinds of laws “have been widely criticized and struck down as enabling unjustified infringement on people’s—usually people of color’s—constitutional rights,” according to one plaintiff’s attorney.

In fairness, OHA says it’s their lawn, and the buck stops with them.

“Property owned by the Oakland Housing Authority is private property not open to the general public. Enforcement of this code is utilized as a means to minimize the risk of impairing the peaceful enjoyment as well as the health and safety of OHA residents and their guests from others who have no lawful business to be present on the property. Put simply, OHA residents and their guests deserve the same protection from trespassers as any other families in Oakland living in privately owned property.”

The claim that law enforcement is using Oakland’s anti-loitering law to criminalize and harass tenants is a story we will continue to follow, but the headline provides a good outlet to discuss the laws surrounding nuisances, with an emphasis on Oakland.

“I’ll know it when I see it?”

There are several layers of law to get to the heart of what a nuisance is.

California state law defines a nuisance as an activity that injures health, including selling illegal drugs, indecent behavior or behavior offending the senses. Behavior that obstructs the “free use” of property and interferes with the “comfortable enjoyment of life or property” is also a nuisance.

Under Oakland’s Just Cause for Eviction Ordinance, known in some quarters as “Measure EE,” owners are allowed to evict a tenant only for “just cause,” and nuisance falls into this category when the tenant continues to disturb other tenants and neighbors after written notice to stop. We hasten to say that although in most instances, tenants are afforded the opportunity to cease the underlying behavior to get back in good graces, illegal activities are not curable and with the guidance of an attorney, an eviction proceeding can be accelerated.

A public nuisance, on the other hand, is one that impacts a community, neighborhood, or “considerable number” of people. Anything deemed not a public nuisance is deemed to be a private nuisance.

Closely related is of the Oakland Municipal Code § 9.08.250, which applies only to Housing Authority properties and is the ordinance currently being challenged.

As we can see, this is not a simple matter of what I like and what annoys you – the law is more muddled, making it imperative to consult with a landlord attorney when friction occurs in a rental unit. 

 

San Francisco and Oakland are in a rather exclusive club by allowing landlords to exempt buildings from rent control because of “substantial rehabilitation,” though Oakland’s rule is headed to the graveyard and we predict that many dilapidated buildings will share its fate as landlords let properties atrophy in the absence of any financial incentive.

The rule – which has been around since Oakland first instituted rent control in the 1980’s – permits landlords to ask the rent board to permanently strip away rent control on his or her units when they spend more than 50 percent of the cost of building an equivalent number of new units on fixing up existing units. The spirit of the exemption was to incentivize investors to renovate rundown buildings, taking uninhabitable dwellings and restoring them to living condition.

Some Oakland lawmakers predictably coined this a “loophole” that had the potential for abuse and have put the exemption on ice with moratoriums. It was unclear if City Council would continue to kick the can down the road again or provide a sense of finality to the rule by voting it up or down on the eve of an October 21 expiration date. Last Tuesday, lawmakers extended the moratorium until March, but agreed in principle that the substantial rehabilitation exemption should be nixed and so they are just buying time for staffers to come up with an ordinance that puts the final nails in the coffin. More backdrop here.

We were quoted in this article saying that if rehabbing a building cannot lead to a rent control exemption, it will result in a “class of buildings that continue to exist in a downward spiral of dilapidation” which is to the detriment to the community. In the eventuality the exemption is nixed, we believe that the city’s housing stock will deteriorate as landlords put away their checkbooks and refuse to make sorely needed repairs because they can’t realize a return on investment.

If the substantial rehabilitation exemption was to be left intact, some people would assuredly lose, and what we mean by that is that some tenants will be priced out of rental units they can’t afford. Yet there would be beneficiaries – people who want to move to Oakland and can afford market rate rent, and so it’s not a simple subtraction of one tenant.

As proud East Bay residents, we are elated to witness Oakland’s growth, but Oakland’s stance towards more stringent rent control moves the needle of progress in the wrong direction.

No matter the political winds in Oakland, rental property owners can rely on our advocacy for owner rights.

Keep your recycling bin close by, as Proposition 10 season is upon us with pounds of fliers and pamphlets sure to litter your mailbox and front door between now and election day.

Bornstein Law has strongly opposed the measure and we are encouraged that a growing number of cooler heads are prevailing in the debate against the repeal of Costa Hawkins. Aside from landlord groups and other predictable foes against Proposition 10, sensible progressives such as the California NAACP leader and other odd bedfellows have staked their case against expanded rent control because they correctly point out that it will only aggravate the housing deficit.

A growing chorus of editorial boards has joined the opposition to Proposition 10, including our own San Francisco Chronicle in their indictment of the ill-advised proposal. 

“… More rent control — and more local government control — will probably further suppress the supply of housing and deepen the crisis for the state. More housing is the way out of the housing shortage. Proposition 10 is not.”

The passage of Proposition 10 is more than a whispering possibility

We’d like to think that the glass is half full and that the many cogent arguments against Proposition 10, coupled with the millions of dollars infused into the machinery to defeat it will prevail. Yet the lawyers in us tell us that we must prepare for the worst. While we can’t predict the future, we can do the next best thing by advising rental property owners on courses of action they can contemplate in the eventuality that voters pass the biggest tenants’ rights bill in decades. First, a little backdrop. 

We noted in an earlier article that after nearly a quarter of a century of trying to repeal Costa-Hawkins to no avail, pro-tenant groups may actually succeed in a new cosmosphere. With cities becoming magnets for high-paying jobs and a corresponding rise in rents and quarrels over gentrification, coupled with a burgeoning homelessness epidemic, the political winds have shifted in the favor of militant tenant advocates who pose a more formidable threat to landlords than the failed campaign of yesteryears.

Cities are grappling with the eventuality of Costa Hawkins repeal and none more tortuously than the City by the Bay.

California cities are the arbiters of what happens if Costa Hawkins is repealed

If Proposition 10 is passed, it will not automatically trigger expanded rent control, but it would remove barriers to a city’s desire to impose more stringent rent stabilization policies. In cities that already have ensconced tenant protections, this is shaping up to be a messy exercise in democracy, as municipalities attempt to strike a delicate balancing act between satisfying tenant advocates who are salivating at the prospect of increased rent control and engaged, tax-paying landlords who may exit the rental housing business or let their properties atrophy if they cannot make a buck.

After some soul searching, Berkeley City Council’s answer was to kick the can down the road to November, when proposed amendments to the rent ordinance will be decided by the voters. As the proverbial capital of tenant’s rights, San Francisco’s debate on how to modify their rent ordinance is more cantankerous.

Under Costa Hawkins, San Francisco cannot move its rent-control date forward from 1979. With tens of thousands of units built since then, the passage of Proposition 10 would have consequences of epic proportions. It is far from resolved, but Supervisor Jane Kim offers a premonition. 

“My guess is that this Board would pass legislation that’s balanced… The fear that we’d go crazy and establish these laws saying tenants could stay in their units no matter what they do … This Board wouldn’t do that.”

At Bornstein Law, we don’t want to get mired into the wranglings of City Council – inquisitive minds can get that here – but suffice it to say that there is no reason to believe that if Proposition 10 is passed, it will not lead to expanded rent control in San Francisco and expose owners now exempt from the rent ordinance to a new set of rules that were previously foreign to them. This begs the question of what San Francisco investment property owners should do in anticipation of Costa Hawkins repeal, or for that matter, landlords throughout California. 

With Costa Hawkins repeal efforts gaining traction, owners currently exempted from rent control should take a hard look at their options

Owners of single family homes, condos, and newly constructed rental properties should have a “heart to heart” discussion about whether current rents are sustainable and if not, consider raising rents to future-proof their rental business before expanded rent control is ushered in.

With the possibility of vacancy decontrol – a rule which would bar a landlord from raising the rent on a unit once a tenant moves out – forward-thinking landlords may also consider terminating the tenancy, a difficult subject but one worth having. Of course, raising rents and transitioning tenants out of rental units are not trivial matters and are best journeyed with a real estate attorney who specializes in the nuances of landlord-tenant law. 

There are some rental property owners who prefer to ride out the storm and not upset the applecart, whatever metaphor you like, perhaps wanting to avoid conflict. In this LA Times article, the author suggests a novel exemption to Proposition 10 by making landlords live alongside their tenants, because “no one is evil enough to live among people, look them in the eye, and raise their rent by $500 a month.

No matter how you are leaning, it requires careful deliberation best journeyed with the landlord attorneys at Bornstein Law – for informed advice, get in touch.