(415)552-9060
Proposition 10 is About Local Control, Nothing Else

Proposition 10 is About Local Control, Nothing Else

by | Oct 25, 2018 | Costa Hawkins

Proposition 10 is About Local Control, Nothing Else

“Local governments are on the front lines of managing homelessness, displacement and gentrification. They need the ability to stop the bleeding. Proposition 10 would give them an additional option for helping those at risk of losing their homes. Proposition 10 isn’t the solution to the state’s affordable housing crisis, but it is a valuable tool to manage the consequences.” —Los Angeles Times, September 15, 2018

“It’s about local control, which is why we recommend Californians vote ‘yes.’ ” —The Sacramento Bee, September 14, 2018

If enacted, Proposition 10 will repeal the Costa Hawkins Rental Housing Act, nothing more, nothing less.

What is the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act?

Costa-Hawkins was a bipartisan measure authored by Jim Costa (D-Fresno). A congressman now and a member of the Blue Dog Democrats, Costa has always been a shill for big agriculture, big oil, and the so-called real estate industry;  and Phil Hawkins (R-Bellflower), a one-term 56th Assembly District representative who currently serves on the Board of Directors of the Central Basin Municipal Water District.

The California Legislature enacted the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act in 1995 with the passage of AB 1164 (Hawkins) and its predecessor, SB 1257 (Costa) with support from one-percenters like the so-called Coalition for Fair Rental Policy, the California Building Industry Association, the California League of Savings Institutions, the California Land Title Association, the California Mortgage Bankers Association, and various property owners and apartment associations throughout California.

The Costa Hawkins Rental Housing Act banned any vacancy control—regulated rents for units despite vacancy (think Berkeley.) It also entirely exempted single-family dwellings (including condo-converted units) from rent control.

The most pernicious effect of the act was to absolutely prohibit local jurisdictions from enacting any future rent control for housing built after February 1, 1995.

Think of it this way: In 1995 Congress prohibits states from enacting any automobile fuel emission controls or standards (for sake of the argument let’s not debate the constitutionality of this). The benefit to a few special interest groups is obvious—the oil companies and the auto manufacturers will get richer and richer. Meanwhile the pollution becomes more and more toxic. People begin to die. Shouldn’t our state have the ability to enact measures to control that pollution? Shouldn’t we, as a state, a more local government, be allowed the right to chart the course of our own future?

As a state law, the Costa-Hawkins Act preempts any attempts by local governments to deal with the well-documented current housing crisis by controlling the price of rents in housing built after 1995. Proposition 10 repeals Costa-Hawkins, but does not mandate any rent control itself. It will be up to local governments to decide if they want rent control or not.

Proposition 10 embodies the true spirit of California’s initiative process.

California has a long history with the Initiative and Referendum process. Enacted in 1911, it was was described in the Los Angeles Times as a vote “that thrust from power the Captains of Greed.”

An argument for the original measure to enact the initiative process stated, “One of the strongest arguments in its favor is the character of many of those who oppose it. Opposing it will be found without exception the servants of special interests, and those who profit through special legislation. Added to these are those who may be termed our “Political Aristocrats,” who distrust and scoff at the people; who are accustomed to sneer at self-government as ‘The rule of the Mob,’ or ‘the Tyranny or Majorities.’ ”

The initiative process has been maligned in recent years, largely because special interest groups masquerade as populists (think Trump) and spend tons of money to confuse voters to support their various whims.

Proposition 10 is an initiative written and supported by tenant groups who represent real people, tenants who are neither rich nor particularly powerful. Costa Hawkins was enacted by griftocrats showered in bribes…I mean contributions…from the so-called real estate industry that represents a small class of people who still deign to call themselves lords.

Proposition 10 is exactly the type of law the creators of the initiative process envisioned—a law proposed by an underclass ignored and vilified by their supposed representatives.

The ludicrous arguments against Proposition 10

The various TV ads opposing Proposition 10 seem to cloak themselves in a kind of pro-tenant language: Prop 10 has no protections for renters, seniors, veterans, or the disabled. Correct. Prop 10 has no specific provisions to reduce rents. Correct. Prop 10 contains zero funding for affordable housing and contains no requirements that housing be built. Correct.

All of these “arguments” essentially ask this question: Why aren’t there any peaches in this apple pie?

Another argument against Proposition 10 goes something like this: “Prop 10 is the wrong approach. It repeals an important California rental housing law with no replacement and no plan to address affordable and middle-class housing or deal with the problem of increasing homelessness on our streets.”

Proposition 10 seeks to repeal an existing law that does not provide any tenant protections and prevents local governments from attempting to provide them. Costa-Hawkins prevents local governments from establishing rent control for buildings filled with senior, veterans and the disabled people built after 1995. Costa-Hawkins prevents local governments from establishing specific provisions to reduce rents. Costa-Hawkins prevents local governments from using rent control as a means to help to create affordable housing.

Costa-Hawkins is only helps those “Captains of Greed” those landlords who can’t imagine a place where local control, real democracy, might seek to control rents.

Proposition 10 Does Not Mandate Any Rent Control

Once again, Proposition 10 only repeals Cost-Hawkins in order to return rent control decision making to local governments. Those who oppose repeal want to paint it as some kind of new rent control law. It is not.

Those who oppose Proposition 10 would rather debate rent control on a statewide basis so that they can hide behind their slick, meaningless TV ads. They don’t want local governments to have right to chart the course of our own future. They abhor the idea that they may have to debate the issue locally, the idea that someone might know them and confront them personally, exposing their opposition for what it really is—unmitigated, inhumane, aristocratic greed.

Vote Yes on Proposition 10!

Share On Facebook
Share On X
Share On Reddit
Share Via Email
Share On Telegram

Call the Tenant Lawyers now for a free consultation.
(415) 552-9060

Contact Us
Sitemap
Privacy Policy
Is This Legal Advice?

Repeal Costa Hawkins? It’s the Democrats, Stupid.

Repeal Costa Hawkins? It’s the Democrats, Stupid.

by | Jan 1, 2018 | Costa Hawkins

Repeal Costa Hawkins? It’s the Democrats, Stupid.

I whole-heartedly support the efforts to repeal Costa Hawkins by tenant organizations like Tenants Together, the San Francisco Tenants Union, the San Francisco Anti-Displacement Coalition, the Housing Rights Committee of San Francisco and all the other hard working individuals and organizations supporting this worthy goal. I’ve been demanding Costa Hawkins repeal for years.

For those of you who can, I urge you to go to Sacramento on January 11, 2018 to attend the first Assembly Housing and Community Development Committee hearing and to loudly support Costa Hawkins repeal—to vociferously support the right of local government to enact rent control.

Democrats with a super majority, champions of the little guys, will support local efforts to control outrageous rent increases that create homelessness—No brainer, right?

Remember, Costa Hawkins was a bipartisan measure authored by Jim Costa (D-Fresno), a congressman now and a member of the Blue Dog Democrats; and Phil Hawkins (R-Bellflower), a one-term 56th Assembly District representative.

The California Legislature enacted the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act in 1995 with the passage of AB 1164 (Hawkins) and its predecessor, SB 1257 (Costa) with support from one-percenters like the so-called Coalition for Fair Rental Policy, the California Building Industry Association, the California League of Savings Institutions, the California Land Title Association, the California Mortgage Bankers Association, and various property owners and apartment associations throughout California.

The Costa Hawkins Rental Housing Act (CA Civil Code §§ 1954.50-1954.535) gutted rent control by prohibiting local jurisdictions from enacting rent control on any building with a certificate of occupancy issued after February 1, 1995. It banned any vacancy control–regulated rents for units despite vacancy (think Berkeley.) It also entirely exempted single-family dwellings from rent control.

Another pervasive effect of Costa Hawkins in already rent-controlled jurisdictions, is that it allows landlords to increase rent as they see fit upon subsequent occupants, roommates who still reside in a unit after the original tenant on the lease has vacated. The typical scenario here is that a new owner, usually a rapacious capitalist, MBA bean counter, will see that the current tenants are not those listed on the lease and serve a sixty-day notice to increase the rent. This often occurs with long-term tenancies in which the former owners allowed the original and subsequent tenants to replace roommates informally.

Democrats now understand that Costa Hawkins has caused massive displacement and economic hardship for tenants, right?

More recently, California Democrats had an opportunity to to support tenants and failed to do so. In 2013, then State Senator Mark Leno introduced a bill (SB 603) to amend the security deposit law to include, among other things two issues I’ve noted here. It would have required landlords to keep security deposit in separate accounts and to pay interest on the amounts. It would have also required that a court must award statutory damages with a finding of a bad faith claim or retention of a security deposit. The current law says “may” and statutory damages are only assessed in about 3.5% of cases. The bill was defeated by Democrats!

In an article for BeyondChron complaining about the defeat of (from my perspective) a relatively innocuous bill, Dean Preston wrote:

“[T]here appears to be an additional factor driving some of these votes. 17 of 39 senators, that’s 44% of the Senate, are themselves landlords. This results in a bias when it comes to landlord-tenant affairs, one that is easily exploited by landlord lobbyists.

 

The senators who betrayed tenants last week are relying on not being called out. They know things often fade quickly from public view, particularly votes cast in Sacramento. Tenants at the grassroots level need to get their pens, computers, phones, bullhorns, signs, bodies and sense of outrage ready. Senators who opposed this bill need to get an earful as they return to their districts.

 

There is no getting around this basic fact: a majority of Democratic senators voted to protect landlords who illegally withhold tenant security deposits. At this point, California Democrats cannot even be trusted to give tenants basic protections enjoyed by tenants in Alabama. Tenants may have helped elect the 2/3 Democratic majority, but so far they sure aren’t getting much in return.”

What has changed? It looks like only five of the democratic senators who voted against the security deposit bill are still holding office, but will the turnover be enough? I’m not holding my breath, especially since one of the ass-wipes who voted against the bill, Kevin De Leon, recently announced that that he will run for the U.S. Senate against Diane Feinstein—as a progressive. I’m no fan of Feinstein, but I will never vote for Mr. De Leon because he demonstrated his true nature with that one vote.

Why not call the Democrats out now?

Dean Preston’s words still ring true: “California Democrats cannot even be trusted to give tenants basic protections enjoyed by tenants in Alabama.” While I admire and support the effort to repeal Costa Hawkins on the legislative level, a warning to legislators should be included in any dialogue—You fuck us on this and we’ll fuck you back.

Thanks to Tenants Together and all the others, the tide is rising for tenants, but we cannot rely upon anyone but ourselves. I recommend that tenants, especially tenant organizers read Last Call: The Rise and Fall of Prohibition, by Daniel Okrent.

“There have been many studies that follow the rapid growth of the temperance movement in this era — the colorful saloon-busting of Carry Nation, the tent-revival magnetism of Billy Sunday — but none can match the precision of Okrent’s account. Momentum, he notes, depended on both a keen understanding of the political process and a ruthless approach to elected officials, who either joined the cause or found themselves under endless assault.” —New York Times Sunday Book Review, by David Oshinsky, May 21, 2010.

The strategies chronicled in “Last Call” were emulated by Tea Party Republicans, showing that pressure can be applied at the local level to successfully effect single issue change. The single issues in each case, prohibition and no taxes, were extremely narrow-minded. Imagine how successful tenants could be with the single issue of local control, or eventually, the right to housing. I believe an “endless assault” on Democratic legislators should not only come in the form of consistently calling them out, but also forming a Tenant Party to run tenant activists in local and statewide races. Certainly any Tenant Party candidate should run to win. In San Francisco and other cities with large tenant populations winning is possible. But even in losing a given election, a Tenant Party candidate would not bode well for a Democrat. If there’s a Republican out there who will vote to repeal Costa Hawkins, tenants should vote for that candidate as well.

Did I mention that it’s also time to repeal the Ellis Act?

Share On Facebook
Share On X
Share On Reddit
Share Via Email
Share On Telegram

Call the Tenant Lawyers now for a free consultation.
(415) 552-9060

Contact Us
Sitemap
Privacy Policy
Is This Legal Advice?

Screwed by Costa Hawkins

Screwed by Costa Hawkins

by | Dec 11, 2013 | Costa Hawkins, Roommates

Screwed by Costa Hawkins

I think I have been screwed by Costa Hawkins. I live in Noe valley SF in a rent controlled apartment. I have been at this apartment for 4 years. The lease is in my roommate’s name. He is moving out and the landlord wants me to sign a new lease and increase the rent 50%.

I always paid my roommate directly without exchanging money with the landlord.  But the landlord knows that I have been living here, he has my phone number etc.

Do I count as a tenant? Can I argue that even without being on the lease rent control applies to me because that was my only residence for 4 years?

Note that I’m OK with increasing the rent but hopefully not that much (I’d be happy with 25%). Do I have anything to negotiate with or can he just make me move out if I don’t accept the new rent?

Of course you count as a tenant.

Rent Ordinance §37.2(t) defines tenant: “A person entitled by written or oral agreement, sub-tenancy approved by the landlord, or by sufferance, to occupy a residential dwelling unit to the exclusion of others.” Note that a tenant under the Rent Ordinance can even be a person at sufferance, the legal term for a holdover tenant, a tenant occupying a unit without permission from the landlord.

Judging by the behavior of the landlord, you are an approved subtenant because he is willing to negotiate a new lease with you and let you remain in the premises.

The problem is that the rent control provisions of the Ordinance don’t apply to you because you are a “subsequent occupant.”

California Civil Code §1954.53(d)(2) mandates:

If the original occupant or occupants who took possession of the dwelling or unit pursuant to the rental agreement with the owner no longer permanently reside there, an owner may increase the rent by any amount allowed by this section to a lawful sublessee or assignee who did not reside at the dwelling or unit prior to January 1, 1996.

If you are a regular reader of “Tenant Troubles” you should recognize that California Civil Code §1954.53 is called the Costa Hawkins Rent Housing Act, a bi-partisan law enacted in 1995 by the band of pandering griftocrats we call our state legislators.

Costa Hawkins eviscerated local rent control so bona fide tenants like you get screwed because you’re not an “original tenant.”

The only way you can argue that that you could be entitled to the rent control protections of the Rent Ordinance is to prove that you are a “co-occupant.”

Rent Board Rules & Regulations §6.14 defines a co-occupant as “a subsequent occupant who has a rental agreement directly with the owner.” Rules & Regulations §6.14(c) applies to you and states:

When all original occupant(s) no longer permanently reside in a rental unit, and the last of the original occupants vacated on or after April 25, 2000, the landlord may establish a new base rent of any subsequent occupant(s) who is not a co-occupant and who commenced occupancy of the unit on or after January 1, 1996 without regard to the limitations set forth in Section 37.3(a) of the Rent Ordinance unless the subsequent occupant proves that the landlord waived his or her right to increase the rent by:

(1) Affirmatively representing to the subsequent occupant that he/she may remain in possession of the unit at the same rental rate charged to the original occupant(s); or

(2) Failing, within 90 days of receipt of written notice that the last original occupant is going to vacate the rental unit or actual knowledge that the last original occupant no longer permanently resides at the unit, whichever is later, to serve written notice of a rent increase or a reservation of the right to increase the rent at a later date; or

(3) Receiving written notice from an original occupant of the subsequent occupant’s occupancy and thereafter accepting rent unless, within 90 days of said acceptance of rent, the landlord reserved the right to increase the rent at a later date.

Where the landlord has waived the right to increase the rent under subsection (c)(1) or (c)(3) above, the subsequent occupant to whom the representation was made or from whom the landlord accepted rent shall thereafter have the protection of an original occupant as to any future rent increases under this Section 6.14. Where the landlord has waived the right to increase the rent under subsection (c)(2) above, any subsequent occupant who permanently resides in the rental unit with the actual knowledge and consent of the landlord (if the landlord’s consent is required and not unreasonably withheld) at the time of the waiver shall thereafter have the protection of an original occupant as to any future rent increases under this Section 6.14.

As you can see, it’s very difficult to prove that you are a co-occupant unless you moved in at the same time as the master tenant or established a direct relationship with the landlord, e.g. paid the rent directly to the landlord and the landlord treated you like a tenant and promised you (in writing) that someday you could “inherit” the tenancy at the same rental rate.

Try to make the best deal possible with the landlord.

If you fail to come to an agreement, remind him that he must serve a 60-day notice to increase the rent more than 10% (Civil Code §827.) Then take all of you documentation to the San Francisco Tenants Union and purchase a membership to assess your chances for success if you file a Rent Board Petition for a wrongful rent increase.

Share On Facebook
Share On X
Share On Reddit
Share Via Email
Share On Telegram

Call the Tenant Lawyers now for a free consultation.
(415) 552-9060

Contact Us
Sitemap
Privacy Policy
Is This Legal Advice?

Is My Landlord Lying, Claiming We Don’t Have Rent Control?

Is My Landlord Lying, Claiming We Don’t Have Rent Control?

by | Nov 13, 2013 | Costa Hawkins, Tenant Law

Is My Landlord Lying, Claiming We Don’t Have Rent Control?

My wife and I (both in our 60s) rent a one bedroom apartment in a 12-unit building in lower Russian Hill, built in the 20’s.  We have rented for 30 + years.  When we first moved in (in the early 80’s) the Landlord was in the process of converting the building to condos and asked if we were interested in buying.  We said yes, he proceeded with the condo conversion, and put them on the market for a couple of months.  He didn’t sell enough units (my understanding was that he was required to sell more than half, or at least 7), so he took the condos off the market and has been renting them ever since.  They are currently recorded with the Assessor as 12 separate condos, all owned by him.

We continue to rent the same unit and the landlord has complied with SF Rent Control Laws for our unit and for one other long-term tenant.  Most of the units (10 out of 12), however, are being rented out with the understanding that, because they are condos, they are exempt from rent control (even though they are still owned by the original landlord and subdivider).

I have two questions:

1-  My understanding is that the condo exemption under the Costa-Hawkins law does not apply to condos that have not been legitimately sold by the original subdivider.  Is the Landlord violating the SF Rent Ordinance when he tells new tenants that the units are exempt? (Most of the affected tenants have been there for 5-10 years or less).

2-  The landlord has recently begun doing significant work on four units, no doubt in response to the hot rental market (the building is generally well-maintained).  This work is all being done without permits and there are a number of issues that are not code compliant (I am an Architect by profession).  I have not mentioned anything about this to the Landlord or to DBI (I have taken some photos).  Before we do anything drastic, we thought we should get a better understanding of our status with respect to the Ellis Act, or any other precedents that could put our tenancy in jeopardy – for example, could the landlord try to sell our unit out from under us?  

I am sure the landlord would like us to move, although we generally have a civil relationship.  Were we to file a complaint, that might change.

If none of the condos in your building have been sold to new buyers, none of them are exempt from rent control.

The Costa Hawkins Rental Housing Act (which should be repealed) exempts “a condominium dwelling or unit that has not been sold separately by the subdivider to a bona fide purchaser for value” from its prohibition on rent control for single family dwellings. (Ca. Civil Code §1954.52(3)(B)(ii)).

Of course, your pre-1996 tenancy would also be exempt if you were renting any single-family dwelling built before 1979 in San Francisco.

Your landlord is simply lying to his newer tenants and if they have been paying illegal rent increases, they should file petitions alleging illegal rent increases at the San Francisco Rent Board.

Unless the landlord has decided to sell the condominiums in the building (as the recent renovation could indicate), evicting all of the tenants in the building using the Ellis Act seems like an unlikely move. If he rents a renovated unit, I think it’s a safe bet that he won’t Ellis. You should also understand that California case law prevents a landlord from evicting tenants from a condominium in a multi-unit building. (See Valnes v. Santa Monica Rent Board (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 1116.)

Certainly, the landlord can sell the unit in which you reside. A new owner could also evict you using an owner move-in eviction. Even though your wife and you are over 60 years of age and have resided in the unit for over 10 years, the OMI protections do not apply to you because the unit is a condo. Interestingly, the protections would apply if the landlord himself wanted to move in and evict you because he owns more than one unit in the building. All of this is covered in Rent Ordinance §37.9(i).

As you may know, I try to give my readers practical, functional advice that doesn’t always recommend asserting each and every right one may have. I do so because I know that landlords take their titles of nobility seriously.

As long as tenants are ignorant or their rights or choose not to assert them, everything is fine. But when a tenant complains about conditions in a unit, illegal construction, illegal rent increases…anything really…landlords retaliate. They channel their inner alter ego, Edward I (Longshanks), as played by Patrick MacGoohan in the film, Braveheart. 

Just substitute Scots for tenants and understand that 600 years ago the vast majority of Scots were tenant farmers or serfs.

Yes, your relationship with your landlord will change if you complain about the illegal construction in the building. The next time you see him he will have donned his crown, his tights and his cod piece.

It is understandable if you choose not to report the unpermitted work. But we have building codes for a reason. Do you have a duty to others who rent and or eventually buy the illegally remodeled units. Do you have a duty to yourselves  or other tenants in the building who could suffer if the construction is unsafe? It’s your choice.

Share On Facebook
Share On X
Share On Reddit
Share Via Email
Share On Telegram

Call the Tenant Lawyers now for a free consultation.
(415) 552-9060

Contact Us
Sitemap
Privacy Policy
Is This Legal Advice?

Do I Have To Move Out If The Condo I’m Renting Goes On The Market?

Do I Have To Move Out If The Condo I’m Renting Goes On The Market?

by | Aug 21, 2013 | Costa Hawkins

Do I Have To Move Out If The Condo I’m Renting Goes On The Market?

I live in a 1905 era condo (i.e. non rent controlled, but eviction controlled) where I have lived for three years. My lease is up in October and the landlords have told me they are going to put it on the market. They have offered to sell it to me and I have declined. It’s a beautiful place, but it’s a third floor walkup up 42 steps and I can’t see being able to grow old here. It’s a 2/2 in Russian Hill and I pay $5,000/month. My rent is probably slightly above market value.

I like the condo and would like to stay in it, at least until I know whether it is bought by an investor or someone who wants to move in. I’d be willing to move out for a buyout so that it could be marketed empty. I am curious about what my rights are as far as staying. I believe the only reason I could be evicted is for an OMI (unless I fail to pay rent or screw up in some way). Is this correct? Is there anything to prevent the owners from saying, “Your lease is up, your rent is now $25K a month if you want to stay” to get me to move out so they can market the place?

If I do stay through the condo being marketed, do I have to allow the owners to repaint different colors and stage the property the way they like, or do they need to leave it alone? I have repainted inside, with the landlord’s permission, since I moved in three years ago but it’s in good shape.

I can see that you are aware of this, but here’s a refresher for those who don’t know. A condominium is a unit in a building that has been subdivided. A condo has its own plat map and, like a house, is a legal single-family dwelling. Therefore, because the building was built before 1979, the just cause eviction provisions of the Rent Ordinance apply to your tenancy, but the rent control provisions–limitations on the annual allowable rent increases–usually do not apply.

If you want to know why rent control does not apply to single family dwellings, go ask Jim Costa (D-Fresno). This mug is a congressman now and a member of the Blue Dog Democrats. Or Phil Hawkins (R-Bellflower), a one-term 56th Assembly District representative who currently serves on the Board of Directors of the Central Basin Municipal Water District. I see fracking in Orange County’s future.

The California Legislature enacted the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act in 1995 with the passage of AB 1164 (Hawkins) and its predecessor, SB 1257 (Costa) with support from one-percenters like the so-called Coalition for Fair Rental Policy, the California Building Industry Association, the California League of Savings Institutions, the California Land Title Association, the California Mortgage Bankers Association, and various property owners and apartment associations throughout California.

The Costa Hawkins Rental Housing Act (CA Civil Code §§ 1954.50-1954.535) gutted rent control by prohibiting local jurisdictions from enacting rent control on any building with a certificate of occupancy issued after February 1, 1995. It banned any vacancy control–regulated rents for units despite vacancy (think Berkeley.) It also entirely exempted single-family dwellings from rent control.

But what would a law be without an exception? “A condominium dwelling or unit that has not been sold separately by the subdivider to a bona fide purchaser for value” is not covered by Costa Hawkins. (CA Civil Code §1954.52(a)(3)(B)(ii).)

In other words, if your landlord is the person who initially converted the building you won’t have to worry about a $20K increase in your rent, at least not until a new buyer demands it.

Arguably (note the lawyerism), you shouldn’t have to worry about a $20K increase at all. If your unit is still rent controlled, the increase would be illegal. If the unit is not rent controlled and your current landlords have indicated that they want to sell it, a huge rent increase is indicative of a dominant motive to evict you without just cause rather than to simply increase the rent. If you moved out because of the rent increase, arguably, you could sue the landlords for wrongful eviction. If a new buyer indicated a desire to move in, but served a notice to dramatically increase the rent, if you move based on the notice you could also claim that you were wrongfully evicted.

Here’s where the “arguably” comes in. If the new owner simply serves you a notice to increase the rent to $8,000 per month without communicating his real motive, can you move and sue? The owner has the unlimited right to increase the rent, but when does the increase become a per se indication of a bad dominant motive. A $20K increase is fairly obvious but especially in this market a $3K increase, absent other facts, is not.

This is another reason to communicate with landlords in writing. You want to be able to prove dominant motive. Make sure that offers to sell, statements of intent to move in and “We can’t wait until next May!” are conveyed in writing.

In last few months I’ve been hearing from prospective clients about a disturbing trend in which new buyers serve these increases to avoid paying OMI relocation payments or because they don’t want to wait until the end of the school year to evict families with children. You wouldn’t believe the number of times I’ve heard, candidly, from landlords’ lawyers that their Cheese Ball clients, who just paid $1.6 million for a house, can’t afford to pay the statutory relocation costs. It always blows my mind and I hear it over and over again.

If you do stay through the sales process, you do not have to allow the landlords to paint or stage the unit. Once again, painting the entire unit and particularly, staging it with new furniture, etc. could easily be construed as harassment designed to get you to move. If they want to stage, they should pay you the big dough to exit stage right.

Share On Facebook
Share On X
Share On Reddit
Share Via Email
Share On Telegram

Call the Tenant Lawyers now for a free consultation.
(415) 552-9060

Contact Us
Sitemap
Privacy Policy
Is This Legal Advice?

You May Not Have To Sign That Lease, But Here’s Why You May Want To

You May Not Have To Sign That Lease, But Here’s Why You May Want To

by | Jul 10, 2013 | Costa Hawkins

You May Not Have To Sign That Lease, But Here’s Why You May Want To

We have lived in our rented house for 2 years and 5 months, we signed a year lease for the first 2 years but as of February 10, 2013 we have not signed a lease.  He wants a year lease signed  in August 2013 so when he has to find new tenants it will be before the school year starts.  We are trying to buy our first home together and we are trying hard but finding a home hasn’t been an easy process.  I feel since he didn’t have us sign a lease in February (when our current lease was up) we are month to month and as long as we are paying rent we should be fine.  So the question is, can he kick us out for not agreeing to sign a lease?

This is a question I’ve never seen before. Certainly, refusing to sign a new lease could be a just cause for eviction under the Rent Ordinance. Rent Ordinance §37.9(a)(5) states:

A landlord shall not endeavor to recover possession of a rental unit unless the tenant, who had an oral or written agreement with the landlord which has terminated, has refused after written request or demand by the landlord to execute a written extension or renewal thereof for a further term of like duration and under such terms which are materially the same as in the previous agreement; provided, that such terms do not conflict with any of the provisions of this Chapter.

The key here is defining the lease which has terminated and when it terminated. The lease terminated in February. It reverted to a month-to-month tenancy on February 10, 2013. Assuming that you pay rent on the 10th, the mont-to-month tenancy will terminate today and if you pay rent it will renew again until August 10.

Your analysis of the issue is correct. You will not be obligated to sign anything other than a month-to-month agreement. No, the landlord cannot evict you under this just cause of the Rent Ordinance.

So if I put on my “slightly radical side of liberal” (I’m still steamed about that one.) tenants rights hat, I’ll advise you to tell the landlord to fuck off. End of story, right?

Wrong. There’s a reason why only seven notices to evict under 37.9(a)(5) were filed with the Rent Board last year. Landlords generally don’t want to lock themselves into fixed term leases for fixed rent. Why? Because they want to keep their options open. You never know what kind of rich sucker is going to come along and offer you a gazillion bucks for your building. When the rube arrives with his suitcase of cash, you don’t want to have to tell him that he can’t move in or jack up the rents because one of your serfs happens to have a lease.

The lease must contain “terms which are materially the same as in the previous agreement.” Rent is the most material term in a lease and in order to hold you to signing, the landlord cannot increase it. Most landlords who rent single family houses in San Francisco don’t have any incentive to require tenants to sign a longer term lease because they can increase the rent to whatever the market will bear. Remember, your two-plus year tenancy is not covered by the price controls in the Rent Ordinance because you live in a house. Thank your state legislators for the Costa Hawkins Rental Housing Act which fucked over thousands of tenants in California. Because Democrat legislators don’t have the guts to repeal Costa Hawkins, like herpes, it’s a gift that keeps on giving.

If you refuse to sign a new lease at the same rent, your landlord will get pissed, see the light and increase your rent a thousand bucks a month.

You’re saving money to buy a house right? Ask yourself: 1) Are we completely insane? and, more importantly 2) Are we being penny-wise and pound foolish?

I think you’d be wise to simply sign the year lease if it does not increase the rent, or if the increase is reasonable. If you buy a house, you can give the landlord a thirty-day notice. You will breach the lease if you move early, but the landlord can increase the rent to market. By then the rental value would be, what, 100 times what it is now? Most landlords would jump at the chance. Landlords are required by law to mitigate their damages. If the landlord can only re-rent the house at the same price he’s renting to you, he won’t have any damages for breach. You can even get your security deposit back.

Yes, you have tenant rights, but sometimes the best strategy is to refrain from exercising them.

Share On Facebook
Share On X
Share On Reddit
Share Via Email
Share On Telegram

Call the Tenant Lawyers now for a free consultation.
(415) 552-9060

Contact Us
Sitemap
Privacy Policy
Is This Legal Advice?

My Master Tenant’s Fallen In Love, Am I Screwed?

My Master Tenant’s Fallen In Love, Am I Screwed?

by | Sep 20, 2012 | Costa Hawkins, Roommates

My Master Tenant’s Fallen In Love, Am I Screwed?

Renters wait for hours to apply for a Tenderloin studio apartment priced at $2500.00 per month.

Master tenant in love

So in the midst of Rentpocalypse 2012, I managed to score a nice room in a spacious flat at a reasonable rate. I know, right? It’s been a good year. Concurrently, however, the master tenant has fallen a little head-over-heels for someone and has increasingly been spending time at their place. As in enough time that even her cat spends more nights over there than in the apartment lately.

I’m thinking there’s a non-zero possibility that she could be moving out, and possibly soon. Not to push my already good luck, but I was wondering: As a subtenant, what are my rights if she gives notice? Would I have to negotiate a new lease entirely? Would I inherit any rent protections? The only interaction I’ve had with the landlord, in writing or otherwise, was a check written out to him personally for August rent, which he cashed.

Master tenant in love? Welcome to Rentpocalypse 2012! Have a seat, but don’t stay too long.

As you might guess, this is a common scenario, but at least you are in the position to gather information and make some plans.

You don’t mention how rent the landlord is receiving for the flat. If your roommate has leased the unit for fifteen years and the rent is $2,000 per month below market, the landlord will have plenty of incentive to increase the rent if your roommate departs. On the other hand, your roommate will have plenty of incentive to keep the place until she is absolutely certain she wants to move.

You need to speak to your roommate and ask her if she has any future plans to move. Point out that it is important to understand her plans because it’s likely that you will either have to pay increased rent or move as well. Read last week’s column to understand why.

Essentially you are a subsequent occupant as defined by Rent Board Rule & Regulations §6.14(c). Your landlord will be entitled to increase the rent when you vacate.

I don’t put too much stock in the argument that because the landlord cashed a couple of your checks, you’ve established a new tenancy. The Costa Hawkins Rent Housing Act (which should be repealed) in Civil Code §1954.53(d)(4) states:

“Acceptance of rent by the owner shall not operate as a waiver or otherwise prevent enforcement of a covenant prohibiting sublease or assignment or as a waiver of an owner’s rights to establish the initial rental rate unless the owner has received written notice from the tenant that is party to the agreement and thereafter accepted rent.”

You should keep paying the rent to the landlord because the longer that goes, the stronger the argument that you are a party to the agreement. But you should not have any illusion that you can keep renting the flat at the current rate simply because you paid rent directly to the landlord.

Go to the San Francisco Tenants Union to more fully discuss your potential issue.

More importantly, talk to your roommate. Hopefully, she doesn’t have any immediate plans to move. Knock on wood. Maybe you can ride out Rentpocalypse.

Share On Facebook
Share On X
Share On Reddit
Share Via Email
Share On Telegram

Call the Tenant Lawyers now for a free consultation.
(415) 552-9060

Contact Us
Sitemap
Privacy Policy
Is This Legal Advice?