(415)552-9060
I Think We Have A Squatter In Our Garage

I Think We Have A Squatter In Our Garage

I Think We Have A Squatter In Our Garage

I have a question about a squatter that’s living in our building. I’ve tried doing research online regarding squatters living in a building’s common areas or garage, but haven’t come up with much.

My two roommates and I live in a three-story apartment building in San Francisco (built in the early 1990s, so no rent control).  It has three units total – two flats, and a small, most likely illegal unit in the rear of the garage. 

Our garage is large enough for two cars to park side-by-side. 

While we are not on a lease right now (and have not been for four years), I’ve lived in the top flat for over six years, and a garage spot has always been reserved for our flat, as well as the flat on the second floor.  Other than that, the garage houses all of the building’s electrical switches, the main water shut-off, washer and dryer for tenants’ use, two water heaters (shared among the three units), and also a gas heating unit for the second-floor flat. 

Our problem is that there is a squatter living in our garage.  The squatter is a former tenant of the second-floor flat below ours, who must have gotten kicked out by her roommates.  She has an 8-year-old child with a man who still lives in the flat below us, and it seems that they share custody.  However, we suspect that the woman is homeless.  

Although she is no longer living in the second-floor flat, she retained her keys, or at least the key to enter the gate that allows access to the building.  There were a few days when she didn’t have keys and was constantly ringing our doorbell (a.k.a. harassing us) in an attempt to gain entrance to the building. 

Her car remains in the garage, where it has been for the last 7+ years.  She sleeps in the car, but that isn’t even the worst part.  One day about six or eight weeks ago, out of nowhere, all of her possessions appeared in garbage bags in the garage.  

To describe the disaster, it looks like she put all of her possessions in the room above the garage and the ceiling caved in.  It has quite literally turned our garage into a landfill.  There are clothes, food, food wrappers, garbage, and old appliances strewn everywhere, blocking walkways and making passage through the garage to the backyard difficult.  My roommate’s parking space in the garage is often blocked by, or filled with, this junk. 

For instance, my roommate will leave for the day and come back in the evening, and the squatter will have moved junk into my roommate’s parking space.  Our water main shutoff is blocked by garbage and appliances that are piled against the wall.  The squatter makes use of our washer and dryer whenever she feels like it (utilities that we are paying for, by the way).  Lord only knows where she uses the restroom, because her former roommates, the second-floor tenants, do not seem to allow her to enter their flat.   

The situation gets worse on a daily basis.  At first, we were sympathetic, as she apologized for the mess, saying that she was moving to another apartment, and everything would be out in a couple of weeks.  However, that doesn’t seem to have happened. 

Last week, we called the property manager and told him what was going on.  He said he needed to think about it and would call us back.  The following day, I sent him a letter detailing everything I have mentioned here, complete with several photos of the possessions and garbage in the garage.  I suggested that he call me ASAP because something needs to be done about this situation promptly.  No reply yet.  As tenants, I don’t believe we can legally do anything about this situation, and the landlord is the one who needs to formally evict the squatter.  Am I correct?  If he does not take any action, what can we do as tenants?

Strictly speaking, squatters do not need to be formally evicted, that is served with notice and sued in unlawful detainer. Squatters have no tenancy rights and can simply be ejected from a building by the police. You can call the police, but my years at the Homeless Advocacy Project make me queasy, even given your frustration, to suggest that course of action right off the bat.

It is the landlord’s duty to deal with the squatter and you were correct informing the property manage in the manner you did. However, in this case, you’re probably going to act more compassionately than the landlord. Rather than simply looking at this woman as a nuisance to be cleared away, I hope that you can see her as a human being who needs help. The question is what kind of help and what can you do to steer her in the right direction.

I think the first thing to do is to find out why the woman is no longer living in her apartment. Ask the downstairs neighbors what happened. Clearly, their perspective may be biased, but it will help you get an understanding of the woman’s current dilemma. You can learn the circumstances of her “eviction.” You can, perhaps, ascertain her mental state; find out if she is employed.

To me something smells about the circumstances in which baby-daddy kicked out the mother of his child, but clearly, you don’t have any obligation to delve into that.

You don’t mention if the child lives with his or her mother in the car. If that is true you’ll need to act faster.

I would speak to the woman one more time to get a clearer understanding of her mental state and her plans or lack thereof. Does she get that she can’t simply live in her car in the garage?

Suggest that she drop into the Homeless Advocacy Project, 1360 Mission Street Suite 201 (between 9th and 10th Streets), on a Tuesday between 1:30 p.m. and 4:00 p.m. for their new client drop-in clinic. They will evaluate her case based on a holistic assessment of her needs and either take her as a client or refer her to an agency who can help.

Let her know that she may qualify for shelter service for her and her child. She can contact Compass Community Services, Hamilton Family Center, or St. Joseph’s Family Center.

If she refuses to try to get help, especially if she has her child in tow, then it’s time to call the cops. Call the non-emergency number, (415) 553-0123, explain the situation, and ask if they can bring a social worker.

If you’d prefer that your landlord take steps to remove the squatter, show him this article and suggest that he take the steps I’ve outlined.

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

I Think I Have An Illegal Clause In My Lease

I Think I Have An Illegal Clause In My Lease

I Think I Have An Illegal Clause In My Lease

My father, brother, and I have lived in a three-bedroom rent-controlled flat in SF for the past six years. My brother and father are going to move out in a few months, but I plan to stay. In order to pay the rent, however, I’m going to need one or two roommates, but the lease says (in bold) “even if one tenant leaves, no replacement tenant(s) will be permitted and no additional occupant will be allowed in the unit.”

I’m “named” on the lease as “son #1” and moved in (with the landlord’s knowledge) at the same time as my brother and father.

Do I qualify as an “original occupant”? If so, do I just start paying the landlord rent once the rest of my family moves? Or do I have to sign a new lease, etc.?

As for roommates, my understanding is that I can have up to two roommates, with the landlord’s permission, per Section 6.15A.

We get along great with the landlord; I just want to ensure that I do everything “by the book” so I don’t put myself or my future roommate(s) at risk of being evicted or otherwise souring our relationship with the landlord.

Good question. I don’t often get a chance to address this topic. What do you do if you have an illegal clause in your lease?

Let me pose a hypothetical question. You’re about to sign a lease for a unit in a San Francisco building built before 1979 with multiple, legal units. It’s the perfect place—a tastefully remodeled, three-bedroom apartment overlooking Dolores Park with a garage, view and a nice deck in the back—$1,500.00 per month. Ah, the good ol’ days…

A clause in the lease, however, states: “Tenant acknowledges that his or her tenancy is subject to the San Francisco Rent Ordinance but waives any and all rights he or she may have under the Ordinance, including but not limited to any right to contest rent increases over and above the annual allowable increases imposed by the Rent Ordinance.”

Do you sign the lease and move in? Hell, yes you do! When the landlord increases the rent to $4,000.00 per month next year, you petition the Rent Board alleging an illegal rent increase and you win.

There are many, less obvious, illegal clauses that one can find in a lease. For example, a tenant cannot waive his or her right to a habitable premises in a lease (Civil Code §1953). Nor can a lease designate a cleaning fee as “non-refundable” (Civil Code §1950.5(m)).

The clause prohibiting the addition of replacement tenants is illegal unless the landlord reduces your rent accordingly. In other words, the landlord could refuse to allow you to sublet to one-for-one replacement roommates, but you can file a petition at the Rent Board to reduce your rent by two-thirds or so.

Yes, follow the procedures outlined in Rent Board Rules & Regulations §6.15A to request new roommates.

If your landlord does not respond, or if he unreasonably refuses your request, citing the illegal clause in the lease, file a petition to determine your lawful rent at the Rent Board. Be prepared to prove that you are Son #1.

I truly hope I’m wrong here, but in my experience, whenever a tenant challenges a landlord’s absolute authority and control, the relationship sours.

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

Do I Risk Losing My Apartment If I Take An Out Of Town Temporary Job?

Do I Risk Losing My Apartment If I Take An Out Of Town Temporary Job?

Do I Risk Losing My Apartment If I Take An Out Of Town Temporary Job?

Out of town job,

I live in a Rent Controlled building near downtown. I have lived there more than 5 years but less than 10.

Years after I moved in my partner and I filed for a Domestic Partnership. We moved him in without much trouble, though the landlord instructed that he was an approved occupant only, and rent was to be paid by me only. Which was fine.

I got a job in LA and will be working and living down there for a while. My partner will continue to work and live in San Francisco in “my apartment”. Since this contract job in LA is likely to last only from between 3-24 months, I don’t want to give my apartment up. I likely will return to San Francisco every month for a weekend, and my partner will of course be here full time.

I will continue to pay the rent from my bank account. If the contract lasts more than 6 months, I probably will get small apartment in LA so I don’t have to live out of hotels.

My question is, at what point can my landlord consider me to be “no longer living” in the apartment? Is there a threshold such as 6 months or a year? I remember reading somewhere that rent control ceases to apply if you vacate the apartment for a certain period of time. Would returning for a few weeks at a time reset any clock that applies to these potential rules?

My relationship with my landlord is neutral, as we have never had much reason to interact over the years. I pay my rent on time, he fixes the sink when it leaks etc. But I have no allusions that he is my friend or has any loyalty to me. With rising rents across the city, I don’t want to give him any opening to turn from a fair landlord to a greedy one. My preference would be to not go out of my way to inform him of my new job, because again, if I am not breaking the lease or rent law, the less he knows about my personal life the better. I am willing to forgo this new job if it will cause me to be in violation of my lease, but of course my preference would be to find a solution.

Rent Board Rules & Regulations §1.21 foresees this issue. Rules & Regulations §1.21 defines tenant in occupancy: “Occupancy does not require that the individual be physically present in the unit or units at all times or continuously, but the unit or units must be the tenant’s usual place of return.”

Petitions in which landlords allege that a master tenant no longer resides in a unit as her principal place of residence are decided on a case-by-case basis, considering the applicable facts. There are no legal thresholds defining an exact period of time after which a tenant is no longer considered to occupy a unit—no set rules or laws that require a hearing officer to automatically rule in favor of the landlord. Clearly, though, if a tenant hasn’t lived in her apartment for many years, the hearing officer will take a long hard at the tenant’s explanation.

Think of it this way: If you were an active member of the military and you were deployed overseas, would you have to worry about losing your home while you’re gone? Of course not. Certainly, military deployment is not voluntary and there are federal laws that protect service men and women from eviction while on duty, but the issue is still analogous.

Given the facts as you relate them, you shouldn’t have any problem “moving” to Los Angeles to accept a contract that is temporary. You can probably argue that your job is necessary, financially and career advancement-wise.

You will also be protected because your partner still lives in the unit. Your partner is an approved subtenant based on Rules & Regulations §6.15D as well as the landlord’s overt consent. The landlord cannot evict your partner while you’re gone. And your partner is presumably taking care of the day-to-day issues and can alert you to come back in case the landlord files a petition at the Rent Board.

You don’t need to inform the landlord about your decision unless you feel there’s a benefit to that.

Feel free to accept the position, with the caveat that you may have to come back to the City to justify your decision. More information about Rules & Regulations §1.21 petitions can be found here.

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

I Think I Have An Illegal Clause In My Lease

My Boyfriend Moved Out, And My Rent Went Up

My Boyfriend Moved Out, And My Rent Went Up

I have a question about rental/tenant law for a multi-unit building in San Francisco that was built in the 1920s. When a person who was not on the original lease moves in and starts paying checks to a manager in their name, does that give them status as an official tenant for whom the rent cannot be raised? Basically, I moved into the apartment of a man who I was dating at the time.

He moved to LA, and I began to pay rental checks to the manager. About 2 years after the original tenant moved out, it came to the attention of the landlord that I was occupying the apartment and her lawyer sent me a letter raising the rent.

At that time, it was unclear to me whether I was considered an official tenant for whom the rent could not be raised – after all, the landlord’s agent, the manager, had been accepting my checks.

To keep things amicable, I negotiated a slightly lower rental increase (an increase of about 10% or $150/month) and signed a new lease. I’m wondering if I was a sucker and should have held out for maintaining the original rent?

No, you were not a sucker! As a practicing attorney, I have learned (sometimes the hard way) that outcomes in trial or other proceedings like Rent Board hearings are often uncertain. You simply settled your case without going to arbitration. Remember, about 95% of all court litigation settles before trial. You are not a sucker, you’re simply a pragmatist.

Now, let’s do some Wednesday morning quarterbacking.

There are two statutes that come into play when analyzing the facts of your case. If you had gone to arbitration, the landlord would have relied on The Costa Hawkins Rental Housing Act (Ca. Civil Code sections 1954.50-1954.535) to justify the rent increase. Specifically section 1954.53(d)(4) provides:

“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.”

The landlord would argue that you are not an original occupant and, despite the fact that you paid rent directly to her agent, she did not waive his right to increase the rent.

By the way, Costa Hawkins should be repealed. I believe that all tenants should email their legislators every hour of every day demanding a repeal of Costa-Hawkins so that rent control can be uniformly applied to all buildings in San Francisco and other rent controlled jurisdictions.

Your counter argument would derive from San Francisco Rent Board Rules & Regulations section 6.14(c)(1-3). A subsequent occupant can show that a landlord , in fact, waived his 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.”

(I’m assuming that inception of the original tenancy was after January 1, 1996 and that your BF moved out on or after April 25, 2000.)

In a hearing, you would argue that the landlord agent’s conduct of accepting rent from you for two years operates as a waiver to her right to increase the rent. Hopefully, you could add facts like, “I told the manage that my ex moved out; I handed my check to the manager every month; I made numerous repair quests, etc.”

I’ve seen many of these cases at the Rent Board and they all depend on the facts. Earlier this month we denied an appeal from a landlord because the facts were clear the his agent had accepted the subsequent occupant as a an ordinal tenant. But I have seen cases in which the landlord prevails with, frankly, similar but not as compelling facts.

So, no, you weren’t a sucker settling a case that, conceivably, you could have lost.

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

Does My Landlord Have To Fix My Broken Dishwasher?

Does My Landlord Have To Fix My Broken Dishwasher?

Does My Landlord Have To Fix My Broken Dishwasher?

My roommate and I have been living in our Victorian flat for 2.5 years. It was built in 1900, has 3 units, and all are owned privately by the same woman. She installed new appliances a couple years before we moved in, but we are well equipped with a dishwasher and a washer and dryer.

Our dishwasher recently stopped working and when I reached out to her to see if someone could come take a look, she said that it was our responsibility to pay for repairs. I asked about a warranty for the dishwasher or if there was repair history, and she said no. I don’t think we should have to pay for repairs when we don’t technically own the dishwasher, and we would practically pay for her updates since we wouldn’t take it with us when we move out. But at the same time, I know that not all apartments in the city come with dishwashers, as they are considered more of a “luxury item.”

Do you have any advice?

When you initially rent an apartment, any amenities that come with the apartment are factors that determine the unit’s initial value. For example, a top-floor apartment with a view may be more expensive than an apartment in the same building without a view. Amenities and services are factors that prospective tenants use to make their decision to rent.

A dishwasher is a housing service provided as part of your initial rent. Who knows, you may have decided to rent the apartment specifically because it had a dishwasher. You are paying a portion of your rent, albeit a small one, for working dishwasher and it is the landlord’s responsibility to repair the dishwasher when it breaks.

Your tenancy is governed by the San Francisco Rent Ordinance. Rent Ordinance §37.2(g) defines housing services:

“Services provided by the landlord connected with the use or occupancy of a rental unit including, but not limited to: quiet enjoyment of the premises, without harassment by the landlord as provided in Section 37.10B; repairs; replacement; maintenance; painting; light; heat; water; elevator service; laundry facilities and privileges; janitor service; refuse removal; furnishings; telephone; parking; rights permitted the tenant by agreement[…]”

Take a look at your lease. Hopefully the dishwasher is specifically mentioned as a service provided by the landlord, but even if it is not, you should not be deterred.

You should write the landlord a letter explaining that your dishwasher needs to be repaired and point out that you will file a petition for a decrease in services with the Rent Board to reduce your rent accordingly until the repairs are made. Give the landlord a date certain to repair. If she refuses or fails to do so, file the petition.

Is this a luxury problem? Sure, in that the ceiling isn’t caving in and it will soon be raining in your kitchen. Nevertheless, your landlord is in breach of the lease. You are not receiving the services that you paid for and it’s worth making the landlord perform her obligation under the contract.

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

If Our Roommate Moves Out, Can Our Landlord Jack Up Our Rent?

If Our Roommate Moves Out, Can Our Landlord Jack Up Our Rent?

If Our Roommate Moves Out, Can Our Landlord Jack Up Our Rent?

My home is a duplex with my landlord living in the apartment above. It was built before 1979.

The original tenants moved in two and a half years ago. We will call them Dan, Josh and Ted. Ted moved out after the first year and my boyfriend moved in and signed a year lease with Dan and Josh.

After a year Dan moved out and I moved in but I did not sign a lease, my boyfriend and Josh signed a six month lease.

The six month lease is nearly up and my boyfriend and I would like to renew with a year lease without our third roommate Josh. My landlord wants to raise our rent claiming “the original tenant is moving out.”

My boyfriend has now been on two leases (one for a year and the other for 6 months) in this apartment, is he not considered an original tenant at this point? Is my landlord allowed to raise the rent any amount they wish? We have always paid on time and have never complained nor been complained about in this apartment and I am worried we will be taken advantage of if we don’t familiarize ourselves with the SF laws.

It’s not completely clear to me if the leases your boyfriend signed were subleases or leases also signed by the landlord. I’m going to assume that when your boyfriend originally moved in, he and Dan and Josh all signed a new lease with the landlord. I’m also assuming that your boyfriend and Josh signed the six-month lease with the landlord.

As you are probably aware, if your boyfriend only signed a sublease with the original tenants, your landlord may be able to increase the rent.

This is why a lawyer may ask questions to which the answers seem obvious. When you stated that your boyfriend “moved in and signed a year lease with Dan and Josh,” I thought he may have signed a sublease. The rest of the facts, however, indicate to me that the leases were negotiated with the landlord. Of course, the distinction is crucial to determining if your boyfriend is a co-occupant or a subsequent occupant.

Given my assumption, your boyfriend is clearly a “co-occupant” for purposes of the Rent Ordinance Rules & Regulations §6.14(a)(3): “‘Co-occupant’ for purposes of this Section 6.14 only, is a subsequent occupant who has a rental agreement directly with the owner.”

Rules & Regulations §6.14(c), the section applicable to your boyfriend, 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…”

Note that your boyfriend is not an original occupant within the meaning of §6.14 (a)(1): “Original occupant(s)” means one or more individuals who took possession of a unit with the express consent of the landlord at the time that the base rent for the unit was first established with respect to the vacant unit.

That brings up another issue. If the landlord increased the rent more than the Rent Ordinance annual allowable increase in one or both of the subsequent leases, you may be able to petition the Rent Board for an illegal rent increase.

Between you and me, when I read your question I thought, “WTF, the guy’s named on the lease. This landlord is out of his frickin’ mind!” But when I reread §6.14, which as usual, has the effect of a combination of Seconal and Wild Turkey, I understood your landlord’s confusion. Your boyfriend is not an original tenant/occupant, but the landlord still cannot increase the rent.

Rules & Regs §6.14 issues are always complex and one should always discuss them with someone trained in the nuance of the Rent Ordinance. Where can you find such a person? At the San Francisco Tenants Union! You can go over the facts with a counselor there and fashion a letter stating the applicable law, informing the landlord that he can’t increase the rent over the allowable limit.

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

Can My Landlord Evict Me For Getting Pregnant?

Can My Landlord Evict Me For Getting Pregnant?

Can My Landlord Evict Me For Getting Pregnant?

My husband and I have lived in our SF apartment for two years this summer and we have two questions. (our unit was built before 1979)

We recently found out we are pregnant- if my lease limits occupancy to 2, will that give my landlord the right to kick us out?

She also recently increased our rent from 2045 to 2094.08 (yea…8 cents). Is she legally allowed to do that if she has not raised the rent last year and we are month to month? I know it’s a small difference but I thought she could only raise it by 1.9%?

The answer to your first question is: No! Absolutely not!

The California legislature has made it crystal clear that we do not tolerate discrimination against families with children or pregnant women with respect to housing.  The California Fair Housing and Employment Act provides:

It shall be unlawful [f]or the owner of any housing accommodation to discriminate against or harass any person because of the race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, ancestry, familial status, source of income, or disability of that person. (California Government Code §12955(a))

For purposes of this part, “familial status” means one or more individuals under 18 years of age who reside with a parent, another person with care and legal custody of that individual, a person who has been given care and custody of that individual by a state or local governmental agency that is responsible for the welfare of children, or the designee of that parent or other person with legal custody of any individual under 18 years of age by written consent of the parent or designated custodian. The protections afforded by this part against discrimination on the basis of familial status also apply to any individual who is pregnant , who is in the process of securing legal custody of any individual under 18 years of age, or who is in the process of being given care and custody of any individual under 18 years of age by a state or local governmental agency responsible for the welfare of children. (California G0vernment Code

§12955.2)

The answer to your second question is: Yes, if you are beginning the third year of your tenancy.

The San Francisco Rent Ordinance allows for “banked” rent increases. If, at the inception of your tenancy (for ease of reference I’ll use March 1, 2010) and your rent was $2,045 per month, your landlord would have been allowed to increase the rent .5% to $2055.23 on March 1, 2011. The next year on March 1, 2012 she could increase the rent 1.9% to $2,094.27.

Instead, she waited to impose the .5% increase this year. The law provides that a landlord cannot compound the interest for banked rent increases so she added allowable increases for year one and year two together to raise your rent 2.4%. A quick check of the math reveals that’s exactly what she did–$2,045  X 1.024 = $2,094.08.

Yippee, yea! By waiting to increase the rent one year, your landlord saved you 19 cents per month! In landlord tenant relationships, it’s always good to savor the small, positive outcomes. They are few and far between.

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