(415)552-9060
My Landlord’s Selling My Building, And Now I Have To Fill Out A Bunch Of Forms?

My Landlord’s Selling My Building, And Now I Have To Fill Out A Bunch Of Forms?

by | Apr 26, 2012 | Tenant Law

My Landlord’s Selling My Building, And Now I Have To Fill Out A Bunch Of Forms?

We got two forms from our landlord, who is in the process of selling the 3-unit Victorian in which we live.  We two, 53 & 64, have lived in our unit since August 1990.  We were wondering if we are legally required to fill out these forms.  They are both from the SF Association of Realtors.

The first is a request for information under Sections 37.9(i) and (j), about protected class status.  The second is a general form asking about the lease (we are month-to-month), such as deposits, current monthly rent, date of last rent increase, amount of increase, etc.

Your question is a common one. The sale of a building, especially a smaller building, justifiably creates anxiety for tenants. The other shoe is going to drop and you don’t know how or when.

Your question also indicates to me that your landlord did not serve you a “Disclosure of Rights to Tenants Before and After Sale of Rental Units Subject to Section 37.9” as required by Rent Ordinance §37.9(k). The mere service of the required disclosure could alleviate some anxiety for tenants, but what self respecting landlord or real estate agent would want to do that?

The forms you described are legally characterized as “estoppel certificates.” Estoppel is the fancy legal term for preventing a person from asserting a fact or a claim inconsistent with a position they previously maintained. They are meant to “estop” (prevent) a new buyer from claiming he  or she didn’t know about agreements made to modify an existing lease. More importantly,  your statements in an estoppel form could be used against you if you make later inconsistent claims.

The short answer to your question is no, not unless your lease requires you to fill out the forms. Leases written in 1990 usually do not contain terms stating that a refusal to sign an estoppel form constitutes a breach of the lease.

Rent Ordinance §37.9(k) (E) is clear that the disclosure must contain:

“A statement that tenants are not required to complete or sign any estoppel certificates or estoppel agreements, except as required by law or by that tenant’s rental agreement.  The statement shall further inform tenants that tenant rights may be affected by an estoppel certificate or agreement and that the tenants should seek legal advice before completing or signing an estoppel certificate or agreement.”

Regarding the first form, there is no harm in filling that out. Why? Because the new buyer should understand that you are protected tenants for the purpose of an owner move in eviction under Rent Ordinance §37.9(i)–one of you is over 60 years of age and you’ve lived in the unit for 22 years. I think it is a good idea to disclose any disabilities as well.

Regarding the second form requesting general information,  at the San Francisco Tenants Union, we recommend that you should think about disclosing information to a new buyer and put that information in a letter rather than limiting yourself to the form.

After 22 years it is likely that your use of the unit has changed since you signed the original lease. For example, if you receive verbal permission from the landlord to have pets even though the lease prohibits pets, you should disclose this to a prospective buyer.

My general advice is to think about how your tenancy has expanded over the years. Do you now use a storage space? Are you allowed to use the roof deck or back yard? All of this should be disclosed in a letter to the prospective buyer.

Of course, if you have an oral agreement, it is likely that the terms only include an amount of rent and a date to pay. In that case, your letter should point out that you have an unrestricted right to sublet and that your pet rhinoceros is allowed to graze in the backyard.

It is a good idea to drop by the San Francisco Tenants Union to speak with a counselor about how to construct your response to the landlord’s request for information.

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?

Can My Landlord “Bank” My Annual Rent Increases?

Can My Landlord “Bank” My Annual Rent Increases?

by | Mar 29, 2012 | Tenant Law

Can My Landlord “Bank” My Annual Rent Increases?

I live in a 15 unit building that was built in 1907. I’ve lived in my small one bedroom apartment for 19 years, and in that time, the building transferred ownership once, in 2001. At that time, the new owners tacked on a rent increase because of “capital improvements,” and this was an increase that actually ended in 2011, so my rent returned to its 2001 price last year.

The landlord hasn’t raised my rent in the past 4 years, not even the small yearly increase that is allowable by law. So my question is, why would a landlord choose NOT to raise rent if they are legally able to? I can’t imagine it’s just to be nice. Is it likely they are banking the increases so they can throw four years worth (or more) at me all at once? And is that even legal?

Is the landlord foregoing the annual allowable rent increases to be nice? I doubt it. Is this some scheme to dump a huge increase on you in the future to force you to move out? I doubt that too. Never ascribe to malice that which can adequately be explained by incompetence. I often substitute the word stupidity for incompetence. In your case it’s probably neither, unless you believe that business decisions are always inherently malicious–an apt conclusion these days.

The annual allowable rent increases under the San Francisco Rent Ordinance for the past four years are, cumulatively, 6.7%. If your landlord has multiple properties, he could be waiting to increase the rents when it is more profitable to do so. He may not think it’s justified to incur the expense to to recalculate the rent and send out notices for, in your case, a 6.7% increase in gross revenue.

By law, a landlord may bank the annual allowable increases. There is no limit to the amount of rent increases that can be banked since April 1, 1982 and there is no time limit for imposition of these banked amounts. Indeed, I have seen banked increase notices that go back all the way to 1982, usually imposed by new owners seeking to immediately increase a building’s income. Is it fair? No. Is it legal? Yes.

As I said a couple of weeks ago. Courts have, time and again, decided that landlords must be able to get a fair return on their investments. Banked increases are a part of that scheme. Landlords will point out that a banked increase is not retroactive and that you should be grateful for all the money you saved over the years.

San Francisco Tenants: You need to understand that your landlord can, at any time, make up for years that he did not increase your rent by “banking” the annual allowable increases and charging them all at once. California Civil Code § 827 requires a landlord to give you a 60-day notice for such an increase if that cumulative increase is over 10% of your existing rent.

Banked increases will almost always be imposed by new owners. If your building has recently been sold and the old landlord has not increased the rent for awhile, plan on a banked increase. For that matter, all San Francisco tenants should always plan for a banked rent increase.

To paraphrase Anonymous, the internet hacktivist collective, “Landlords: They are legion, they do not forgive, they do not forget. Expect rent increases.”

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?

A Rent Increase Question Puts The “Lord” In Landlord

A Rent Increase Question Puts The “Lord” In Landlord

by | Mar 8, 2012 | Tenant Law

A Rent Increase Question Puts The “Lord” In Landlord

I currently live in the Mission, in a loft (or condo) and was built around 1991, thus is not subject to Chapter 37 of the San Francisco Administrative Code. It is a 21 unit building.

I have lived in the building since 2004. I resided in a 1353 square foot loft from 7/16/04- 9/1/05 at a rate of $2500. I then moved into a smaller 851 square foot unit that I have resided in from 9/1/05 until present at a rate of $2000 per month (it is the smallest unit on this floor and is directly above the garage, which brings a lot of pollution and noise into my unit).

I recently received a rent increase. The increase was for $800 per month, or rather, a 40% increase. While I know that I can receive an increase at any given time, 40% seems unconscionable. While I was told that everyone received an increase, I do know that my next door neighbor’s increase was only 20% (he went from $2500 to $3000 for a 1209 sf loft). As well, I have spoken to neighbors upstairs who have a 1509 sf loft and only pay $2900. I have also spoken to neighbors who have received 10-20% increases, while others had none at all.

I have contacted the landlord and all they can say is that “it’s been raised to market value” and “we are not being discriminatory with the unequal increases.” This seems strange to me considering I did not bring up the word discriminatory and I know that they just leased a two bedroom (1044 sf) loft two doors down for $3100. How is my one bedroom worth only $300 less than the unit 2 doors down or $200 less than my next door neighbors 2 bedroom (1209 sf) unit?

I am a 39 year old professional woman who has never been disruptive, had a complaint or paid a bill late in my life. I also live alone and have no pets. Lastly, I helped to rent out my old unit while transitioning to the smaller unit, which I moved into on an “as is” basis (meaning they didn’t clean and only did minor touch of paint).

My question is, is it within their (landlords’) rights to raise rents in a disproportional manner?

The short answer to your question is yes.

The landlord’s answer to your question is, “It’s my property and I can do anything I want to including raising the rent or even taking it off the market. If you don’t want to pay the increase, I’m not forcing you to live here, you can move.” Unless you live in a rent controlled unit, the law will tell you the same thing.

Since the dawn of agriculture, when specific plots of land had to be protected from invaders, both human and animal, property rights–to protect, to make productive and to defend–have been a central theme in human history. Wars, contrary to the propaganda to justify them, are always fought over land and the natural resources that derive from land.

As societies became more complex, ruthless bands of sociopaths (call their leaders pharaohs, kings, popes, bankers or the 1%) took control, they usurped the commoners’ (call them the people or the 99%) rights to own the land. I’m sure the bargain went something like this: “Look peon, I’ll defend your land for you, but because I have taken on this burden you have to give me unfettered rights to your land.” Faced with an offer they could not refuse, most commoners gave in. Those who resisted lost their ability to pass down their genetic make-up to future generations. It seemed that evolution created the perfect marriage of cowards and kings.

Every once and awhile some throwback like Spartacus or Jesus or Robin Hood would try to set things straight, but who were they kidding?

As societies prospered and grew, kings relied increasingly on their lords to administer to their lands. In return for their service, lords were granted lands upon which they could rule like kings as long as they understood who was boss and paid their taxes. Being the sociopaths they were, lords quickly figured that they could force their subjects, now called tenants, to pay the lords’ taxes for them.

Lords owned their tenants like chattel and that did not change for thousands of years. “They Don’t Call ‘Em Landlords for Nothing.”

Flash forward to the Age of Enlightenment and the American revolution. Yes, the Founding Fathers created something new, but, as a tenant, you should remember that the new rights defined by Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and the rest were only bestowed upon white, male landowners.

The new constitution made property rights sacrosanct. While the founders did understand that the vast new country would expand and property owners (full-fledged citizens) would exponentially increase, they forgot (or did they) that land is, ultimately, a finite resource. The American cowboy humorist Will Rogers (1879-1935) is famously misquoted as advising, “Buy property, they ain’t making any more of that.”

In San Francisco the finiteness of land is demonstrated on a daily basis. Last year, average rents increased more than 13%. I am beginning to hear the same horror stories of bidding wars for apartments reminiscent of the previous dot bomb days of the late 90s.

You hear it all the time, San Francisco is becoming a city for the ultra rich, community is destroyed and those who have to serve us our mocha frappuccinos have to commute from Fremont to do so. We are becoming, as I pointed out in my post, “What’s Wrong With Working in a Bookstore,” San Francisco has become like Stratos, the city in the clouds in the 1969 episode of Star Trek. The “troglites” who create the city’s fungible wealth, are prohibited from living among or partaking in the intellectual pursuits of their masters.

As we all know, San Francisco is a city famous for its restaurants, the diversity and quality of which are world renowned. A couple of years ago I was sitting in the bar at Coco 500 with a dear friend of mine. We struck up a conversation with a guy from Wisconsin who was there with his wife and daughter. The daughter was a student in San Francisco who sighed and rolled her eyes as her old man proceeded to explain why Midwest family values were superior to our San Francisco, liberal, family hating, queer loving anarchy.

Of course, we took the bait and a rather animated discussion followed. At one point, for effect, my friend openly declared that she was a communist. That really got the guy going. He thought that all communists had to be marginal, frayed and broke. He asked, “How can you afford to be drinking in this restaurant.” I piped in, “Rent control, baby, rent control!”

So I am going to answer your question with some questions of my own:

In a market economy based upon products and services is it a good idea to divert larger and larger percentages of disposable income into the pockets of the few who simply cannot spread it around as efficiently as the many?

Should a landlord have the right to increase rents when higher rents destroy the very fabric of community?

Should land be treated as a “market” commodity subject to the laws of supply and demand when the supply is finite and the demand is almost infinite?

In my mind these are the central questions of our times and they need to be answered thoughtfully rather than with slogans and platitudes.

I’d like to hear your thoughts and comments. Start the discussion here. Next week I have a related question from another tenant. In that column I’ll continue to explore this issue.

In the meantime you should check out the OCCUPY related activities sponsored by the San Francisco Tenants Union. And don’t forget to join the worldwide general strike on Tuesday, May 1, 2012.

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 Rent Being Raised In Retaliation For My Repair Complaints (And Is That Legal?)

Is My Rent Being Raised In Retaliation For My Repair Complaints (And Is That Legal?)

by | Feb 2, 2012 | Tenant Law

Is My Rent Being Raised In Retaliation For My Repair Complaints (And Is That Legal?)

I have a strong suspicion you are going to tell me I’m SOL but hey, I’m the girl who called the ACLU when my principal tried to suspend me because I forgot (I was studying in homeroom) to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance

My husband and I live a newer condominium building, in a 2BR/2BA apartment.  Our rent is currently $3200 set to go up to $3800 3/1/12. My husband moved into a 1BR in the building in 2004 and into our current apartment in 2006. I moved into the apartment in 2008. Despite asking several times, I was never put on the lease nor given a new lease. I do have a letter from the management company stating that I have lived here since 2008, so that I could get medical insurance as a domestic partner to my now husband.

The building is mixed commercial/residential and has approximately 40 residential rental units. Our lease is titled ‘Condominium unit residential lease agreement and deposit receipt’ but there is an Exhibit B stating that: “the unit you may rent has been approved in the past by the city and county of San Francisco for sale to the public as a condominium project.  The Landlord/Owner of your condominium does not, however, have the approval it would need from the state of California for the sale of the condominium units, as Landlord/Owner does not presently intend to sell these units as condominiums…’

For several months I have been asking the manager  of the on-site management company in writing, to repair some small things (a broken drawer in the kitchen cabinet and in one bathroom, some warped wood on several kitchen cabinets from the leaking dishwasher that took some time for them to fix, some grout in the bathroom that is mildew stained and won’t come clean, some mold spots forming on the bathroom ceiling) in the apartment and paint, since it was never painted before we moved in.

Finally the building engineer and the owner of the management company arranged to do a walkthrough of the apartment to see what they could do. What they proposed was that many things in the apartment needed updating. It is my understanding that they presented a much larger scope of work than our repair requests to the owner.

The engineer told us that the mildew problem was coming from behind the tile and eventually the tile would just fall out.  He said indicated that the tile would have to be ripped out and replaced in the shower and that the tile on the floor would look awful next to the new tile, so the whole bathroom would need to be re-done. He also explained that the kitchen drawer would cost more to repair than to replace all the cabinetry.

Apparently the engineer submitted an estimate in the range of $70K. Clearly he was excited at the prospect of a ‘fun’ project and was immediately asking me to go tile shopping.

Well wouldn’t you know that before long, we weren’t hearing from the engineer anymore. I have always had to make several requests before I got a response from these people, but the change was so dramatic we knew something was up.

My husband asked the engineer why we hadn’t heard from him, he said that in reviewing our apartment the landlord realized that we had one of the best rents in the building and wanted to raise our rent.

Finally the onsite manager and the woman who runs the daily operations of the on-site management office came up for coffee and to give us an explanation for their lack of response.  They said that they had never seen the owner react this way and that he was usually fine with completing repairs and upgrades for long-standing tenants. Now they said the owner wanted to raise our rent from $3200 to $4000 but they ‘talked him down’ to $3800.

BTW the condo owner has just fired his company and hired Laramar (god help us) to run the building. The stories I’ve heard…oy vey!

On December 5th we received a letter, postmarked November 30th, stating that our rent would increase to $3800. I told the managing agent, in writing, that they must give us at least 60 days notice, plus 5 days for mailing, to increase our rent more than 10%. They sent me another letter saying the increase would take effect March 1, 2012.

I know this all sounds like fluff. We are not in crisis here. There are not really ‘habitability’ issues. The rent wasn’t raised for 5 years.

My problem is the complete lack of response to the repair issues! I am not an unreasonable person. Had the landlord approached me saying he would make the repairs and maybe meet us halfway on painting the apartment (or not – just respond), I would shut up and pay the higher rent. I guess I should count myself lucky it wasn’t raised sooner.

I feel that this is a retaliatory move by the landlord and from reading your columns I know that THAT is illegal. I also think there are many people in our predicament. We’re paying top dollar for our apartments, but have very few protections.

So I looked at the online resources you recommended and find myself confused by what I’ve read on the SF Tenants Union website.  They state that a condominium is protected by full rent control if the subdivider of the building owns the condo unit(s).

Two questions here: ‘Condo’ is used so loosely it’s hard to know if we live in one. The lease says condo, but the Exhibit B says it’s not…yet. So are we included in the rent control ordinance as a condo unit, owned by the building subdivider?

Unfortunately, SOL could be the one word answer to your question, but that wouldn’t be very helpful.

Using the specific information you provided (since redacted), I determined that your building was built in 1988. You know what that means–no rent control, no just cause evictions, no nada. As I’ve said before, regarding your tenant protections, you may as well be living in Lompoc. The federal prisoners there may have more rights than the tenants.

This leads me to an important aside. As I may have mentioned before, I worked in the construction trades for years before I started doing this. It’s fairly easy for me to recognize the age of a building. I’ve learned, however, not to take this ability for granted in others. I you, readers, aren’t sure about the age of the building in which you live, you should check that before you assume you live in a rent controlled building. SF Assessor-Recorder’s website. Click the map, enter the address and voila!

I don’t think your confusion about the condominium issue is based on an assumption that the building is old enough to be rent controlled. It’s apparent from google maps that the building is relatively new.

Without going into too much detail, you are looking at an exception in the Costa-Hawkins Rent Housing Act, Civil Code section 1954.52(a)(3)(B)(ii) that exempts from Costa- Hawkins(that is keeps a dwelling under rent control) “[a] condominium dwelling or unit that has not been sold separately by the subdivider to a bona fide purchaser for value.” But that only applies to buildings in San Francisco built before June 13, 1979, usually condominium conversions.

The restrictions upon the sale of units derive from California Department of Real Estate and California  Subdivision Map Act requirements.

Is this a retaliatory rent increase? Unlikely. Your complaints don’t seem to rise to the level of substantial breached of the implied warranty of habitability. If you want to test that theory, call a Housing Inspector at DBI to make a complaint.

As I see it the only retaliation by the owner is directed at the management for company for trying to rip him off. $70,000.00 to make the relatively minor repairs you requested. Bah, humbug. After all, the manager was fired and replaced. Unfortunately, you’ll have to pay the price.

Request the repairs again, in writing. Continue to do so until Laramar either relents or truly retaliates.

Make it your mission to email your 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.

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?

Can My Landlord Raise My Rent By $300/Month?

Can My Landlord Raise My Rent By $300/Month?

by | Dec 30, 2011 | Tenant Law

Can My Landlord Raise My Rent By $300/Month?

I am in a situation with my landlord and I need help understanding my rights in this poorly written lease that I should never have signed. This is in the city of San Francisco. I am not sure how to classify the unit, it was advertised as an in-law, the common type you find in the Richmond and Sunset. The landlord lives in the top level, there is a second level that her family lives in, and I live in bottom basement level. I do not know if this is a legal unit as it has no smoke detectors or carbon monoxide detectors, there is no separate address or PG&E meter and I’m almost certain it was built before 1979. Anyway, that isn’t really the issue.

I signed the month-to-month lease in May 2011. Later my boyfriend moved in. The lease does not limit occupancy to myself, or state a maximum occupancy requirement. The lease does not have any terms prohibiting subletting.

Anyway, my boyfriend has been living there for months, he even paid rent one month and she accepted and cashed the check.

Today, she emailed me saying she wants to raise rent from $1,300.00 to $1600.00. She didn’t ask for anything in writing, didn’t ask to have him sign onto the lease, its all about money.
My question is can my landlord raise the rent higher than 6%? Am I breaching my lease as there is no clause against another occupant? I just noticed the part that says landlord will return security deposit no later than 60 days. I know CA law requires 21 days, what do I do about that?

Last week I mentioned that there are several major recurring themes in landlord tenant relationships. You have encountered a few of them.

First, most landlords cannot see past their noses when it comes to money. It’s always all about the money. Second, some landlords seem to want to cut off their noses just to increase the rent. Third, don’t live in the same building as a landlord. You’re likely to encounter a troll in the basement, or as in your case, upstairs.

If I was Mitt Romney, I’d bet $10,000.00 that you live in an illegal unit. In “Tenant Troubles: Can I Be Evicted Just Because My Apartment’s An Illegal Unit?,” I outline some of the things to look for to determine if your unit is an illegal in-law.

Illegal in-law units have been a source of landlord tenant tension for years. They are some of the best deals in town and can be pleasant places to live, until the landlord starts screwing around with the tenant or a new owner wants to remove the unit from the market.

All of the lawsuits we have filed are based on facts similar to yours. The landlord gets greedy. The tenant realizes the unit is illegal and reports it. The tenants loses a cheap place to live and the landlord loses the income from the unit forever–a lose, lose proposition initiated by landlords just like yours.

The unit, regardless of its status, is rent controlled because the building was built before 1979 and it has two, if not three, units. Therefore, the landlord can only increase the rent based on the allowable annual increases determined by the Rent Board. The landlord cannot increase the rent at all until you’ve lived in the unit one year. In your case, the rent can be increased next May by the allowable 1.9% or $24.70.

I looked over your lease and, indeed, it does not prohibit subletting. The landlord would be foolish to attempt to evict you for allowing your boyfriend to move in. (Foolish in any case because you should report the unit to the DBI if the landlord attempts to evict you at all.)

I’d make another one percenter style bet that when you move, the landlord won’t return the security deposit. It’s just par for the course for Cheese Balls like this. California law will trump the terms of your lease. The landlord should return your security deposit in full (Remember, she shouldn’t be renting the place at all.) within the 21-day period.

What do you do if the landlord refuses to return the deposit? You sue her.

Share On Facebook
Share On X
Share On Reddit
Share Via Email
Share On Telegram
[yarpp]

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

Contact Us
Sitemap
Privacy Policy
Is This Legal Advice?

My Landlord Went Through My Closet

My Landlord Went Through My Closet

by | Dec 22, 2011 | Tenant Law

My Landlord Went Through My Closet

I live in a three-unit building in the Inner Sunset.  I’m not sure of the exact year, but I do know that it was constructed before 1979.  It is not a condo…I guess it’s a house but it’s divided into three flats.  I am 24 years old, and I’ve lived in the three-bedroom apartment for about 15 months.  Our rent is $2650 a month.

Our landlord is an eccentric guy, and we’ve always just dealt with it.  We only communicate when repairs are necessary, and since there have been times when he tries to get us to pay for them (and I’m really foggy on whose responsibility that is, but that’s a separate question), I usually fix things myself.  We had a problem with our toilet that I couldn’t deal with, so he and his handyman came over today.  He did give notice, but did not coordinate with us about when we could be here and he wound up coming at a time when no one was home.

Tonight I came home to a functional toilet, BUT the entire contents of our hall closet were on the floor, with a note on top of the heap saying “Do NOT cram things into this linen closet.  If the door can not move freely, the closet WILL break”.  The hall closet is not close to or even visible from the bathroom door, and you do not pass it between entering the apartment and arriving at the bathroom.

I’m uncomfortable for a lot of reasons.  It appears that he conducted some kind of inspection when he was only supposed to come over for repairs, and then when just a note would have sufficed he decided to actually throw our things on the floor.  I know it’s minor, but exactly what laws has he violated here?  Harassment?  Interference with our possessions?  Inspection without notice?  All of these above?  Also, what do I do?  I like living here and want to keep relations OK with him, but I also want him to know that he can’t pull these crazy moves on us.

More urgent is the crap-on-the-floor question, but if you could shed some light on who is responsible for paying for routine repairs (nothing inflicted by us), that would be so great.

My first reaction: Tell Martha Stewart that it isn’t any of his goddamned business what or how much you put in your linen closet and that if you ever see any evidence that he entered your unit without notice, you’ll report him to the police as a suspected panty sniffer.

My second reaction:  If you read my columns, you’ve probably noticed that there are several major themes in landlord tenant relationships. This one is the, “It’s my property and I can do anything I want. From now on call me Massa and be grateful that you pay me $31,800.00 per year for the privilege.”

My dispassionate, objective, legal analytic reaction:  Tell Martha Stewart that it isn’t any of his goddamned business what or how much you put in your linen closet…well, almost.

“Eccentric” may have been okay for Caligula or Crazy King Ludwig but it has no business in a supposedly democratic society that has, at least in the last hundred years or so, regulated and defined landlords’ duties toward their tenants. But then again, “They don’t call ’em landlords for nothing.”

I hope you took a photograph of the pile of your belongings on floor with the note. I hope you kept the note. Unfortunately, you may need this evidence later because anyone with the audacity to pull a stunt like this will likely do something similar again in some other context.

You say the landlord gave notice to enter. Did he give you a 24-hour written notice? You should also understand that fixing the toilet could come within the rubric of an emergency and your landlord may not have been required to notify you in writing. Read “Even Dracula Had to Have an Invite Before He Could Enter” to brush up on notice requirements.

As a regular reader, you understand that all of your communication should be in writing to the landlord, especially when the landlord is a nut case. Your letter to him should essentially express the fact that his actions have made you uncomfortable; that any entries in the future should be coordinated with you ahead of time; and that the law requires a 24-hour written notice.

In your landlord’s twisted version of reality you never had okay relations with him. You are simply an irritant, an itch that has to be scratched from time to time–the side effect of an addiction to free cash.  You should also understand that any push-back on a landlord like this will piss him off and he’ll start looking for a new supplier.

What are your legal remedies at this point? One could argue that the landlord may be guilty of all of the items you list above–harassment,  interference with your possessions, and  inspection without notice. But even assuming you could make a case, what are your damages? Remember, in this society, justice is only measured in dollars.

I think you should take a look around your apartment and determine if there are any substantial violations of the warranty of habitability.  Coordinate this with other tenants in the building who likely have similar stories. Make a long list if you can and present it to the landlord. If he refuses to act, call a Housing Inspector to issue a Notice of Violation.

If the Housing Inspector notes substantial violations, you can then petition for a substantial decrease in services at the Rent Board.

Finally, you are not responsible to pay for routine repairs. If you have paid for them in the past gather your bills and add those to your Rent Board petition.

As you also know, it’s always a good idea to bring your documentation to the San Francisco Tenants Union to confirm or to develop your strategy to “educate” the landlord.

Man, this piece of work, sure as hell, needs some education.

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?

Can I Break My Lease Due To My Insane Landlord And High Cats?

Can I Break My Lease Due To My Insane Landlord And High Cats?

by | Sep 22, 2011 | Tenant Law

Can I Break My Lease Due To My Insane Landlord And High Cats?

My husband and I moved into our apartment about 6 months ago. It is rent controlled. There are 6 units. My husband also has a very visible disability, which we fully disclosed diagnosis when signing the lease even though we weren’t required. The past 5 months have been hell.

I have a letter from a previous tenant who lived here for 4 years saying that he and his girlfriend were finally forced out and gave up most of his deposit because he didn’t want to go to court. People are afraid of the landlord. Other tenants in the building are as petrified of him as am I.

The landlord suddenly moved a pot obsessed druggie into the basement under our apartment and our place is continually filled with pot and cigarette smoke. I think our cats are getting high and we’ve had to close our vents, which prevents us from turning on the heat. We’ve told the landlord about all of this and have many many insane letters from him. The downstairs neighbor parties until 3 or 4 am keeping us awake and when we call and text the landlord he never responds.

In fact, he was so bold as to say that the downstairs tenant accused us of harassment. I should also add that this tenant is an obvious friend of the landlord, whom I suspect he moved in just to make our lives hell so we’d leave and lose our $5,000 deposit. The landlord is also currently living on the property.

The landlord had his lawyer send us a “I’ll evict you or else” letter if we didn’t carpet 80% of our hardwood floor apartment in three days even though we had 2 medical letters stating that carpeting could cause my husband to trip and fall – which is why we rented the unit in the first place. He lied and said he had no knowledge of my husbands disability.

He has also just locked the utility room with the washer/dryer and water heater stating that if we want to use it we will need to pay $150 a month. We rented the apartment knowing we had the only rights to the washer dryer. In the lease, there is a statement that says he can take it away, as well as request we carpet apartment. The lease was 14 pages, which we didn’t fully read because we believed we were entering a contract with a reasonable human being.

I could go on and on but I fear this is already too long. Here’s my question:

We found another apartment and will be signing a lease and receiving keys on Thursday. Our lease is until May 2012. But we can’t stay here. Is there a legal way to break our lease quickly? Is there any way to be compensated for the moving fees we will be incurring?

Thank you for any advice. No matter what, I feel content that we will be out of this hell hole in a week – even if it means we’ll have to live on Ramen noodles and water for the next year.

It would be greatly appreciated if you could somehow mask this letter so our landlord doesn’t know we’re talking about him. The landlord doesn’t know we’re leaving yet and I know if he thinks I wrote this letter he will find a way to hurt me. Seriously.

As I was reading your email, I was thinking, I hope to hell she doesn’t want to ask about a strategy to stay in the unit. If the landlord is truly crazy as you paint him, I think you’ve made the right decision on a personal level to walk away from the lease. On a legal level, however, you should be aware that there may be some pitfalls.

As you anticipated, the landlord will not refund your security deposit. He will claim that you breached your lease for no reason and that he must apply the security deposit to rent he lost while trying to re-rent the unit. He will also claim that you set off a nuclear bomb in the place before you left.

Before you leave you must gather all of the evidence you can to show that you were forced out of the unit–either wrongfully evicted or “constructively evicted.”

First, reread my SF Appeal columns dealing with security deposits. You should also take a look at my blog post, “Grand Theft Security Deposit.” Take lots of pictures of the unit before you leave.

Second, I’m guessing that the landlord brought up the issue about the carpeting provision in your lease because the downstairs tenant allegedly complained about your noise. Even if the landlord lied about your husband’s disability, he was still on notice of it when you responded to the lawyer with the doctors’ letters. You can likely show that the landlord discriminated against your husband, based on his disability, if the landlord continued to insist that you comply with the 80% carpeting clause.

You mentioned that the tenant lives in the basement. Check the SF Assessor-Recorder’s website. to see if the unit is illegal. You may also need to get a “Certificate of Occupancy” or a “Certificate of Final Completion” from the Department of Building Inspection to understand how many legal units are in the building. If the unit in the basement is illegal, the landlord should not be protecting the rights of a tenant who should not be living there in the first place.

Third, you also need to prove that the landlord’s removal of the utility room a) is more evidence of harassment and b) that the lack of use was more than just a decrease in services, rather a necessary part of the tenancy and another reason you had to move.

Finally, gather all the crazy letters and see if you can get the neighbors to agree to testify against the landlord regarding his ongoing harassment.

The only way you will obtain any compensation other than the return of your security deposit is to claim: 1. Constructive eviction; 2. Wrongful eviction; 3. Disability discrimination; 4. Harassment; and several other causes of action in a lawsuit that you will have to file to get your security deposit.

If your allegations are true (believe me I’ve seen worse) and you do not sue the landlord because you fear him, he wins. In his mind , his actions are justifiable, economically sound and right.

Now, a little admonishment: Not reading a lease because you believe the landlord to be reasonable is, simply, suicidal. We have entered the era of Trust No One. These days anybody who pushes a piece of paper in your face and asks you to sign it is probably a crook trying to steal your money. The least you can do before you sign, is understand what you’re signing.

As an attorney, about the only thing I’ll sign willingly is an endorsement on the back of a check that I’m depositing in my own account.

Take all of your documents, including the lease to the San Francisco Tenants Union to develop a firm strategy going forward. You may also want to call some attorneys to determine if this is a case that is worth bringing in a court other than small claims. Ask the Tenants Union counselor for the list of TU approved attorneys.

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?