(415)552-9060
Does A Mistake In My Lease Give Me Free Rent?

Does A Mistake In My Lease Give Me Free Rent?

Does A Mistake In My Lease Give Me Free Rent?

Mistake in the lease.

My roommate and I (25 and 24 years old) live in a 2BR rent-controlled unit built in 1964 in a medium-sized San Francisco complex with 18 units. We pay $1950 and are nearing the end of our one-year lease. Or, at least, we assumed one year. The term dates actually show “Sept 1, 2010 through Sept 30, 2011 for a total rent of $23,400” ($23,400 being $1950×12, not 13).

My roommate took our lease to a lawyer colleague who says this is an error that the landlord should have insurance to cover (errors and omissions), and that we are not responsible for rent beyond a total payment of $23,400. I’m worried our petty (and nosy, which is why we’d like to leave) property manager will try to retaliate with outlandish security deposit withholdings. Should I be concerned that she will turn around and screw us or overjoyed that we (maybe?) have a free month of rent?

Some background about our property manager:

We do keep the apartment rather clean but the manager will have to do some mold abatement since the exterior walls and windows are poorly insulated (we have cleaned and treated it ourselves with bleach after realizing why there was such fresh paint when we moved in, but I should hope she would make preventative repairs in the future.
We haven’t told her about it because of personality issues, and as sort of a trump card should she try to evict us for some petty and unjust reason). Why would I be afraid of dealing with unjust eviction? She is a total power tripper. This woman called us more than 10 times in the first month of our tenancy accusing our guests of graffiti-ing the elevator (we don’t have friends who would do that), and angrily accusing us of leaving our bikes in the lobby– which weren’t ours.

She looked through the trash to identify the person tying their bags too loosely (us, we think?) and surprised us with an in-person reminder of the “house rules” through our kitchen window which we had guests over for weekend brunch.

She yelled twice at a guest who was smoking well beyond the required 20-ft from the nearest door or window, insisting the “rule is 20 feet from the property line,” and got into a heated argument with my visiting (older) father about sanding a bookcase on our balcony (the use of power tools is not addressed in the lease; her beef was the wind blowing some dust onto her balcony) without introducing herself as the property manager.

She also threatened to evict me after assuming my boyfriend lived there because I once loaned him my keys to bring me medicine when I was bedriddenly ill (maybe from the mold!). The list goes on, but those are the highlights. My roommate essentially told her to back off and she has since been less invasive in the last 6 months. It doesn’t surprise me that our unit– the one above hers– stayed vacant for several years before we moved in.

–Cautiously potentially overjoyed

Don’t be overjoyed, even cautiously. This is just a mistake in the drafting of the contract. You’re not going to get a free month’s rent. You should, however, be able to point out the mistake to get out a month early. And you should get out as fast as you can.

Assuming you want to leave, give your 30-day notice as soon as possible. Point out the mistake in the lease. Also, show the landlord that it is clearly a mistake because the total amount of rent to be paid is equivalent to one year’s worth.

If you don’t pay the last month’s rent, the landlord could serve you a three-day notice to pay or quit. If you do not pay, you could be served an unlawful detainer (eviction) lawsuit. That would be a foolish move on the landlord’s part, given that you would likely have vacated before a trial on the issue. But why take that chance? The cost and hassle to defend an unlawful detainer is rarely worth it, especially if you are going to move anyway.

You should complain bitterly about the manager, in writing, to the landlord. I imagine that other tenants must be experiencing the same problems. Try to get the other tenants to write to the landlord as well.

Call a DBI Housing Inspector to complain about the habitability issues you describe. If the inspector violates the the unit, you’ll have better evidence to present when the landlord refuses to return your security deposit. Notice I didn’t say if.
You should discuss all of your issues with a counselor at the San Francisco Tenants Union.

Let me address the real issue here. There is no reason, ever, to withhold a complaint about mold or any other condition that makes a unit uninhabitable. Why? Because the landlord should be given an opportunity to repair the problem. If a landlord refuses to repair, you call DBI. It’s that simple.

The landlord also deserves to know about the psycho manager. Maybe, just maybe, he will understand that she is costing him money and he might want to do something about that.

Tenants: Never adopt a passive/aggressive approach when dealing with your landlords! You’re never going to change anything that way. It’s always going to get worse for you, individually, as well as collectively.

Landlords can only own you if you let them.

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

There’s A Mouse In My (Boarding) House

There’s A Mouse In My (Boarding) House

There’s A Mouse In My (Boarding) House

Boarding house mouse.

I moved to SF a couple of years ago, so there are things about the rental laws that I am just finding out. My particular lease doesn’t easily fit into the info I’m finding online so I plan to join the Tenants Union. Since other people might have the same thing happening, I figured I’d email you as well.

Here are the specifics:

I live in a rent controlled building. I moved in on October 1, 2010 and paid a security deposit of $950.00 (my rent is $975 plus water, garbage, and other utilities; the water and garbage bills are in our names and are split with the unit downstairs).

The landlord used to live in the first level unit but no longer does.

There are commercial units on the ground level; the first level is rented out as one unit; my level (the top level) is rented out to 3 people and we all have separate leases for our unfurnished rooms with access to the furnished common areas. This is great in terms of not having to cover for rent when one of the rooms is empty but makes it confusing in terms of applying the laws.

The landlord allows pets. We’re having a mouse issue right now (to be expected when living about restaurants, I suppose) so I’m considering getting a cat. When I asked about how much a pet deposit would be, I was told it’s usually one month’s rent but of the whole apartment, not just of my room, which the landlord said would be $2800.

I know that all deposits can’t be more than 2x the rent for an unfurnished unit and 3x for a furnished unit…but I could see that the landlord would argue that the place is furnished since the common areas are furnished.

So, my questions are these:

1. What is the legal amount of deposit he can ask for in this situation? Would be “unit” be considered to be furnished or unfurnished?

2. When I calculate my interest on security deposit, how much do I subtract for my portion of the rent board fees? Do the 3 of us split our half of the fee if we all have separate leases?

3. Is it even legal to rent out the rooms this way? Is it legal to make us pay the water and garbage?

Ah, life in the city. Always an adventure.

Yes, life is always an adventure when you have to put up with unscrupulous, greedy landlords, but somebody’s got to do it, right?

In this case, the landlord wants to have his cake and eat it too. How? First he rents the rooms in the unit separately, with separate leases and, I’m guessing here, his choice of your roommates. Then he wants to treat the unit as a single unit with three bedrooms for deposit purposes.  It’s a scam to collect $2,800.00 to deal with a problem that it is his responsibility to fix in the first place.

Carefully review your “lease.” When you say the landlord allows pets, do you mean that he just doesn’t enforce a “no pets” clause or is your lease silent on the matter?

If the only reason you want a cat is to deal with the mice, just call the San Francisco Department of Public Health. Get an inspector  to violate the unit and the landlord can deal with it accordingly. I’d do that anyway. Mice and rats are health hazards. They carry all sorts of diseases. Maybe you’ve read about the bubonic plague? A continuing mouse infestation is a per se violation of many housing and health codes, a per se breach of the implied warranty of habitability.

You are correct about deposits law, but Ca. Civil Code §1950.5(c) speaks to deposits “paid on or before initial occupancy.” So the furnished/unfurnished argument is irrelevant.

Because you unit is rent-controlled, any demand for extra money by the landlord will be treated as an illegal increase in rent. If you really want a cat and you need the landlord’s permission, you can point out to him that a $2,800.00 deposit constitutes an illegal rent increase and that you’d be happy to take the issue to the Rent Board.

Rent Board fees are assessed on a per unit basis. You are only liable for your portion of the fee.

If your lease provides for payment of water and garbage and the sharing arrangement is clear, it is legal for the landlord to charge for those utilities and services.

Is it even legal to rent out the rooms this way?

That’s a complex question. San Francisco Housing Code §401 defines lodging house “as any building or portion thereof, containing not more than five guest rooms where rent is paid in money, goods, labor or otherwise.” The San Francisco Building Inspection Department will not violate a boarding house (that’s what your landlord is running) that comprises 5 rooms or less.

Yet, if the landlord attempted to evict you, he would also have to evict your roommates because the unit is a single apartment. In an unlawful detainer (eviction) lawsuit, the landlord must seek possession of the entire unit, not just a room in the unit.

Interestingly, the Rent Board will consider your room as a separate unit for purposes of deciding a petition you may file without adding your roommates. However, I always think it’s better for the tenants in these arrangement to maintain a united front.

As you might imagine these arrangements are frought with problems–problems between tenants who don’t know each other; problems with understanding ones rights and obligations (like yours); but mostly problems with greedy landlords trying to maximize their dough and control. Of course, this type of landlord doesn’t give a rat’s ass if you have mice.

Readers: If you think that living with roommates is a pain in the ass, try living in a boarding house.

Your decision to join the Tenants Union is a good one. Actually, yours is a very common issue. You can go over your lease and any communications between you and the landlord and develop a strategy to “educate” him.

Remember, landlords who rent to tenants in this manner are often psychotic control freaks. They rarely back down. You may also want to consider an exit strategy.

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

My Landlord Said I Didn’t Have To Pay Rent, But Now She Wants It

My Landlord Said I Didn’t Have To Pay Rent, But Now She Wants It

My Landlord Said I Didn’t Have To Pay Rent, But Now She Wants It

My landlord has filed for bankruptcy. At the time she filed, she also notified me in writing that she was releasing me from my obligation to pay rent to her since she wouldn’t be owning the house any longer.

Since then, we worked out payment arrangements to ensure that our utilities, which are in her name, were still paid by us. Per that agreement, also in writing, we are up to date in all payments owed to her. She sent us a letter saying our rent was in arrears for the last month and that we had to pay the full amount within 36 hours or be served with a 3 day pay rent or quit notice. After reminding her of our written agreement and giving her our 30 day notice, she still served us with a 3 day notice. Are we required to pay her the rent she claims we owe, even once other arrangements had been made? We will be moving out before the eviction process is complete so the threat of being removed from the premises is moot.

This is a great question. The scenario you describe is becoming more common and your question also demonstrates a reasonable, but fundamental misunderstanding of the law.

Are you technically required to pay rent to the landlord, despite her promises–yes. Wait a minute, as small children we are told that if we make a promise we must honor it. It’s fundamental morality, right? It may be, but one can only enforce a contract under the law, not a promise.

Well, you say, we had it writing, that’s a contract, right? Not necessarily. A valid contract must always contain an essential element–valuable consideration. In modern society consideration is almost always the payment of money or an exchange of promises–like I agree to pay you five bucks to scratch my back or you scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours.

If you think about your arrangement with your landlord, ask yourselves: What did we have to do or pay to extinguish our duty to pay rent? Reading your description of your agreement, I don’t see that you had to provide any consideration. All you did was to arrange to pay the utilities. If the landlord was responsible to pay the utilities before your agreement, her three-day notice may be invalid because it may be stating the wrong amount you owed, but the landlord did not bargain away her right to collect the rent.

When are mere promises enforceable? Only when one has detrimentally relied on the promise and the reliance was justified. In your case detrimental reliance would mean that you spent the rent money and now don’t have the dough to pay the rent. Let’s say you relied on the landlord’s promise and spent the rent money for that nose job you always wanted. Is your reliance justified? Probably not.

Frankly, I don’t think you could ever show that your reliance on the landlord’s promise was justifiable. Why? Because the duty to pay rent in this culture is practically sacrosanct. Courts, even San Francisco courts, are loathe to excuse tenants from their duty to pay the rent. That’s why I almost always advise tenants to pay the rent if they receive a three-day notice.

So, if the notice period has not expired, the conservative advice is to pay the rent.

Functionally, given your thirty-day notice to vacate, it would be foolish for the landlord to serve you with an unlawful detainer (eviction) lawsuit: 1) She probably doesn’t have the money to successfully prosecute the case and 2) You will likely vacate before the trial.

The problem for you, if she does file a lawsuit, is that your credit record will be tainted if the case is not dismissed within 60 days of the filing. The unlawful detainer action can be also converted to a breach of contract lawsuit that could last for years.

Do not fail to respond to an unlawful detainer just because you are moving. Your default will speed up the process by which the landlord can recover possession and your credit record will certainly suffer.

Take your documents down to the San Francisco Tenants Union. Discuss your options with a counselor and to develop a strategy which will include communication to the landlord informing her that evicting you now will simply be throwing good money after bad. If you have a security deposit, also remind her that the deposit can be applied to any arrearage in the rent.

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

My Building’s Being Sold, Do I Have To Get Out?

My Building’s Being Sold, Do I Have To Get Out?

My Building’s Being Sold, Do I Have To Get Out?

We have just been notified that our rowhouse in SoMa is being sold by the owner, and is currently on the market.  We have not been given notice to vacate yet, but anticipate that it will be sold pretty quickly.  We are trying to figure out if we would be given relocation benefits, as we have been perfect tenants and would only move due to new owners moving into the unit.  A few facts to consider: the unit is not rent controlled since it is the only unit the landlord owns, it was built around 1907, and our 1 year lease is up July 1st  (then we go month to month).

This is a good time to go over some Rent Ordinance basics. Generally, there are three variables to look at to determine if your tenancy is protected by the Rent Ordinance: Is the building built before 1979? How many units in the building? How long have you lived in the unit? Or course the are a gillion potential exceptions, so read this broadly.

  • If your building was built after 1979, the Rent Ordinance usually does not apply, except in foreclosure evictions. (See Rent Ordinance §37.9D.)
  • If your unit is a single family dwelling (house, condo) it will not be subject to the price control elements of the Rent Ordinance. In other words a landlord of a single family dwelling can increase the rent as much as he desires., unless his dominant motive is to get you out.
  • Single family dwellings built before 1979 are covered by the “just cause” eviction provisions of the Rent Ordinance. A landlord must be able to articulate one of the 15 just cause in Rent Ordinance §37.9 in order to evict you. For example, the sale of a building is not a just cause.
  • If your  tenancy in a single family dwelling began before 1996, the price control provisions of the Ordinance apply. The landlord can only increase the rent each year by the annual allowable increase determined by the Rent Board.
  • If you live in a building with two or more units (illegal units count), built before 1979, your tenancy is subject to both the annual allowable rent increase  and the just cause eviction provisions of the Rent Ordinance.

Of course, the reason I wanted to run through this was your statement: “[T]he unit is not rent controlled since it is the only unit the landlord owns…” It is a common mistake given the complexities of the Rent Ordinance.

You are , indeed, covered by the just cause provisions of the Rent Ordinance. The house was built in 1907. The landlord cannot evict you because the building is for sale. You are likely correct that the only way new owners will evict is through an owner move-in eviction (Rent Ordinance §37.9(a)(8).)

Will you be eligible for relocation payments if you are evicted by new owners? The answer is very likely yes, unless the building is sold and you receive a notice before July 1. On July 1, you will have resided in the unit more than one year. The relocation benefits described in Rent Ordinance §37.9C kick in if the notice is served after the tenants have resided in the unit more than one year.

That may not be the end of the analysis. We’ve noticed a growing trend in which new owners claim that their $1million + purchase has strapped them so much they can’t afford to pay the relocation benefits of say $10, 202.00.  (Whine, cry.) They prefer, instead, to significantly increase the rent on a house or condo (because they can) to drive the tenants out.

If that happens to you, go to the San Francisco Tenants Union to discuss your strategy. You may need a lawyer for this one. Be sure to get the TU approved lawyer list.

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

Why Is My New Management Company Asking Me So Many Questions?

Why Is My New Management Company Asking Me So Many Questions?

Why Is My New Management Company Asking Me So Many Questions?

So many questons!

I live in a 27 unit building built in 1920 in San Francisco.

I have lived here since 1992. Last year my landlord died and since then a management company has taken over running the building.

Now the management company is asking me to fill out a questionnaire that has a lot of questions about how much rent I pay, my lease, rental increases that I have been charged, and all other details pertaining to my agreement with the landlord.

Should I voluntarily fill out the questionnaire as they request? Will the information I put there be binding in future? etc…

The document you are describing sounds like an estoppel certificate, a tenant questionnaire designed to collect information to present to a potential buyer of the property.

It is likely, given the death of the former landlord, that the management company is collecting the information because, either the building is in escrow or they are preparing to market the building.

Of course the management company’s failure to inform you that the building is for sale is a already a violation of the San Francisco Rent Ordinance. “Before property containing rental units subject to Section 37.9 may be sold, the owner/seller shall disclose to tenants of the property the rights of tenants during and after the sale of the property.” (Rent Ordinance §37.9(k)(1))

The section lists various requirements for the notification including “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. ” (§37.9(k)(1)(E)).

You should check your lease to see if there is a requirement to provide the information. If there is not, you may refuse to submit the document.

But should you refuse to submit the information? That’s a more nuanced call.

If you have a cat and there is a no pets clause in your lease, but the landlord told you it was okay, you may want to provide that information to a new buyer. That way the buyer is arguably estopped (prevented) from attempting to evict you for breach of the lease because he knew about the cat and your arrangement with the former landlord.

Similarly, you may want to tell a new buyer that you have the use of the backyard; a storage area in the garage; a parking space not mentioned in the lease; that you own the washer/dryer, etc.

The San Francisco Tenants Union recommends that you write the landlord a letter rather than fill out the estoppel certificate and I agree. Using the form as a guide, you want to think about how you really use your living space as opposed the requirements of the lease. How has your tenancy expanded over the years? I tend to think that you should answer the questions.

Remember that the information you provide could be binding, so it might not be a good idea to inform the landlord about the meth lab in the bathroom.

I should just be cutting and pasting this by now: Check the drop-in hours of the Tenants Union. Take your lease and any other documents pertaining to your use of your apartment to the TU to discuss the items you should include in a letter or whether you should write a letter at all.

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

Can My Landlord Evict Me For Smoking Marijuana?

Can My Landlord Evict Me For Smoking Marijuana?

Can My Landlord Evict Me For Smoking Marijuana?

Smoking marijuana.

My husband, two kids (17yrs and 4 1/2yrs old) and I recently moved in to the in-law unit of a single unit house in the Inner Richmond. It’s got a full kitchen, two bedrooms, a tiny bathroom and a living room.

My husband and I both smoke marijuana, both have cards, and both have the proper paperwork to prove it. (We do not cultivate in our home since we have children. All we do is smoke and occasionally have an edible.)

According to my landlord, she said that the odor came through the ventilation room and that her and her sister in law did not like the smell and that apparently one the next door neighbors had supposedly complained to her about it as well. She said that her sister and her sister’s children (who are over the age of 18) couldn’t stand it, and that she and her 10yr old daughter had some allergies from it as well.

This was after I explained the situation and I also proceeded to show her my husband’s paperwork proving the legality of it all.

It was like she was trying to come with an excuse to justify what she was saying. When I asked if we could smoke out in the backyard, she said no because the neighbors might get mad and complain. She said that we would have to smoke in the street or in our car which was also parked out on the street as well. Since my conversation with her, nothing has been said about it at all.

This month, she declined our rent and said that she doesn’t think that she can rent to us because her family said that they can’t stand the smell and that they have received numerous complaints about it and that hopefully we can find another place by the end of the month and be out by then and that she would give us our security deposit back.

I know that the first thing I should do is refer to my lease or rental agreement and see if there are any stipulations on smoking. But we don’t have a rental agreement: when my husband and I decided to rent the place, he went to see the landlord (who isn’t the actual landlord, she says that it’s her in-law’s house and they live in China) and my husband proceeded to give her 2800 dollars and basically according to him, he signed a regular piece of paper that had the house’s address preprinted on it that said that he was renting the downstairs unit with the current date on it and that he had given her 2800 dollars as first month and security deposit.

He said that when he asked for a copy of this, she said that she didn’t have a copy machine and she had promised him a copy the very next day. She never gave him one. He had called her a few times and had failed in his attempts to get a copy of that paper or a copy of a receipt or rental agreement.

Can she do this to us? Can she deny our rent like that? Can she give us a trial run like that and then if she doesn’t like us kick us out like this?

I would greatly appreciate any type of advice since this had become an incredibly stressful situation for my entire family now.

The landlord cannot refuse to accept your rent unless your tenancy has been terminated by a legal notice. It is a violation of the Tenant Harassment section of the Rent Ordinance to refuse to accept or acknowledge receipt of a tenant’s lawful rent payment.  (Rent Ordinance §37.10B(a)(11).)

What’s with the “no copy machine” excuse to refuse to provide a receipt for rent? I talk to a lot of tenants and this one’s been coming up lately. In March another reader complained about this practice. I have also had a couple of phone conversations with tenants who reported the same thing. Sometimes I think there’s a listserve or a secret monthly meeting in which landlords discuss new, nefarious ways to screw their tenants. Frankly, this is not that new. This excuse is a recycle, like bell bottoms.

If you are worried that your landlord will try to claim that you are not tenants and she is entitled to summarily kick you out, don’t. The landlord may try to argue this somewhere don the line, but her argument will fail.

In San Francisco a tenancy is presumed after a tenant has occupied the unit for 32 days. If you and your family have been there longer than that, you are tenants. It also looks like the landlord accepted a security deposit that was more or less equal to another month’s rent. How is she going to explain that?

It also would be a violation of the Rent Ordinance for the landlord to rent the in-law as a temporary/vacation rental.

“Trial runs” are not permissible under the Rent Ordinance.

There is a bigger issue here. That is: Are you creating a nuisance or interfering with the quiet enjoyment of the landlord by smoking pot in your unit?

It looks like you do not have any prohibitions against smoking in your lease because it is an oral lease with no covenants (promises, terms) about anything. The duty to pay rent is implied. The landlord cannot evict you for breach of the lease.

These days, pot is very stinky! If the smoke is truly bothering the landlord and her family, other than just vague apprehension about getting busted, the landlord can make a persuasive argument that your smoking substantially interferes with the her quiet enjoyment. You can be evicted for that pursuant to Rent Ordinance §37.9(a)(2). Of course, the key word is substantial.

Is marijuana possession and use legal in California? Well, yes, if you have a prescription, and no, because marijuana is illegal under federal law. I discussed this in “Tenant Troubles: Does My Landlord Get To Ask About My Pot Plants?”

If I was the landlord’s lawyer, I would advise her not to get into the marijuana legality issue and, instead, focus on the fact that the smoke is substantially interfering with her  and her family’s life.

You should also explore the possibility that you are living in an illegal unit. Remember, however, that you and your family are not entitled to any relocation benefits because you have not lived in the unit more than one year.

My initial take on this is that it’s a battle not worth fighting, but you need to take all your documents to the San Francisco Tenants Union to discuss specific strategy to deal with your case.

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

My Landlord Isn’t Depositing My Rent Checks, Should I Worry?

My Landlord Isn’t Depositing My Rent Checks, Should I Worry?

My Landlord Isn’t Depositing My Rent Checks, Should I Worry?

I have been following your articles on SFAppeal for a while. I just had two questions to ask: 1) My landlord has not been depositing the checks I send to them for rent. 2) My landlord also has not been sending a receipt as note of receiving my check.

I’m not sure what the rules and regulations are about the two concerns. I couldn’t find anything at the SFTU and SFRB sites. Any advice would be greatly appreciated, thanks.

This is one of the oldest tricks in the landlord playbook. We used to see it employed all the time when I worked at the Homeless Advocacy Project. If an SRO hotel landlord (think Sixth Street) didn’t like a tenant but could not find any reason to evict her legally, he would simply stop cashing the tenant’s rent checks or accepting rent. The logic is simple: Tenants, especially at risk, low income tenants, will spend the rent money. At some time in the future, if the landlord deposits all of the checks tenant’s checks at once, oops, the checks bounce. The landlord could serve a 3-day notice to pay or quit and, boom, the tenant is out.

The tenant harassment section of the Rent Ordinance (Section 37.10B) provides a long list of prohibited conduct if the conduct is done with ulterior motive and designed to harass tenants. Section 37.10B(a)(11): Refuse to accept or acknowledge receipt of a tenant’s lawful rent payment; (12) Refuse to cash a rent check for over 30 days. California Civil Code §1499 also requires receipts for rent payments.

Unfortunately in Larson v. City and County of San Francisco (2011), a case testing Proposition M remedies, the court found that the Sections 37.10B(a)(4-15) could not be enforced by the San Francisco Rent Board. But my reading of the case is that you can sue the landlord for violation of the Sections 11 and 12 in small claims court.

Obviously, the first thing to consider before you start any inquiry of the landlord is if you have all of your rent saved. If you don’t have the money, get it now because your tenancy is doomed if you don’t.

The next thing to do is to write your landlord a letter. Tell him that you noticed he isn’t cashing your checks. Ask him why. Or if you want to be more aggressive, demand that he cash your rent checks and cite the law that requires him to do so. Tell him you’ll take him to small claims court and demand “injunctive relief.” In other words you’ll ask the court to order him to cash your checks.

As usual, I suggest that you go to the San Francisco Tenants Union to go over your strategy with a counselor.

I also believe tenants should start referring these matters to the San Francisco District Attorney’s Office.

After all, Rent Ordinance §37.10B(c)(2) states: “Any person who is convicted of violating this Section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction shall be punished by a fine of not greater than one thousand dollars or by imprisonment in the County Jail for not more than six months, or by both such fine and imprisonment.”

Maybe it’s time for the cops to start busting scofflaw landlords rather than pot smokers.

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