(415)552-9060
My Landlord Wants Me To Add My Boyfriend To My Lease. Do I Have To?

My Landlord Wants Me To Add My Boyfriend To My Lease. Do I Have To?

by | Jan 22, 2014 | Roommates

My Landlord Wants Me To Add My Boyfriend To My Lease. Do I Have To?

I moved into the apartment I’m renting about six months ago. The building was constructed in the 1950’s and there are two apartment units in my building. I’m paying $4000 for the two bed, two bath apartment and $150 for a garage/parking space. The other building tenant and I split the cost of the water bill and trash bill and we each pay our own gas & electricity directly.

The landlord made a big production of verifying my employment, salary, and credit history (all are in good shape) before agreeing to rent the apartment to me and I’m the sole tenant on the lease.

Since I moved in, I’ve always paid my rent and my 1/2 of the water bill on time. As God is my witness, I’ve been a quiet, low-maintenance tenant.

My landlord has a real bee in her bonnet with me and I’m not quite sure why. My boyfriend moved in with me after I signed the lease. It’s a wonderful development in our relationship. But the landlord has identified that he’s there full time (not sure how) and has twice asked that he becomes a tenant on the lease agreement. There is a clause in my lease about getting landlord approval for any guests who stay over 30 days, but the lease also later differentiates between guests and domestic partners, so I feel like it’s a little vague.

I explained to my landlord that I was happy to comply with any legal requirements that I had, but that I wanted to take sole responsibility for my obligations under the lease and that I saw no reason to add my boyfriend to it. I’ll add – he’s a nice, straight-laced kind of guy and my landlord met him and was very pleasant to him, so it’s not like I’ve got some drug fiend who I’m occasionally hooking up with holed up in the extra bedroom . So my question is, am I under any obligation to add my boyfriend to the lease?

Have you heard the old proverb, “Don’t look a gift horse in the mouth?” A useful reminder of the meaning of the saying can be found in The Phrase Finder:

As horses develop they grow more teeth and their existing teeth begin to change shape and project further forward. Determining a horse’s age from its teeth is a specialist [sic] task, but it can be done.

The advice given in the ‘don’t look…’ proverb is: when receiving a gift be grateful for what it is; don’t imply you wished for more by assessing its value.

Simply put, you are not required to accept your landlord’s offer to put your boyfriend on the lease, but it may be the only way to legally establish his residence in the building.

You don’t want to add your boyfriend to the lease. You prefer that he resides in the unit as a subtenant, that his lease is with you rather than the landlord. In other words you will be subletting the extra bedroom to him. I still speak to many tenants who don’t understand that adding a roommate is a form of subletting. Many tenants still believe that subletting only occurs when one temporarily rents an entire unit to person. Not true.

You have not provided the language in your lease that limits or prohibits your ability to sublet, so I’m going to assume that your lease is fairly standard and prohibits subletting without the written consent of the landlord.

In that case, because the building is subject to the Rent Control Ordinance, your ability to obtain the landlord’s reasonable consent is governed by Rent Board Rules & Regulations §6.15A. Your issues is the same as the one I recently discussed in “Did Gavin Newsom Make It Harder For My Boyfriend To Move In With Me?” You aren’t making a one-for-one replacement of a roommate. While there is an argument to be made that you should be able to rent the second bedroom, it doesn’t fall squarely within the statute. Perhaps you could construe the landlord’s offer to add the boyfriend to lease as an acceptance of his subtenancy, but that’s a stretch.

The difference is that you’re not ready to marry this guy yet. That’s an important distinction to make. If you add your boyfriend to the lease, he becomes a co-occupant. What if you break up and he doesn’t want to move out? You can’t evict him and he can’t evict you. Potential problem.

Read Rent Board Rules and Regulations §6.14. Whenever I decide to reread the regulation I rent a cabin in a very remote area for a weekend. I bring extra copies of the statute and my 357 Magnum. I read the rule for awhile, then I take a copy out back and use it for target practice. Then I read for awhile and repeat. By Sunday I think I understand it.

Then I suggest you revisit the issue with the landlord. Thank her for offering to add your boyfriend to the lease. Tell her that it’s more beneficial to her to allow you to add your boyfriend as a subtenant, a subsequent occupant. In the unlikely case that you move out, the landlord would be stuck with your boyfriend and she could not increase the rent. Tell the landlord you would gladly accept service of a 6.14 notice, informing your boyfriend in case you vacate, he will be subject to a rent increase to market rate.

The landlord should be delighted…unless she wants to evict you for illegal subletting because she can increase the rent to $10,000.00 a month. Isn’t that the going rate for a two-bedroom in North Beach?

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 Refuse To Add My Domestic Partner To My Lease?

Can My Landlord Refuse To Add My Domestic Partner To My Lease?

by | Oct 23, 2013 | Roommates

Can My Landlord Refuse To Add My Domestic Partner To My Lease?

How to add my domestic partner to the lease?

I have been the only tenant (master tenant) of my rent controlled studio apartment in San Francisco. I moved in alone in July 2009. The building is from the 1930s and there are at least 30 units. I pay $961, up from $920 at move-in.The most recent rental ad that I saw for a similar unit to mine in the same building shows they are renting for about $1600 now. I looked at my lease and as expected the no subletters detail is in bold print.

My boyfriend has been staying with me informally for a few months, and  only the internet bill is in his name as he wanted to get us better internet service. He also changed his address to mine with the US Postal Service and DMV for his drivers license. His name was not on the lease at his previous apartment, he just rents a room there before our relationship got serious.

Just this week we filed a domestic partnership at SF City Hall. I then emailed the property management company, called The Douche Gang, saying that I’d like to add my domestic partner. They replied that he has to apply and pay the application fee and show proof of income.

This was expected but I’m  nervous because the online info I find is that they can’t deny a domestic partner unreasonably, but if this company is bent on removing me to get a market value renter than how do we know what is considered reasonable? My boyfriend has an old debt to a landlord in Seattle from miscellaneous fees and penalty for painting that unit. I know he can’t be denied for credit reasons but what if it was apartment rental related? As you seem to be aware, San Francisco Rent Ordinance §37.9(a)(2)(B) states in part:

[…] where a rental agreement or lease provision limits the number of occupants or limits or prohibits subletting or assignment, a landlord shall not endeavor to recover possession of a rental unit as a result of the addition to the unit of a tenant’s child, parent, grandchild, grandparent, brother or sister, or the spouse or domestic partner […] of such relatives, or as a result of the addition of the spouse or domestic partner of a  tenant […]

In other words, a tenant cannot be evicted for subletting to his or her spouse or domestic partner. The clause that you’re concerned with can be found in the same  section:

A landlord’s reasonable refusal of the tenant’s written request may not be based on the proposed additional occupant’s lack of creditworthiness, if that person will not be legally obligated to pay some or all of the rent to the landlord.

It’s highly unlikely that The Douche Gang will allow you to create a co-tenancy with your boyfriend, i.e., actually putting his name on the lease. Therefore, he is not obligated to pay any any rent to the landlord.

The Douche Gang cannot refuse to rent to your boyfriend based upon some debt he allegedly owed to a landlord in Seattle. (A landlord who is also a member of the Douche Gang,  judging by the facts you provide.)

Any refusal to rent based on a debt is a refusal based upon credit worthiness–an unreasonable refusal.

Personally, I don’t think landlords should be allowed to refuse consent to adding roommates at all. I also think the credit application fee is a scam.

But I don’t think you should challenge the application or the fee. You should simply remind The Douche Gang that they don’t have a right to refuse your boyfriend’s subtenancy.

Greedy douche baggery, it’s spreading like some kind of zombie virus! But, unlike the zombie movies, we have to remind ourselves that we tenants still outnumber the douches.

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

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

Contact Us
Sitemap
Privacy Policy
Is This Legal Advice?

My Neighborhood’s Too Dangerous, Can I Break My Lease?

My Neighborhood’s Too Dangerous, Can I Break My Lease?

by | Sep 11, 2013 | Tenant Law

My Neighborhood’s Too Dangerous, Can I Break My Lease?

Neighborhood’s too dangerous.

In July, my wife and I moved out of a great roommate situation in San Francisco into our first apartment as a couple in Oakland’s Rockridge neighborhood. At the time the move made perfect sense and for the first few weeks things were excellent. We finally had our own place, we discovered that we have the best neighbors, and being 4 blocks from BART for under $2,000.00 is something we could only dream about in the city. 

On the evening of August 16th all of our good feelings changed. We were robbed at gunpoint about 50 yards from our front door. We soon found out that other robberies had happened on our street during the month of August. The robberies have continued in Rockridge within a mile from our home. Most of them at night, but two committed this weekend happened during broad daylight, Saturday 4:15pm on a residential street like ours and Sunday at 2:15pm in front of a busy cafe on College Avenue. 

Last Thursday at the library in Rockridge, Captain Trobiano from the Oakland Police Department met with concerned neighbors to talk about the recent spate of robberies. His advice was to hire private security for the neighborhood. The Oakland Police Department doesn’t seem to have the resources to keep the neighborhood safe. 

One of the reasons my wife and I moved to Rockridge was to take advantage of the many shops, restaurants, and watering holes that dot College Avenue. Now we are terrified to go out because our neighborhood’s too dangerous. I often work late at night and am fearful that I will be mugged while walking from my car to my front door. I hate leaving my wife home alone at night while I work.

We are wondering whether you know if we can get out of our lease? What will the financial penalties be?

I’m sorry to hear about your experience and glad to assume by your email that neither of you were hurt.

Certainly, you have the right to move, to break your lease. Often tenants don’t quite understand that they can always terminate a lease before it expires. Despite what you may have been told, landlords cannot force tenants to live in a unit.

If you terminate a lease early you will be in breach of the lease unless your move can be blamed on the landlord–the roof caves in or the landlord’s direct action forces you to move. As you know, however, there is nothing the landlord can do to prevent this type of crime, so you may incur some financial liability for breach of the lease.

When a tenant breaches a lease, in this case by moving out before the end of the term, a landlord suffers damages. These damages are called “expectation damages.” If you promised to pay $1,900.00/month for 12 months, then the landlord has the right to expect that amount of income for a year. That’s why one hears that tenants can be charged for the rent for the rest of the term of the lease if they move early. That could be true if the law allowed the landlord to sit on his ass and do nothing to rent the unit.

The law requires that the landlord “mitigate” or minimize his damages. He must attempt to rent the unit at the same rate. Because you recently rented the unit, I assume the rent is priced close to market rate. The landlord shouldn’t have any trouble re-renting it for the same price, more or less.

The law is also clear that the landlord cannot be “unjustly enriched.” That means that he cannot collect damages (rent) from you for any time he rents the unit to new tenants.

How do you calculate your potential damages?

Read your lease. If there is a clause that defines a preset fee as damages you may be liable to pay the fee. You should check with a lawyer regarding such a clause. In some cases they may not be legal or may allow the landlord to be “unjustly enriched.”

You should try to give the landlord thirty-days notice of your intent to vacate–in writing, always in writing. Your correspondence during this period should be in writing, email will suffice.

Let’s say you give the landlord notice that you will move out on September 15. If the landlord rents the unit to new tenants for the same price you are paying and their tenancy begins on September 16, the landlord won’t have any damages beyond incidental costs like advertising the unit. Assuming you leave the place in the same condition that you received it, the landlord should also return your full security deposit.

If the rental market has softened in Rockridge and the landlord can only rent the unit for $1,800.00, you may be liable for additional rent of $100.00 per month until expiration of the lease–approximately $900.00. The landlord should be able to deduct that from the security deposit.

Practically, you should make it as easy as possible for the landlord to exhibit the unit to prospective tenants. Work with the landlord to make sure any other issues that arise during the rental process are resolved smoothly.

You should not, however, agree to assume responsibility for the entire rental process, like maintaining the advertising and arranging the showings yourself. I’ve heard too many stories in which tenants have done all the work to rent a unit only to find that the landlord refuses each and every one of the applicants and demands rent for another month.

Some landlords will see this as an opportunity to collect rent without putting up with pesky tenants. If you give notice to vacate, that’s exactly what you should do. Despite any threats from the landlord, do not cave into the suggestion that you continue to pay rent after you’ve moved.

If you give a landlord a chance to sit on his ass, nine times out of ten, that’s exactly what he will do despite the fact that the neighborhood’s too dangerous.

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

Related Posts:

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

Contact Us
Sitemap
Privacy Policy
Is This Legal Advice?

Do I Have to Use The Crappy Furniture That Came With My Apartment?

Do I Have to Use The Crappy Furniture That Came With My Apartment?

by | Aug 28, 2013 | Tenant Law

Do I Have to Use The Crappy Furniture That Came With My Apartment?

Crappy furniture.

I am a tenant in lower Nob Hill, building is more than 50 years old.  I live in a studio apartment that I signed a 6 month lease for in July of 2011.  The apartment came sparsely furnished with a futon bed (now removed because it was broken), a T.V./bookcase wooden thing, that probably dates back to the 70’s and a small table that is filthy, stained and ewwwwww.  

I want to remove the furniture and move my own in.  I wasn’t sure about how long I would be here, so the sorta furnished deal was appealing at the time I moved in.  Now that I know I will be here a few more years, I’d like to bring my stuff up from down south.  

The furniture is not worth anything and Goodwill and DAV will not take it because it is in too rough of shape.  

The landlord has threatened me with lawsuits and eviction stating to move furniture out would be a “serious crime”.  I have assured him that I will leave the apartment in better condition than what it was rented to me, but I was set on getting rid of the useless furniture.  

I have searched high and low for some kind of law or statute about this and I cannot find one.  I don’t mind giving up my deposit, which was 600 bucks.

The best solution to this problem would be to stash the furniture in a closet until you move. I’m guessing that may not be an option for you because the apartment is a studio. I also get that the cost of storing worthless furniture is a waste of money.

The first place to look to resolve, or at least understand how to deal with issues like this, is your lease. Check it carefully to see if it defines your obligations with respect to the firewood in your apartment. Look for specific clauses regarding the furnishings. Then read more general clauses that limit or prohibit alterations and repairs to the unit.

Read the lease as broadly as possible to see if any language that could be applied to removing the furniture could be used to evict you for breach of contract. Given his absurd claim that removing the furniture would be a serious crime, your landlord (or his lawyer) will be reading the lease the same way. Make sure the landlord cannot evict you for breach of the lease.

Next, make sure that the table isn’t a Federal inlay mahogany card table made by John and Thomas Seymour for which the landlord paid $30.00 now valued at $400,000 or that the T.V. bookcase thing isn’t an original Stickley.

As you already guessed, if you aren’t in breach of an obligation under the lease, removing the furniture is a security deposit issue. California Civil Code section 1950.5(b)(4) states that a deposit may be used by the landlord “to remedy future defaults by the tenant in any obligation under the rental agreement to restore, replace, or return personal property or appurtenances, exclusive of ordinary wear and tear, if the security deposit is authorized to be applied thereto by the rental agreement.”

You need to remind your landlord that you’re not committing any crime, he cannot evict you, and if he sues you in small claims court he will lose because he can’t prove any damages if the furniture has no value.

You can also tell him that he can use the deposit to replace the furniture in case he still wants to rent the apartment as furnished. Point out that this is a good deal for him because he can find replacement furniture on the street, just like he did the first time.

Then take lots of photos of the furniture before you toss it. The photos should be so detailed that one can smell the 70s. Ewwwwww!

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 Someone Be A Subtenant If They Aren’t Paying Rent?

Can Someone Be A Subtenant If They Aren’t Paying Rent?

by | Jun 5, 2013 | Tenant Law

Can Someone Be A Subtenant If They Aren’t Paying Rent?

I like your column, you appear to be on the slightly radical side of liberal. 🙂

Last August you wrote: 

“Many tenants are confused about the definition of subletting. If you lease a premises, even on a month-to-month basis and you charge another person to rent the entire premises or a portion of the premises without somehow changing the lease by adding her as a tenant, you are subletting. You are the only person liable to the landlord to perform the various obligations of your lease.”

What if no money changes hands? What if the person living there is just feeding the cat and taking care of the place until the renter returns from vacation, skilled nursing facility, etc? Does this still legally constitute a “sublet”, or a renter?

I’ll be happy to elaborate on the context if you’d like, it’s basically about my Mother’s situation.

She’s been fighting for her life in a skilled nursing facility for a few months with a live-in watching her place (and cat) until she returns. Getting a lot of heat from her landlord – in spite of the fact her caretaker is registered as a tenant with same landlord. The caretaker is staying there for the consideration of providing care. No money involved in the exchange.

Going to make a few assumptions here, because your question does not provide quite enough details. I’m going to assume that your mother lives in San Francisco and has a rent-controlled tenancy. Based on your representation that the caretaker is a registered tenant, I’m going to assume that the landlord somehow accepted the caretaker as a roommate; or at least knows about your mother’s condition and that the caretaker is house-sitting.

As I stated in my August article, sharing the rent with a roommate also falls within the definition of subletting. The classic definition of subletting is the payment of consideration to a leaseholder for an exclusive right to all or part of the leaseholder’s interest in the lease. The subtenant has a contract with the leaseholder (master tenant) but not with the landlord. In a roommate scenario, the subtenant usually pays rent or other consideration to the master tenant to exclusively occupy a bedroom in the apartment. Most residential leases provide for a landlord’s written consent to sublet.

In your case, the landlord could argue that the caretaker is subletting because she is providing consideration, i.e., cat care and security for a free place to stay. But the analysis does not end there. A court would also inquire if the caretaker had exclusive possession. In other words, if your mother comes back does the caretaker still have a right to occupy all or part of the apartment?

Procedurally, the landlord is required to serve a three-day notice to cure or quit. If the caretaker moved out, that should nip the argument in the bud.

I think it is unlikely that a San Francisco jury would find that the caretaker was a subletter. Nevertheless your mother could be vulnerable to defending an unlawful detainer (eviction) action. Of course, if she can prove that the landlord has accepted the caretaker as a subtenant, case over.

Before serving a notice to cure or quit and filing an unlawful detainer, a prudent San Francisco landlord should file a “1.21 petition” at the San Francisco Rent Board. If the Board ruled that the apartment was not your mother’s primary place of residence, the landlord could raise the rent to market rate without evicting her.

That’s what it’s all about anyway, landlords rarely give a rat’s ass about who lives in an apartment as long as the rent is paid. They only care about subletters when and if they think the rent is too low.

Readers: when you submit a question, you should provide as many details as possible. They don’t have to be confidential details, but I need to understand the basics that I outlined in Tenant Troubles: How To Help Dave Help You. That way I can give you a complete answer based upon the the facts of your specific issue. If you eventually need to seek the advice of a tenant attorney, you will need to provide these initial details, so it’s a good idea to have them on hand.

BTW, the best way to piss me off is to call me a liberal. Mush-headed liberals think the system can be fixed. I have to be balanced, unbiased when I try to explain how the law works. 😉  That doesn’t mean that landlord tenant law is either fair, just or reparable. Ask your mother about that.

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 Have My Living Situation “Both Ways”?

Can I Have My Living Situation “Both Ways”?

by | May 8, 2013 | Tenant Law

Can I Have My Living Situation “Both Ways”?

I am a subtenant in an apartment that is not rent-controlled.  I moved in on June 1, 2012.  I moved in with a roommate who had a one-year lease beginning May 3, 2012 and it is month to month after that.  I moved in on June 1, 2012.  The building is a large multi-unit bldg with 9 floors with an onsite property manager.  When I moved in, we got permission from the property manager for me to stay there and I was given my own keys and everything. I offered to be added to the lease, but they stated that wasn’t necessary.    Rent was $4200 a month. Most months my roommate paid the rent and I paid her 1/2, but on at least one occasion, I wrote a check directly to the property manager for the full rent (in case that matters). 

My roommate, who is the only person on the lease, is moving out this week.  She has paid rent through the end of the month.  She has received notice that rent will increase to $4,500.  I do not want to sign a one-year lease for $4,500 a month, which was the option presented to me when I told the landlord I wanted to stay.  I have asked if I can have a month to month lease and was told no. At least a week ago, my roommate and I have both asked if I can be added to the lease and pay $4,500 month to month and we have not gotten any response.  My question is, if I pay $4,500 when the rent is due, can the owner evict me? In other words, even that I am not on the lease, but the landlord is aware of my occupancy and my desire to stay, can he evict me if he finds a tenant in the next couple weeks who wants to sign a one-year lease for $4,500 a month, or is he required to give me at least 30 days notice? 

And on the flip side, if I find somewhere else to live in the next week or two, is he entitled to 30 days notice, or can I go ahead and move out without penalty? My roommate paid the deposit of at least a month’s rent, and if notice is required on my end, I don’t want me not providing the landlord with 30 days notice to result in her losing her deposit.  Yes, I am essentially asking if I can have it both ways.  I feel like thus far, the owner has been totally jacking me around, not giving me definitive answers, so he can remain uncommitted while looking for another tenant. So I want to know what my rights are, if any, given that I am not on the lease.

If the landlord accepts your payment of $4,500.00, he has renewed your tenancy for thirty days and he cannot evict you, simple as that. California Civil Code §1945 is clear on this issue:

If a lessee of real property remains in possession thereof after the expiration of the hiring, and the lessor accepts rent from him, the parties are presumed to have renewed the hiring on the same terms and for the same time, not exceeding one month when the rent is payable monthly, nor in any case one year.

Frankly, I don’t know why the landlord would not accept your rent. He wouldn’t have any interruption in the income stream and if he wants to insist that you sign a new lease he can present it to you again.  If you refuse to sign, he can give you a sixty-day notice to vacate (because you’ve been there for more than one year) and begin to search for tenants willing to sign a one-year lease. Conversely, if the landlord decide to let you stay as a month-to month tenant, you can give him a thirty-day notice of your intent to vacate if and when you decide to move.

Generally there is a clause in most residential leases that provides for the tenancy to revert to a month-to-month tenancy if the tenant holds over (stays in the apartment past the one-year period.) Check your lease to see if it has a different clause requiring some sort of notice on your part. Or take the lease to the San Francisco Tenants Union, join, and have a counselor take a look at your lease to understand your obligations. Assuming that the lease reverts to a month-to-month tenancy, the landlord will have to serve you a notice to vacate. Because the unit is not rent controlled he can serve a sixty-day notice without just cause. If the landlord doesn’t understand this, let him know. If you haven’t paid the rent he can serve a three-day notice to pay or quit. If he serves a three-day notice, simply pay the rent within the period and stay till next month.

The key here is to keep paying or offering to pay the rent in writing. If you do not pay the rent and move out the landlord can deduct from the security deposit any losses he incurs from your early departure without notice. If you think you can have it both ways you’re wrong.

Pay the rent. That’s the best single piece of advice I can give to tenants. You’d be surprised at how many landlord issues disappear when you pay the rent.

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 Refuse To Sign A Lease?

Can I Refuse To Sign A Lease?

by | May 1, 2013 | Tenant Law

Can I Refuse To Sign A Lease?

All the websites discuss the SF Rent Control stuff about when your building was built, condo or single family home, etc. But I can never find an answer to THIS situation:

Assume I live in a rent-controlled building.

Why does the landlord make me sign a lease? OK, maybe it’s because they don’t want to look for a new tenant, so I’d sign a 1-year lease. But given the rents rise in the city, after a year they’d probably love if I move out. But let’s say they don’t, and they want me to stay.

One-year anniversary of lease rolls around. Landlord asks me to sign another lease.

What rights do I have then? While I wouldn’t MIND signing a lease, if I don’t, I’m under rent-control anyways, so wouldn’t the term go month-to-month? In other words, if I signed a lease, I’m just giving up the flexibility to move away any month I want…without getting anything in return. I’m stuck in the same spot for another year and liable to pay that rent.

BUT, I can never find the definitive answer in this. I read one place that as that year approaches, the landlord can ask you to re-up on a lease at all the normal rent-control same terms (same rent plus the allowable increase, no material changes, etc). In THAT case, if I refused to sign the lease again – I could be kicked out. The reasoning was that I was offered the ability to continue to stay there at basically the same terms…and I refused (instead I asked for “more” via a month-to-month tenancy, which the landlord doesn’t have to accept).

So, which is it? Should a tenant in a rent-controlled apartment ever re-up with leases? Or can they say “No” and rest easy knowing the landlord can’t kick them out?

My business partner, Solvejg Rose, a German lawyer, taught me a very valuable lesson. When in doubt, read the statute. In the United States when we study law, we read a lot of cases interpreting the law but we tend to forget to rely on the wording of a given statute, the actual law. Often, a plain reading of the law is enough to make a legal argument.

For lay people it can be tough to find the applicable statute to interpret. That’s why I always try to cite the law and/or provide links to the law in these articles. I hope my readers can learn the basics and then ask, as you have, how the law can be applicable to an individual set of circumstances.

So let’s look at the law. Rent Ordinance §37.9(a)(5) provides that a tenant can be evicted if

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

Before I get into the application of this just cause in the Rent Ordinance, here’s a method for tenants to find answers to their general questions. First ask yourself, “Can I be evicted if I (fill in the blank)?” If your unit was built before June 16, 1979, begin your search in §37.9 of the Rent Ordinance. The subparts of §37.9(a) list the just causes for eviction in San Francisco.

If you need to consult other resources, we provide a complete list of them on the Crow & Rose Tenant Resources page.

You can be evicted if you refuse to sign a new lease, but only if the lease contains “terms which are materially the same as in the previous agreement.”

Rent Board Rules and Regulations §12.20 provides further guidance:

Notwithstanding any change in the terms of a tenancy pursuant to Civil Code Section 827, a tenant may not be evicted for violation of a covenant or obligation that was not included in the tenant’s rental agreement at the inception of the tenancy unless: (1) the change in the terms of the tenancy is authorized by the Rent Ordinance or required by federal, state or local law; or (2) the change in the terms of the tenancy was accepted in writing by the tenant after receipt of written notice from the landlord that the tenant need not accept such new term as part of the rental agreement.

When the one-year anniversary rolls around, just compare the old lease with the new, side by side. Hint: If your old lease is a one-page stationery store form and your new one is a 34-page San Francisco Apartment Association lease, you can bet there will be a few more new terms–like about 60!

It does seem counter-intuitive for a landlord to request that a long term rent-controlled tenant continue to sign a new lease, but counter-intuitive for landlords can be beneficial for tenants. You are protected from nasty rent increases, OMI notices or Ellis notices that become effective before the end of your lease.

If you’ve lived in your apartment a couple of years, the market value of your rental will be markedly higher. If you decide to move and you give the landlord a 30-day notice to vacate before the end of the term of the lease, you will be in breach of your lease. The landlord, however, has a duty to mitigate (lessen or eliminate) his damages. He can do that by renting the apartment for the same amount of rent as you pay. As you said, the landlord will be happy to see you go because he can charge more rent.

Some landlords tell you that they can sue you for all of the rent that would be paid if you did not move out early. Not true. Others will attempt to keep your security deposit as damage for your breach. If you leave the apartment in the same condition (excepting normal wear and tear) and the landlord rents the place for the same amount you were paying, he has been unjustly enriched.

If you have a lease and you want to break it, I recommend that you make a deal with the landlord ahead of time. Before you give him a thirty-day notice, point out that you want to move and he will be making bank because you are vacating. Ask him to agree to release you of any claims he might have for your breach and to return you security deposit. Get the agreement in writing.

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?