(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

How Can I Buy Property In SF And Not Burn In Hell?

How Can I Buy Property In SF And Not Burn In Hell?

How Can I Buy Property In SF And Not Burn In Hell?

Having read your “Tenant Troubles” blog and examined your website, I am curious as to your personal view of bona fide OMI evictions / good faith owner-move-in buyouts.  I should be clear, I’m not looking for your advice in the interest of the landlord, but rather advice in the interest of tenants, AS a (potential) landlord.

We are currently looking to buy somewhere to live in in SF and many places we have looked at are two units, both tenant occupied.  My husband and I have no interest in raising rents or emptying the building for the purposes of raising rent in the future however we do need somewhere to live.  We don’t own any other property in SF.  I am aware it is possibly within our legal rights to do an OMI eviction on one unit (and leave the other occupied as is, rent controlled and all).  However the thought of being an evicting landlord (colorful adjectives you use such as sleazy, lying, greedy etc, I don’t THINK apply but still, we would be displacing someone from their home, there’s no way around it…) does not sit easily.

I fully support rent and eviction controls on principle.  I value the notion of ‘home’ over ‘home ownership’ (UnAmerican I know).  Should I just walk away from occupied properties?  Don’t buy SF property at all?  Someone else will buy and evict no doubt.  Is there a way to do this and have everyone come out on top?  What’s the way forward?

A few years ago a very dear of mine came to me seeking my thoughts on this very issue. She and her husband, long time San Francisco residents and City employees wanted to buy a building with two units, one for them and one for retiring parent.

The market was off its rocker, fueled by what we now know was a Ponzi scheme designed by corrupt banks, mortgage brokers and realtors. Two unit buildings were being snapped up by speculators to be converted into TICs and condos. Tenants were being evicted right and left, because the cheapest buildings were those occupied by tenants, especially long-term disabled and elderly tenants.

My friend has long been a social justice advocate, but she found herself in a position similar to yours. My friend had just seen a building that would be perfect for her and her family, a building in a good location that was priced right and could accommodate her family’s growth. She was planning to have a baby. But the building had tenants and in one unit, elderly tenants.

As we spoke, I described the cases I was defending and others I’d witnessed at theTenants Union. I told her horror story after horror story. During our conversation, I witnessed something that I will never forget. I saw my friend become resolute in her ideals.

We both came to the conclusion that community begins at home and that nobody should have the right to disrupt community simply because they can afford to do so.

With the courage of their convictions, my friend and her family bought a two unit building that was vacant. They paid top dollar so that they could sleep at night. My friend could raise her daughter and speak of social justice without underlying hypocrisy. My friend’s decision was brave and principled but it came at a cost–brave, principled decisions usually do.

If you think about it, much of what is wrong in our country today comes from bottom line thinking that has utterly no regard for its effects on people.

I can tell that you’re conflicted and I think you may trying to do the right thing, but if your decisions are colored by our culture as it is evolving, you’ll be wrong every time. For example, if you believe in “home over home ownership,” why do you need to buy at all?

And why would you even think that your values are “unAmerican”? Do you actually believe that one-third of Americans (renters) are unAmerican?

My advice to you is the same I gave to my friend, buy a place that doesn’t have tenants. Buy a condo or a house or an unoccupied building with a friend. But before you do, find out if the building was previously emptied by an Ellis eviction.

Ellis eviction notices are registered with the Rent Board and they will also show up in a title search. Ask your realtor if tenants were evicted at all to market a unit. He or she will lie, but watch them squirm when you ask. That alone should drive you crazy if you truly care about a stable community.

Also ask yourself if you really want to own property in a city where everybody is rich; a city that drives out its young people because they can’t afford to come back from college and live here. Think about your role in that, if you pay an exorbitant, insane price for a unit in a building.

Community begins at home. Sit down with your husband tonight and discuss what kind of a community you want to live in. Understand that your decision, however small it may be in the larger scope, may have a ripple effect.

Finally, understand that if you make the wrong decision and buy a building in which you evict tenants, you will burn in hell forever.

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

Why Do You Assume All Landlords Are Rich?

Why Do You Assume All Landlords Are Rich?

Why Do You Assume All Landlords Are Rich?

I don’t want to argue the merits of rent control per se. But, what I would like to know is why does every single tenant advocacy group, person, attorney, legislator etc just assume that a landlord, just being a landlord, is rich?

Some are wealthy and some are not. Some large corporations are doing fabulously well today and some small businesses are suffering greatly.

Maybe we should means test landlords as a way to exempt some from the rent ordinances of SF & Berkeley? Would you consider that fair?

It’s interesting that your list of those who assume that landlords are rich practically encompasses the entire population. Could that assumption simply be true? Duh. In the Bay Area, all landlords are rich.

It’s very easy to come to that conclusion. If you’re a landlord, you own at least two units, right? (Generally, a landlord who rents a room to a boarder in his own house is exempt from rent control.)

According to HUD, for the 12 months ending March 2010, the median sales price was $647,300 in the city of San Francisco. I believe the price has increased in the last year.

But before you blow a gasket, I understand that the single family home sales price is not necessarily indicative of the value of a given unit. Those figures are harder to find. But is there a two-unit building in San Francisco that is worth less than $400,000? If there is one, it’s probably uninhabitable.

Is it fair to say that all San Francisco landlords have assets valued at least $400,000.00? Landlords who own more units than in this hypothetical San Francisco shack are worth considerably more.

Is that rich enough for you?

Anyone who didn’t come in with yesterday’s rain knows that rich people always complain about not having enough. It’s in their nature.

One of the reasons corporations do so well is that we subsidize them with tax breaks and write-offs. Interestingly, we also subsidize landlords the same way. Landlords can deduct their mortgage interest, maintenance costs, property taxes, property management costs and on and on.

I don’t even get my frickin’ $62.00 renters credit anymore.

I’m sorry. The poor landlord who deserves a means test to opt out of rent control is like the small company, say Bechtel with annual revenue of $30.8 billion, that deserves a tax break.

Of course you want to argue the merits of rent control–you want to argue the merits in a passive/aggressive manner so typical of apologists for landlords.

To paraphrase Bill Maher, “The next landlord who publicly complains about being vilified by tenant advocates for being too rich must be publicly vilified by tenant advocates for being too rich.

Update, December 1, 2013: Did I actually say $400,000 for an average value of two units? Just trying to be conservative…

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

Time To Hire A Private Eye To Go After Your Landlord

Time To Hire A Private Eye To Go After Your Landlord

Time To Hire A Private Eye To Go After Your Landlord

I have lived in my rent controlled North Beach flat since 1994. In April 2010, a new landlord purchased the building and began eviction proceedings. The tenants in the basement accepted a buyout to move out of the illegal unit they were living in. My roommate and I were also offered a buyout which we refused. Nothing happened until November 30, 2010, when we received a 60 day end of tenancy notice.

The lawyer my landlord hired is an experienced eviction lawyer.

The landlord is claiming he lives in the building in the top empty unit, and is trying to evict my roommate and I so that his brother can move in. I went to the rent board and filed a wrongful eviction because the landlord does not live in the building. I was trying to settle with the landlord, but now they are claiming that my roommate and I never paid last month’s rent and a deposit–a claim my old landlord also made.

I have no records of paying for the last month’s rent and the deposit and when I called Bank of America for copies of my processed checks, they told me they don’t keep copies beyond 7 years. I was young and naive and did not keep copies and I did not make sure that these amounts were included in my lease.

My questions to you are:

1) How can I prove my landlord does not live in the unit? Is it pretty much his word against mine? He owns a condo is SF, which I believe is his primary residence, but he claims he lives in the building and is in the process of selling his condo.

2) Is there anything I can do about the last month’s rent and deposit? Is my old landlord required to keep copies of these records? Is there anything I can do about this?

Whenever I get a case like this, I carefully check the Owner Move In (OMI) Notice. There are specific requirements for an OMI notice that must be followed to the letter.Sometimes even experienced landlord lawyers can omit the details.

For example, sometimes the landlord “forgets” to tell his lawyer about other residential properties he owns. Not listing those properties could invalidate an OMI notice. If you haven’t had an experienced tenant counselor or lawyer read your notice, you should do so immediately. Go to the San Francisco Tenants Union. The counselors there know what to look for in an OMI notice.

The next thing to do is find out if the landlord owns residential properties other than those listed on the notice. You can search online for properties under the landlord’s name at the SF Assessor-Recorder’s website. But I think you can do a more comprehensive address search at the Assessor-Recorder’s office in City Hall. I would also check to see if the brother owns any properties.

If the landlord hasn’t listed all of this residential properties, the notice is invalid. You may also be able to use the information to help you understand where the landlord really lives.

The law is clear that the landlord has to live in the building to be able to serve a relative move-in notice, so there may be a timing issue. That the landlord is hemming and hawing about selling the condo is worth investigating.

Unless the brother now lives in a mansion in Forest Hills that has not been sold or you can somehow obtain photos of the empty unit in your building, it can be difficult to prove where that the landlord is lying.

You need a shamus, a private eye, private dick, you know, a private investigator like Phillip MarloweJake Gittes or Jonathan Ames to fully investigate. You should hire a PI with particular experience investigating landlords. Many tenant lawyers use private investigators in cases like this. I like working with investigators who are sympathetic to tenants.

A PI can find records that are difficult for laymen to get. She can go through the landlord’s trash to try to find documents revealing his true motive. She can also investigate the brother.

Unless you have very good evidence that the landlord is lying, it’s probably not a good idea to stay in the unit past the notice period and risk getting evicted. As I have said before, eviction defense is expensive and complicated.

Sometimes the better move is to just vacate the unit and wait for the landlord to screw up, i.e., the brother doesn’t move in or the landlord never sells the condo, etc. We also use PIs for ongoing investigations like this. A good PI has many tricks to find out who is living in a given building.

One of the best resources to check the coming and going in a building is your neighbors. You’ve lived in the neighborhood for 16 years. You know people. The landlord doesn’t. You should ask your neighbors to keep an eye on the place. I have seen a couple of cases in which the landlord actually bragged to neighbors about how he evicted the tenant. It’s not surprising; stupidity and arrogance are in no short supply in the landlord business.

Regarding your security deposit, unless you can find a copy of your lease that shows how much you paid, you’re probably SOL. Landlords don’t have to account for shit in California.

Situations like these underscore the need for security deposit law reform. Many other states require landlords to create a separate, interest bearing trust account for security deposits. As you may know, I believe that hundreds of millions of dollars are simply stolen by landlords each year in California. It’s time for the trust account requirement, among other reforms, to be instituted in California.

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

Adding A Roommate, Losing A Garage

Adding A Roommate, Losing A Garage

Adding A Roommate, Losing A Garage

I have been in my current (rent-controlled) two-unit apartment here in San Francisco since September 2008. The property manager states they will not process nor approve any application until they have received a positive verbal or written referral from the prior landlord/property manager/roommate.

I am not aware of any city, state or federal law supporting this requirement and understand that a property manager/landlord may only use personal information from an application to rent to confirm proof of income and credit worthiness, and the approval must be completed within a reasonable period of time (as far as I can tell, five business days).

This requirement by the property manager nearly sabotaged my new roommate when, after almost two weeks, they refused to allow him to move in because his prior landlord/roommate apparently wasn’t returning their calls.

My second question: the property manager has also refused to allow me to remain the master tenant on the lease, but instead insists that the new roommate be a co-tenant despite the fact that I have never been late paying the rent (with and without a roommate) since I moved in.

I would like to remain the master tenant (and the new roommate was aware of this wish and agreed to it prior to applying), but the property manager created a “Modification to Lease” placing my new roommate on the lease as a co-tenant.

Under the lease, I am entitled to park two motorcycles and a vehicle in the garage, and since I moved in, have neatly stored items in the storage area (I essentially have sole access to the garage since the tenant downstairs does not drive). After the new roommate moved in, the property manager sent me a letter stating that we must remove all items in the garage despite knowing of the storage matter and no one (that we know of) complained about our storage. I checked the lease and it states, “storage in unit only.”

Are the first two issues lawful, and do I have to move our things despite their constructive notice that I/we have always stored things in the garage/storage room?

All of your issues involve gray (unclear) areas of the law. By that, I mean that your issues, if litigated, will be subject to administrative or judicial interpretation. All of your issues are interesting. And you should understand that when a lawyer says your case is “interesting” that translates as “expensive.”

Can the property manager refuse to process a roommate application without a reference from a former landlord? Rent Board Rules and Regulations § 6.15A and B govern the process by which a roommate can be added to a tenancy. Assuming you have a clause in your lease that allows subletting with the landlord’s written consent (most leases do) the applicable section is 6.15B(b)(ii):

“The proposed new tenant or new subtenant, if requested by the landlord, has completed the landlord’s standard form application, or, in the event the landlord fails to provide an application or has no standard form application, the proposed new tenant or new subtenant has, upon request, provided sufficient information to allow the landlord to conduct a typical background check, including credit information, income information, references, and background information.”

I imagine that most “standard applications” ask for the name of a former landlord. Read narrowly, one could interpret the rules as only requiring the tenant to fill out the application. However, no one is going to argue that the landlord cannot, upon receiving the application, “conduct a typical background check.” There’s the rub. I would certainly argue that a new roommate should not be penalized by a former landlord’s recalcitrance in providing a reference. What if the guy is on an extended silent meditation retreat in an ashram in India? Or recently deceased? What if the new roommate doesn’t have a former landlord, having just moved out of her parents’ house?

The problem is that there is no clear answer. Would it be worth a shot to litigate this at the Rent Board? Perhaps, but in your case you would not have standing to do so because your roommate was, finally, approved.

Can the property manager insist that a new roommate become a co-tenant? Frankly, I’m surprised that they would want to. Your roommate will have all of the rent ordinance protections you now have. Simply put, the landlord cannot increase the rent to market rate if you move out.

The only advantage of being a master tenant is the ability to evict a subtenant, either with or without just cause. (See Rules and Regulations §6.15C.) If your roommate becomes a co-tenant you would not be able to evict her at all because co-tenants cannot evict each other. Personally, I don’t see a problem because I don’t think anyone should want to be a landlord.

That said, you may not have to sign a new lease with the modification as proposed by the property manager, but the law is not completely clear. Rent Ordinance §37.9(a)(5) provides that a tenant can be evicted if he or she refuses to sign a new lease “under such terms which are materially the same as in the previous agreement.” Your roommate is a party to the lease not a term in the lease, yet the modification itself is, arguably, a material new term.

Finally, the storage issue is also subject to interpretation. Your lease specifically requires “storage in unit only.” Did the property manager “waive” that requirement? Waiver is the intentional relinquishment of a known right. That the property managers knew about your storage in the garage is not necessarily enough to prove their intent.

I think the best strategy is to remove the items from the garage. Then consider filing a petition for decrease in services at the Rent Board. Bear in mind that you will have to show that losing the storage has some monetary value; that losing the storage is a substantial decrease; and that the property managers intended to give up their right to demand that you remove the items. It’s a close call.

When presented with cases like this, I ask my clients to think long and hard before they risk their tenancies based upon unsettled issues in the law. For example, if you were my client, I may have advised you not to allow your new roommate to move in had the property manager refused to accept her based on their inability to contact the old landlord.

Defending evictions is expensive, time consuming and stressful. Often it’s better to make a business decision. Ask yourself, “Is my tenancy going to be worth it after I amortize these costs?”

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

My Landlord Wants To Jack Up My Rent Because I’m Getting A New Roommate

My Landlord Wants To Jack Up My Rent Because I’m Getting A New Roommate

My Landlord Wants To Jack Up My Rent Because I’m Getting A New Roommate

Jack up the rent.

I am a tenant in a two-bedroom apartment. There are two units in the building and it was certainly built before 1979. I do not have a Section 8 lease with the Housing Authority. The unit is not a condominium. I have been renting this apartment for 5 years with my housemate. We are both on the lease. My housemate is moving out and I want to have another friend move in. I told my landlords this and they said that they want to jack up the rent from $1700 to $2250. I don’t think this is allowed under San Francisco ordinance.

The landlord insisted that he could increase the rent. I resisted. Now he thinks I have to move out with my roommate, writing:

Per your Addendum to Residential Agreement dated 07/22/2005, provision 4: ‘All tenants shall move in and out together as one tenancy.’ Therefore, per the agreement signed by you and (name redacted), both of you have to move out and the lease is terminated. Please vacate the property within two weeks. Thank you.

P.S. For your knowledge: I contacted San Francisco Housing Authority and it stated that the Landlord can increase the rent if the new tenant/roommate moves in.

Does my landlord have any justification to evict me?

No, no, no!

Before I go off on your landlord I want to point out to my readers that your opening statements about the facts of your tenancy tell me everything I need to know to answer your question. I can tell that you live in a unit that is subject to both the rent control and just cause provisions of the Rent Ordinance. That means the landlord can only increase the rent as much as allowed under the ordinance and that he must have a “just cause” to evict you. I know that you are an original tenant on the lease. I also know that the landlord is not going to get any information from the Housing Authority other than, “Call the Rent Board.”

To be fair to your landlord, if he called the Rent Board and asked the question, “Can we raise the rent for a new tenant moving in?” without anything else, the Rent Board might tell him that he can raise the rent.

But you are not a new tenant. If the landlord forgot to mention that important fact, he is not the sharpest tool in the shed. Of course sending an email with an illegal notice to vacate isn’t very bright either.

The other possibility is that the landlord thinks he can lie about his call and expect you to rely on his information. All in all, I think it might be fair to characterize your landlord as a stupid liar.

What should you do?

First become familiar with Rent Ordinance Rules & Regulations §6.15A and §6.15B. As you may know the Rent Board provides “Information to Go” on subletting and many other topics.

Follow the applicable rule to the letter. Write the landlord(s) to request permission to sublet to your friend before he or she moves in. Your friend should be willing to provide all the necessary credit information to the landlord(s).

If they fail to respond or they unreasonably withhold their consent, you can petition the Rent Board to reduce your rent by half. In this case it might be wise to provide the landlords copies of the applicable laws and procedures.

It’s best not to allow your friend to move in until the dust settles. You don’t want to defend an unlawful detainer (eviction). Even when you are in the right, defending an eviction is often too costly to justify. Landlords rely on that and file meritless lawsuits all the time.

If your landlord insists upon requiring you to vacate, you should point out that the clause in the addendum (likely penned by the landlord and their imaginary lawyer) is void as against public policy. It’s an attempt by the landlord to arbitrarily remove themselves from Rent Ordinance Jurisdiction. It’s like putting a clause in the lease that allows the landlord to raise the rent whenever he wants, regardless of the law.

Join the San Francisco Tenants Union. Bring all of your documentation and discuss the issue with them. They will explain the applicable law in detail and help you draft a letter or letters to your landlord. They can also inform you about filing a petition at the Rent Board.

Readers: This was an easier question to answer because the reader is an “original tenant” named on the lease. The issues get murky when dealing with unnamed tenants, “co-occupants”and “subsequent occupants” as defined in Rent Board Rules & Regulations §6.14 and the Costa Hawkins Act (which should be repealed.) There are many scenarios when the landlord can, in fact, increase the rent to market rate. This is not such a scenario. The point is: don’t read this and assume that your landlord may not have a valid rationale to increase your rent.

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

A Lease With An “Introductory Rate”?

A Lease With An “Introductory Rate”?

A Lease With An “Introductory Rate”?

I moved into my apartment in June of this year. The lease I signed gave me an introductory rate of $950 per month for the first 6 months and $995 for the last 6 months. When I remarked about the increase to a co-worker, he told me that this increase sounded illegal and probably violated rent control laws. I had no idea. Is the $45 increase legal?

Am I getting a whiff of Parkmerced? Parkmerced, the sprawling group of high-rise apartments and townhouses next door to San Francisco State, is the largest rent controlled apartment complex in the City. Parkmerced comprises approximately 3,400 units. In order to increase upside in their investment, Parkmerced’s various owners, including the notorious (and now deceased) Leona Helmsley, have tenaciously challenged the San Francisco Rent Control Ordinance in court and devised schemes to try to contract around it. The Parkmerced Residents’ Organization is one of the oldest tenants’ associations in the City. They can tell you some stories.

Before I start slagging another broke (yep, belly-up, victims of their own greed, boo-hoo), big landlord, we need to understand if you are, in fact, being flim-flammed.

We need to see if you live in a rent-controlled apartment.

Generally, if your building was built before 1979 and it has two or more units, your tenancy is covered by the rent ordinance price and eviction controls. If you unit has been converted into a condominium, your tenancy is not subject to the allowable annual increase. In other words, the landlord can raise the rent as he pleases.

If you are not sure if the building was built before 1979, go to the SF Assessor-Recorder’s website., click the disclaimer and enter your address. Check the pop-up window to see when the building was constructed.

Enter Parkmerced. Five years ago when Parkmerced was the “Villas at Parkmerced” they had a program to entice renters called “Bonus Bucks.”

The scheme went like this: A tenant signed a one-year lease to rent an apartment for $1,675.00 per month, but received a monthly rebate of $350.00 effectively paying $1,375.00 per month. At the end of the lease term, Parkmerced increased the rent, using the allowable increase of 1.7% but based the increase on $1,675.00 rather than $1,375.00. The increases amounted to over 28%.

The Rent Board found that the increase was illegal and later, Parkmerced settled a class-action lawsuit reimbursing the illegal increases. Essentially, you cannot contract around the Rent Ordinance.

If your tenancy is rent controlled, your lease violates the Rent Ordinace in two ways. First, it establishes an increase six months after the inception of the tenancy. Second, the increase of $45.00 is about a 4.7% increase. The allowable increase this year is .1% Yes, one tenth of one percent!

In December, send your landlord a nice Christmas card explaining why you’re not going to be paying the $45.00 increase.

If the landlord sends you a three-day notice to pay or quit, pay the increase and file a petition at the Rent Board alleging an unlawful rent increase.

Okay, I’m dying to know, is your landlord Parkmerced?

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