(415)552-9060
Why An Absentee Master Tenant Is A Bad Idea

Why An Absentee Master Tenant Is A Bad Idea

Why An Absentee Master Tenant Is A Bad Idea

Our issue is this: we have a ‘new’ housemate that just is not working out well. She’s constantly being a nuisance despite many verbal and written requests to change her behavior and has a habit of damaging other housemates property as well as the unit itself. We would like to have her out but don’t know if it is legal for us to ask her to move or do we ask the master tenant to evict her?

She’s been living here 8 months and there has been some issue each month that causes us utter consternation at her lack of respect of property and forgetfulness as to the written house rules (despite the verbal and written reminders). If nothing else, due that I cannot keep my property from being damaged (I’m not talking normal wear and tear), I have to now keep furniture/appliances/etc… in my room and have lost space in the house–would this constitute a loss in services and may I reasonably ask for a rent reduction because of it?

When I received this question, my first inclination was not to answer it at all. Why? Because you are asking me a question, in your capacity as a landlord, for advice on how to evict a tenant. I don’t give eviction advice to landlords, period. But, as you can see, I think your issues need to be addressed because they are, after all, very common.

What you have here is a personality conflict. The San Francisco Rent Ordinance does not articulate a just cause to evict someone because of a personality conflict. Your facts, as you state them, do not indicate that your roommate is at all a nuisance in the legal sense. So, based on your question, I don’t believe it would be legal for either the household or the master tenant to attempt to evict your roommate. In fact, you could be liable for any damages she suffers from any “wrongful endeavor” or “harassment” to evict her.

Work out your problems with your roommate. If you need help to resolve your differences, you should try mediating the dispute with Community Boards. I don’t have any direct experience with them, but I have heard, from many sources, that they provide effective, professional and successful meditations for disputes like these.

With respect to a claim for decrease in services, I don’t see that moving your stuff into your room constitutes a substantial decrease in services. Besides, who would you name in your petition? The landlord? The so-called master tenant?

This brings me to real tenant issue implied in your question. The master tenant doesn’t live in the unit and he may not have permission to sublet.

With every complaint to the landlord you run the risk that he will begin an “inquiry” into subletting in the unit. He could claim that, despite any prior permission he gave the master tenant to sublet, he never gave permission to sublet to the current set of tenants. This happens all the time. The landlord was fine with the situation as long as there was no trouble. If he has to deal with trouble anyway, why not just get rid of all the tenants and raise the rent? The fact that the landlord lives in the same building and probably knows you and your roommates is a good thing, but that doesn’t mean that you won’t be spared a long and costly legal battle to save your tenancy.

Every complaint to the “master tenant” increases his desire to evict you. As I pointed out in, “Tenant Troubles: What Rules Govern Master Tenants?” many master tenants like to throw their weight around.

Let’s say the “master tenant” is a great person who isn’t profiting on his control of the unit and won’t try to evict you. (An unlikely scenario, as I point out in my blog post, “Bad Master Tenant.”) What if the landlord sells the building or dies? Do you honestly believe that your tenancy wouldn’t be jeopardized?

Tenants, it’s always a bad idea to rent a room in an apartment with an absentee master tenant. Too many things can go wrong.

Your problem, simply put, is that you have too many landlords. You’re a landlord wannabe. The master tenant is an absentee landlord. To top it off, the real landlord lives in the building. I see a shit storm in your future.

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

Locked Out Of The Laundry Room

Locked Out Of The Laundry Room

Locked Out Of The Laundry Room

I live in a 16-unit building in San Francisco (rent controlled, if that matters). We have a laundry room in the basement with two coin-op washers and dryers. Due to the fact that the laundry room is underneath someone’s apartment and also uses some of the building’s hot water, use of the washers and dryers has always been restricted to 10am-10pm. I work a shifted schedule, so sometimes the only time I have available to do my laundry is weekday mornings.

Until recently, this has never been a problem and I’ve been able to start the washers at a few minutes after 10:00, however many times over the past two months, I have found the laundry room door closed and locked during the day. Sometimes it is opened during the day and other times it remains closed. I have spoken to the building manager (who lives upstairs) about this, and he said that someone in the building (most likely the tenant who lives above the laundry room) is closing the door (which locks automatically) and since he works during the day, he cannot unlock it until he gets home. He said he had received some other complaints as well, and he would try to rectify the situation.

It’s now been 3 weeks since I spoke with him, and nothing has changed.

My question is whether I have any legal recourse if this keeps happening. Do tenants have a right to use the building’s community laundry room during posted hours? I don’t pay any extra for the laundry room (aside from quarters to use the machines), but it was advertised as a feature of the building when I found the apartment and thus weighed into my decision to move in.

How many times do I have to say this? If you want to have any credibility with a court or an administrative agency (the Rent Board) you have to make a complaint to a landlord in writing! Whenever I read “I spoke” to the landlord or his agent, it makes me crazy. When you speak to a landlord about your tenancy issues, you almost never get a response.

Why? Because most landlords don’t want to do anything except collect the rent. Ignoring you is the perfect response because the landlord will deny that you mentioned the problem when you finally take him to the Rent Board and you won’t be able to prove that you did complain.

When you write a letter to a manager or a landlord, sometimes (not often enough), he will take steps to remedy a given complaint. Sometimes (not often enough), he will think that you’re serious.

The first thing you should do is restate this question in demand letter form and send it to the manager, copying the building owner, the management company and anyone else involved in the operation of the building. It would be good to mention that the manager acknowledged that he had other complaints about the locked door. It is also important to give him a date certain (make it reasonable) to perform and tell him that you will file a petition for decrease in services with the Rent Board if he doesn’t fix the problem by that date.

The next thing to do is try to find the other tenants who have complained about the locked door to the laundry room and ask them to send similar letters. As I have often maintained here, it is important for tenants to stick together. Note that the manager immediately blamed the tenant who lives above the laundry room. He didn’t consider that it’s just silly to have a laundry room door that locks behind you. What if you left your clothes in there and accidentally shut the door? Why should there be a lock on the door at all? The bottom line is that a landlord will always try to shift the blame to other tenants. However if the tenants stick together, he will be more likely deal with issues if he understands that there’s an uprising in the works that may cost him some money.

Finally, there is no inherent tenant right to use a laundry room, but it is a service provided, inherently, in your lease. If you are now unable to use that service, it constitutes a decrease in services. Is it a substantial decrease in services? If so, how much money is it worth?

I think those factors go hand in hand. When I dealt with this for a client a few weeks ago, I pointed out the inconvenience factor. In your petition to the Rent Board, you want to note where the nearest laundromat is located and figure out how much time it’s going to take to lug your laundry there, wait for it to finish and lug it back. Does the local laundromat cost more money? If so, you can demonstrate an actual increase in cost.

But remember a petition to the Rent Board has to be predicated on notice to the landlord and the notice has to be in writing. If you want to have a last conversation about this with the manager, ask him why the hell there’s a lock on the door in the first place.

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

My Building’s For Sale, Should I Worry?

My Building’s For Sale, Should I Worry?

My Building’s For Sale, Should I Worry?

Over the weekend I received a letter from a real estate broker informing me that my landlord intends to put the building I’m living in up for sale. I’m currently living in a three unit Victorian in the Lower Haight, and the rent is truly more than reasonable. Because of the great location and the rent I was hoping to hunker down in this place for a few years. I moved in back in November and signed a year lease, which I believe was supposed to go month to month after November 2010. Everyone else in the building has been there for several years so I’m fairly sure they’re already on month to month terms.

Now I’ve read up a bit on some of my rights, but I wasn’t really clear on a couple of things. First off I’ve noticed that once the building is sold if the new landlord decides to continue renting the building then my current lease terms will have to be honored. However if they decide to convert the building into condos/tic then I may have the right to relocation benefits. Now what’s not clear to me is how this will all factor in when my year lease would turn into a month to month lease.

At that point do these same rights continue to cover me for as long as I wish to stay in the apartment? Would it be possible for the new landlord to just wait out my current lease terms and then refuse to allow me to stay on month to month or renew my lease terms?

Really I guess I would just like some clarification as to what my rights are when my lease is scheduled to go month to month.

Let’s pick this one apart. Three-unit Victorian in the Lower Haight, obviously built before 1979 and not a single family house. You already know this; your tenancy is completely within the price control and “just cause eviction” parameters of the San Francisco Rent Ordinance. Even if you were living in a brand new SOMA cracker box you would have the same protections until November 2010 because your lease doesn’t expire until then.

Many tenants don’t understand the relationship between their lease and San Francisco rent control. Because your building was built before 1979, your tenancy can only be terminated for one of the fifteen “just causes” in the rent ordinance. Even if your lease expires, the landlord can only evict you for cause. Lease expiration is not a just cause under the rent ordinance. Because you live in a building with two or more units, the landlord cannot increase your rent to market rate after the expiration of the lease. Instead, he can only increase the rent using the applicable allowable increase. This year it is .1% (one tenth of one percent).

The landlord can require that you sign another one-year lease that includes the applicable increase but the lease must contain the same material terms as the lease you originally signed.

Before you hunker down, however, you should understand that three-unit buildings are prime speculator targets. Usually the inflated sales prices do not justify the rental income, so people who purchase small building are often looking to sell units as tenancies in common (TICs). After the building is sold you might be facing several different scenarios.

Often a new speculator owner will approach tenants in a small building with an offer to buyout their tenancy. That way he can avoid evicting the tenant for an applicable just cause. For example if the new owner is just a developer who wants to rehab the building and sell it as TICs, it’s going to be tough for him to claim that he wants to evict a tenant to move in, because among other things, he has to promise to live in the unit for three years.

For the speculator it may be advantageous to pay you money to waive your tenancy rights and move. For more information about buyouts check out the series of articles I wrote in my blog, Evict This!

A new owner may simply want to evict you to move in. If you are served with an OMI (owner move-in) notice you will be entitled to the stautory relocation payment. This year it is $5,101.00 per tenant.

Finally, a speculator may want to evict all of the tenants in the building using an Ellis Act eviction. If you are served with an Ellis eviction you’ll be entitled to 120 days to move (unless you’re disabled or over 62 years old) and a relocation payment of slightly more than the $5,101 for other evictions.

As you can see there are a lot of “what ifs” involving the sale of a smaller building in San Francisco. These days, given the real estate market and fewer speculator evictions you might just get your wish. Happy hunkering!

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

Landlord Crybabies Forced To Ellis Because Landlording Became So Unpleasant

Landlord Crybabies Forced To Ellis Because Landlording Became So Unpleasant

Landlord Crybabies Forced To Ellis Because Landlording Became So Unpleasant

Landlord crybabies.

Last month the San Francisco Business Times published a reprehensible editorial, “Tenant activists exacerbate rental housing crisis.” They were reacting to the  occupation of an empty building in the Mission by Homes Not Jails on April 4.

This is what riled me up: “Aided by reliable mouthpieces on the board of supervisors, they’ve helped make it so unpleasant over the years to be a landlord in San Francisco that owners of several hundred rental units each year invoke a nuclear option known as the Ellis Act and detonate their rental business by evicting all their tenants.”

I’m sorry, landlord crybabies, but if being a landlord is so unpleasant, why don’t you just sell your building without evicting the tenants?

Essentially that was the question the California Supreme Court posed in Nash v. City of Santa Monica in 1984. “Nash was a 17-year-old student when, approximately a year before the rent and demolition controls were enacted, his mother obtained on his behalf a $260,000 apartment building in Santa Monica. He soon became disenchanted, however, with operating rental housing: ‘There is only one thing I want to do, and that is to evict the group of ingrates inhabiting my units, tear down the building, and hold on to the land until I can sell it at a price which will not mean a ruinous loss on my investment.'” The Court ruled that there was nothing unconstitutional about rent control or demolition control that protected tenants. They reasoned that Nash was getting a fair return on his “investment” and that he could sell the building if he wanted to get out of the landlord business.

That’s when the landlord lobby really started to scream. In 1985 they persuaded their friends in the legislature to pass the so-called Ellis Act to supersede the ruling in Nash to allow landlords to evict all their tenants before they exited the landlord business. The rest is history.

As we all know now, for the last decade, the Ellis Act has been used by speculators who enter the landlord business for five minutes to evict long-term tenants, seniors and the disabled in order to sell units as TICs (tenancies in common.) We also know that those speculators were fueled by a flood of monopoly money from banking geniuses who were later bailed out by taxpayers.

Now the bubble has burst and (big surprise) Ellis evictions dropped 78% in the last year in San Francisco. The Business Times editorial noted this, “But in whatever number, they [Ellis evictions] are a symptom of the dysfunction in the San Francisco rental market and not a cause. Basically, there’s little incentive to remain a landlord in San Francisco — and every incentive to try to get yourself out.” Of course most of the landlords who used Ellis evictions were never in the landlord business and those who were didn’t get out until they saw an opportunity for obscene profit.

If the Business Times cannot recognize that vacant buildings are not a cause of dysfunction in the rental market, what can they see? Not much. The editorial also excuses scofflaw landlords because, “[Rent control] contribute[s] to blight by discouraging landlords from maintaining and upgrading their units.” They misstate the law claiming, “That the owner of the property would in fact be breaking the law by offering it again for rent was apparently lost on the protesters.” In fact, the landlord can re-rent but he would be required to offer the unit to the original renter at the rent-controlled price.

That’s the point. Landlords start to cry like babies when they can’t get exactly what they want, when they want it. “Unpleasant” translates to “I can’t get as rich as I want to as fast as I want to” and “I don’t want to spend the money to maintain my building.” Sob, sob. They also clinch their fists and threaten, “But given that the owner of property ultimately controls whether it remains on the rental market at all, learning at the least to live with them [landlords with their power to Ellis evict at will] would be in everyone’s interests — including, most notably, their [tenant activists] own.”

Unfortunately that threat will remain bone-chilling real until the Ellis Act is either repealed or amended to require that landlords actually be in the business for five or so years until they can get out. And occupying vacant buildings is a laudable method to remind us that, like Jerome Nash, landlords will go to any extreme, including refusing to re-rent units in vacant buildings, to force tenants to bend to their will.

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

Sorry, CitiApartments, “Routine Inspections” Are Illegal

Sorry, CitiApartments, “Routine Inspections” Are Illegal

Sorry, CitiApartments, “Routine Inspections” Are Illegal

I’ve rented the same apartment from Citi Properties for 6 years. Up until about 6 months ago, they kept the building tidy, had an on-site manager, and did monthly bug inspections. Now they’re trying to sell the building and they have gotten rid of all that stuff. The only thing they do now is “inspect” each unit once a month. Here’s what they post on my door once a month:

Citi Properties, LLC 2099 Market Street S.F., CA 94114 January 22nd, 2010

24 Hour Notice of Entry

(Civil Code Section 1954)

To: all occupants

There will be a building inspection of all units and the common area’s on Tuesday, January 26th, 2010 at 11:00AM. If you have any questions, please contact Jorge Castillo at 415-308-0908.

Thank you for your cooperation.

First, they only did this every year or two, now they’re doing it once a month. Second, what are they inspecting for? And more importantly: do they really have a right to come into my home once a month? It’s always during the day of a weekday, so I can’t be home to see what’s going on. But one time my toilet seat was left up. It didn’t bother me, but it did peak my interest. Whenever I call the number listed I get vague answers and a promise to call back, which doesn’t happen. Any insight would be gladly appreciated.

Good question. What are they inspecting for? First, I hope you understand who you’re dealing with. A Citi by any other name just stinks. These guys ought to know better by now. They probably do but, as we all know, they just don’t give a rat’s ass about the law. The reason they are inspecting your unit is simple–they’re looking for a reason to evict you because, in their eyes, you’ve lived there too long and your rent is too low. They’re looking for your bong!

California Civil Code 1954 states that a landlord can only enter your unit:
(1) In case of emergency.
(2) To make necessary or agreed repairs, decorations, alterations or improvements, supply necessary or agreed services, or exhibit the dwelling unit to prospective or actual purchasers, mortgagees, tenants, workers, or contractors or to make a tenant requested move-out inspection.
(3) When the tenant has abandoned or surrendered the premises.
(4) Pursuant to court order.

Except in the case of an emergency or abandonment, the landlord must give you a 24-hour written notice that includes the date, approximate time, and purpose of the entry. As you can see, the example notice you provided is defective because it does not in include the purpose of the entry. Routine inspections violate California law.

You should read, The Unnecessary Conflict in Landlord Entries, by J. Wallace Oman, a respected tenant attorney here in San Francisco. In the article he points out that landlords have no inherent right to inspection:

“Under old common-law doctrines, when the parties enter into a rental agreement, the landlord grants a right of “exclusive possession” to the tenant against everyone, including the property owner. The landlord additionally promises the tenant “quiet enjoyment”; the term guarantees that the landlord will not permit or do anything that interferes with the tenant’s peace and quiet in the rental unit.”

He also proposes effective methods to deal with entries during the sale of a building.

For a lighter (more outraged?) take on the subject, check out my blog entry from last year, Even Dracula Had to Have an Invite Before He Could Enter.

You and all of the tenants in the building should write a letter to the management citing the law and letting them know that you’re not going to put up with monthly entries any longer. You should also remind them that California Civil Code 1940.2(a)(4)states that it is unlawful for a landlord to commit a significant and intentional violation of section1954 for the purpose of influencing a tenant to vacate a dwelling. And that it provides for civil penalties of up to $2,000.00 per violation.

You and all of the tenants should also contact CitiStop the tenacious tenants’ organizers who helped bring down the Lembi empire.

While you’re at it, point out to the geniuses at Citi…whatever that you don’t need an apostrophe to pluralize a word.

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

Tenant Buyouts: Strategy for Success

Tenant Buyouts: Strategy for Success

Tenant Buyouts: Strategy for Success

“You got to know when to hold ’em, know when to fold ’em. Know when to walk away and know when to run.” —The Gambler, Kenny Rogers.

Before I begin, I need to tell you that some landlords, regardless of their real intent, simply won’t pay a tenant more than the statutory relocation payments. The landlord thinks he’s being generous. Or, and I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard this one, the landlord claims he just doesn’t have the dough. The $2.4 million he paid for two units just tapped him out. This is probably a topic for another post, but holy hosanna, you came up with the $2.4 million and didn’t consider the tenants?  It’s unbelievable and it demonstrates callous disregard for the impact on the tenants individually and the community at large. Many of these buyers consider themselves to be politically liberal or progressive. Yeah, right.

You’re not going to get your down payment.

I occasionally meet with tenants who tell me that they want and even expect the landlord to pay them $300,000.00 to move. An ancient part of me wants to try the drugs they’ve been taking. But I do know what they’re going through. The fact is that the landlord considers a buyout to be a settlement before litigation, not after a tenant has been wrongfully evicted and all evidence collected during litigation points to a smoking gun. At this stage you are not going to get but a small fraction of a potential judgment. If the damages are going to be that great, it’s a good idea to move out and sue later or fight an eventual eviction.

The two most common scenarios for buyouts are OMI (owner-move-in) threats and Ellis eviction threats. With OMI evictions you have to prove that the landlord does not intend to live in the unit for three years. Proving intent is difficult, especially in the absence of an overt, wrongful act. For all intents and purposes, Ellis evictions have no defenses. The point is you’re not going to get rich with a buyout.

Subdivision Code §1396.2

There is one more element to consider before you can begin to negotiate. If you believe the landlord wants to eventually convert the building to condominiums take a look at San Francisco Subdivision Code §1396.2. The code essentially provides that when the landlord evicts two or more tenants using the Ellis Act or uses a no fault eviction to oust a senior 60 years of age or older or a disabled person (Americans with Disabilities Act standard), he will be prohibited, forever, from converting the building to condominiums.

When the condominium lottery was still in effect, landlords with larger buildings (three to six units) had more to lose. under the new condominium conversion law six unit buildings cannot be converted at all. Under the new expedited process, three to five unit buildings have to be tenanted with a larger percentage of TIC owners. While they do not have go through the lottery, the new expedited process takes many years and has more hurdles, e.g. landlords must offer lifetime leases to existing tenant if they wish to convert.  Moreover as of July 2017, the City is not accepting ECP applications from buildings with renters.

Two-unit buildings are exempt, however, and converting them is highly profitable. if you are a protected tenant defined above, and you live in a building with two units, if the landlord offers you a buyout, beware. Under Rent Ordinance § 37.9E, even a buyout would be defined as an eviction for purposes of Subdivision Code §1396.2. You should contact an attorney if you still want to take a buyout.

Negotiate before the notice is served.

Bear in mind that if you want to negotiate a buyout with your landlord it is important to do it before he serves (and files with the Rent Board) an Ellis or an OMI notice. The Rent Ordinance only allows a landlord to rescind a notice if the tenant does not move out.

Negotiation

You know your absolute bottom line. The real question becomes, how much can you add to that? And finally, is worth it to you to take a buyout when the deal is done? Here is a scenario to consider:

Two tenants (partners) have lived in two-bedroom apartment in a six unit building in North Beach for ten years. Their rent is $900.00 per month. They do not have any disabilities and they are both under 60. The landlord asks them to consider a buyout based upon his assertion that he will Ellis evict the building which has only one more occupied unit.

Gather information: Our tenants should speak to the other tenants in the building. Find out what the landlord said to them. Ask them about their plans. Find out if the other tenants are protected on some level by age or disability. They should also find out as much as possible about the landlord, what he’s done in the past, what other properties does he own, etc.

Form alliances with other tenants: It is always a good idea to speak to and, sometimes, to join forces with other tenants in the building. this is especially true with Ellis threats because more than one eviction can screw up the landlord’s future condominium conversion. With Ellis evictions landlords often want to make deals with all of the existing tenants at the same time. They don’t want to spend money to move one tenant and fail to make a deal with the others because, ostensibly, they would still have to invoke the Ellis act.

Do the math: These tenants are entitled to approximately $10,000.00 plus security deposit and interest. They would get a 120 day notice to move per the Ellis provisions. If the market rate of a similar unit is $2,000.00 per month, they will save $4,400.00 just by moving pursuant to a notice. Their real bottom line is closer to $15,000.00.

Assess the landlord’s intentions: Is he a developer who will definitely Ellis? Or is he fishing?  What’s it worth to him?

Assess the value of the unit: How much did the landlord pay for the building? How much will it take to renovate the building for resale? Most importantly try to figure out what your unit will be worth. In our example, if the landlord paid $1 million for the building and the units are all about the same size with the same layouts, the landlord paid about $170,000.00 per unit. If the building is in okay shape, maybe the landlord will have to spend $70,000 per unit to renovate. Because the building is in North Beach, the average sales price of a given unit could be more. If there are no garages the unit could still sell for maybe $500,000.00. (These days the market is lousy. the same unit may have sold for $800,000 two or three years ago. This is another topic, but the so-called free market ain’t so free when it’s being manipulated by purveyors of funny money.) In our example the landlord may be expecting about $260,000.00 in gross profit.

Start high, but not too high: Here’s where the game of chicken begins. If our hypothetical tenants think the landlord is serious about evicting and it looks like the other tenants will move voluntarily, they may not have much room to negotiate. They should consider the implications of a smaller settlement, but still try to negotiate something higher. They don’t want to leave any money on the table.

Our tenants think the landlord is expecting to make about a quarter million bucks per unit. In this scenario and this market I think the tenants would be very lucky to receive $50,000.00, so I might start the negotiation at about $60,000.00. Landlords and landlords lawyers will tell you that they just want to get to the bottom line, but if you give them your real bottom line immediately, they’ll always lowball you. Unfortunately in this scenario, the landlord’s top offer may still be low, as little as $20,000.00.

Don’t whine: Tenants often believe that they prevail in negotiation if they point out how hard a move is going to be for them and show, earnestly, what they will be losing. Think about it. Does the guy on the other end of the conversation really give a rats ass? If he did he wouldn’t be in the business in the first place. I make it my job to point out the benefits of the deal to the landlord. That’s why it’s important to do the research.

More time = less money: This may be obvious but the more time you demand to stay in your unit, the less money you will receive in a buyout.

If the deal doesn’t make sense, don’t take it.

Remember you are selling your future rights to sue. If there is a chance that the landlord just wants you out because your rent is too low (and there is always that chance) and you could demonstrate considerable damages in a future lawsuit, be very careful about taking the money and moving. In the example above, I don’t think I’d recommend that the tenants take $20,000.00.

Like a high stakes poker game, buyouts are complicated. If you want want to get the best deal possible, you must be prepared to analyze the deal using the strategies here. Just plug in your own set of facts. Obviously if you are protected in some manner by the Rent Ordinance, that will change the game considerably. Get ready to stare down the landlord.

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

Tenant Buyouts: Your Absolute Bottom Line

Tenant Buyouts: Your Absolute Bottom Line

Tenant Buyouts: Your Absolute Bottom Line

Before you begin to negotiate a buyout with your landlord you will need to understand your bottom line. Unless you are familiar with your tenant rights to statutory relocation payments in San Francisco you’ll have no idea of the value of your tenancy. You must live in a rent-controlled unit for more than one year to receive these payments.

I have talked to countless tenants who made deals with their landlords to move out, settling for less cash than they could have received if they had not negotiated at all.

Are you young enough?

Pursuant to Rent Ordinance §37.9C, as of this writing tenants, regardless of age, are entitled to $5,890.00 apiece up to three tenants or $17,670.00 per unit, if they have been in the unit for a year or more. In San Francisco we recognize that children are tenants and we pay them if they are evicted in a no-fault eviction. We also pay families with minor children an extra $3,927.00. Ellis eviction relocation payments are $5,894.63 per tenant up to $17,683.86 for three tenants. Landlords used to argue that children were not entitled to relocation payments under the Ellis Act and their argument were affirmed in Danger Panda v. Launiu. However, the Board of Supervisors rewrote the law to affirm that children are tenants entitled to relocation payments.

Are you disabled enough?

Without getting into a complex analysis of disability law, a person who has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities,  will usually be entitled to an additional  relocation payment of $3,927.00, for Ellis Act,$3,929.74. Additionally disabled persons are entitled to a one-year notice to vacate for an Ellis eviction.

If you receive SSI or SSA disability or are disabled within the meaning of the SSI disability standards you will be completely protected from an OMI eviction if you have lived in the unit for more than ten years. If you are catastrophically ill and have been living in your unit for five years you are also protected.

The Ellis Act is California’s upraised middle finger to tenants. It doesn’t give a rat’s ass how old or disabled you are. If you’re served, you’re out, but woo-hoo, you some extra dough and a year to get out!

Are you old enough?

Rent Ordinance §37.9C provides that tenants 60 or older are entitled to an additional payment of $3,927.00. The Rent Ordinance provides a payment of $3,929.74 for an Ellis eviction if you are 62 or older. Usually 60-year tenants are completely protected from OMI evictions. But, as I mentioned earlier, the Ellis Act is a different story.

Understand your absolute bottom line.

Your landlord has approached you and told you that they are considering moving in or Ellising the building. They don’t want to make the first offer. They never want to make the first offer. Some landlords mistakenly believe that it can be construed as harassment. Generally Rent Ordinance constraints on landlords’ offers to buy tenants out have been invalidated or disregarded by the courts. Or more likely, landlords don’t want to tip you off about how much money they have to spend. So before you make an offer you must understand your bottom line.

Remember tenants are entitled to $5,890.00 apiece up to three tenants or $17,670.00 per unit, if they have been in the unit for a year or more. If a tenant is disabled or over 60 years old she is entitled to an additional $3,295. If the tenants are a family with minor children they’re entitled to an extra $3,295.00.

Here’s an example: the tenancy consists of an extended family of 5; dad, mom, grandma and two children under 18. Dad is disabled and grandma is over 60. All the adults have lived in the unit for less than 10 years. (If grandma had lived in the unit more than 10 years, she would be completely protected from an owner move-in eviction.) How much relocation should they be paid? Three tenants (not five)=$17,670.00; plus disability payment for dad=$3,927.00; plus elderly payment for grandma=$3,927.00; plus family with minor children=$3,927.00; for a total of $29,451.00.

Include the security deposit and unpaid interest.

You should also include the amount of your security deposit in your bottom line. I think it is easier to begin negotiations with one number rather than leaving the security deposit to be paid “according to law.” You don’t want to have wrangle around about your security 21 days after you move. If our family has a $1,000.00 security deposit and no interest owed, their absolute bottom line is $30,451.00.

If the landlord offers our hypothetical family $20,000.00 to move they should politely tell him to gently insert his offer into a location devoid of sunshine. And so should you if your landlord offers you less than your absolute bottom line.

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