(415)552-9060
Living In A Chain Reaction Of Broken Promises

Living In A Chain Reaction Of Broken Promises

Living In A Chain Reaction Of Broken Promises

Broken promises.

I am the subtenant in a 2-bedroom house in the Sunset. I moved here about a year ago paying month-to-month and had no written lease with my roommates (the master tenants.) I have wanted to move for a while because they have a rocky relationship and frequently (1+ times per day) have loud arguments, and they aren’t very financially stable, whereas I have a fairly stressful full-time job, usually get home late and then have to prepare for my next day at home. In April I started looking for a new apartment and had a verbal agreement to sublet with someone else. I told my roommates I was planning to move at the end of the month (the 30th) and they found a new subtenant who left me a check for the deposit dated for the 15th, on the 3rd of the month. They also requested that I move out on the 22nd, which the new subtenants wanted but I could not do. I said no, and they said they might have to find different subtenants. (Also blamed me for not giving 60 days notice, which I never agreed to and don’t remember ever discussing.) They offered me various solutions, such as letting me pro-rate the rent for this month and having me sleep on the couch, which I said I could not do.

Unfortunately, I didn’t have my new roommates’ sublease in writing and the day after they left a check for me, I found out my other room was no longer available. I immediately called my current roommate and said I could no longer move, to contact the prospective tenant and ask them to void the check, which she could return to them.

I thought everything was ok (other than having a conversation with one roommate over their arguments.) On the 7th, they asked if we could all have a meeting at a certain time on the 9th. I said ok, thinking it was about telling her boyfriend he was inconsiderate for not cleaning up, yelling all the time, leaving the oven on, etc. I canceled my plans for the evening and prepared for an awkward conversation. It turned out to be more awkward than I imagined, because they told me the prospective new roommates were unhappy and thought they had a binding agreement. Then, they said they were waiting outside and wanted to talk to me. I brought them their check and said I could no longer move, and then they said they had a verbally binding agreement and that my giving notice the first time meant I had to leave, and were further angry that *I* had strung them along for 5 days. In fact, I thought it had all been settled last week that I wasn’t moving, and had never had any contact with them before. My roommates just held back saying “this is awkward” and other vague things while the prospects talked about the inconvenience of having to find a new place to rent. I understand it’s rentpocalyptic out there, but I told them the day after they left their check that I couldn’t move, and had never had any agreement to move out on the days they wanted me out.

I ended up paying the prospective subtenants for the cost of storage for this month just so they would go away.

My question is,

a) Was verbally saying I planned to move out a binding agreement? (Obviously I should have gotten my new room in writing since the same thing happened to me, I guess?)

b) Is a deposit that is put down, but never cashed (because it was dated for the future), considered legally binding even with someone you have never spoken to?

c) Is not having the backbone to say no to a prospective subtenant over the phone, and springing that confrontation onto your current subtenant instead (5 days later, while never notifying me there was any conflict) considered harassment?

In all honesty, I feel like the prospects should have paid *me* for saving them the trouble of ever having my current roommates as master tenants. Ugh.

This is a good question because you present a set of facts and human reaction to those facts which could have occurred thousands of years ago. These misunderstandings among human beings created the basis for the law as we know it.

Of course, the first issue is the failure to record contracts and quasi-contracts. As you know, I harp on this continually. Get it in writing!

For example, your initial notice, had it been in writing and accepted by the master tenants in writing could have been the basis for eviction under California law, but not under the Rent Ordinance. Your month-to-month lease with the master tenants would only require a 30-day notice. (See California Civil Code §1946.)

That doesn’t mean you’re off the hook. When the prospective new roommates left you a deposit check, you should have (and probably did) inferred two things: 1) Your master tenants relied on your oral notice and re-rented the room; and 2) The new roommates relied on the master tenants’ promise to rent the room, so they paid you the security deposit.

There is an old legal concept called promissory estoppel. The theory is applied when parties rely upon quasi-contracts–contracts that may not be legally binding, but still enforceable if parties act in reliance upon them. That’s exactly what happened here.

When you rescinded your notice after the master tenants relied on it and rented the room, you put them in jeopardy because the new roommates were within their rights to demand possession. The new roommates detrimentally relied on the master tenants’ promise. Because the new roommates were harmed (they had to put their stuff in storage) they could make a claim against the master tenants. It’s good you owned up and paid for the storage, because the master tenants could have prevailed in that claim against you.

Thinking that everything is ok in the absence of communication about a particular issue is a passive-aggressive bad habit that pervades our culture. Silence does not imply consent. Neither the real world nor the law embraces this concept.

Harassment? Really? Let’s face it, you’re just trying to rationalize your actions–actions which jeopardized everyone in the household.

You may argue that your actions resulted from a similar breach of promise by your prospective new household, but from my point of view, that doesn’t cut it. World history is a chain reaction of broken promises. You gotta own up and take responsibility. I would tell those who changed their minds about renting to you the same thing.

Simply put, in the distant past, people like you got the law ball rolling. Look where we’ve come. The law is a rat’s nest of tortured logic applied strictly to the poor and not so strictly to the rich. It’s here because, millennia ago, people like you wouldn’t keep their promises.

The moral? Don’t make promises you can’t keep.

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

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

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

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.

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

My Landlord Said I Could Add Roommates, Then Changed His Mind

My Landlord Said I Could Add Roommates, Then Changed His Mind

My Landlord Said I Could Add Roommates, Then Changed His Mind

Add roommates.

I have lived in the same building for 5 years. It was built in 1913, has 64 units, and is a tax credit building. I am 38 years old, and am on Section 8. In the middle of last year the management rented an apartment through the Veterans Administration to a man who turned out to be a drug dealer. Drug addicts, dealers, and prostitutes started coming into the building. The man was evicted but the people found others in the building to let them in.

These people use the hallways as toilets, have sex in the hallways, sleep in the stairways, and regularly break into the building by both kicking in the front door and climbing up the fire escapes. The manager has done everything he can but the management company and the buildings owner refuses to hire full-time security even though the residents demand it.

People have tried to break into my apartment. And in January our maintenance man, who lives in the building, was assaulted. And out building has been cited by the police department. Is this enough to ask the landlord to pay for me to move (which is extremely hard being on Section 8)? Or what can I do to try to get this terrible situation dealt with?

You evidently don’t understand a basic tenet of life in the United States of America. If you’re poor, you must live in a crime-ridden shit hole.

If you haven’t already, you should start to develop a strategy to hold the building owner accountable by researching past complaints on the building. Go to the San Francisco Department of Building Inspection website: Permit Services > Online Permits and Complaints. You can enter your address to see if other tenants have made similar complaints.

You can also go to the San Francisco Superior Court website: Online Services > Case Name Search to understand what kinds of cases have been filed by and against the owner of the building.

Finally, a simple Google search of the address and owner made be helpful to provide additional information.

Since you confidentially provided your address, I did some online research of your building and found a number of court cases and complaints to the Department of Building Inspection. There was at least one news article that could shed some light about the current issues in the building. At the time the article was written, the tenants in the building seemed to be well organized.

You mention that the residents demanded tighter security and my research indicates that the resident have been organized in the past. The key to getting some action is to organize tenants in the building again. Document your complaints with police reports and photos depicting any defective security devices that can be immediately repaired or replaced. Without compromising your safety or risking an altercation, get photos of anyone engaging the activities you describe.

Organize a letter writing campaign that informs the owners of their obligations and remind them that they could be held liable if someone is assaulted in the building.

Call the City Attorney’s office, (415) 554-4700, to alert them about the security issues and the building owner’s negligence.

Join the San Francisco Tenants Union to get them to help to organize the tenants in the building.

You should complain to the Housing Authority since you are a Section 8 tenant.

You mention that the building is a “tax credit” building. If a building has been subsidized in some manner by a government entity, there may be contractual, ongoing requirements to maintain that subsidy. Find out how the building qualified for the “tax credit.” You may want to report your problems to the agency that oversees the building.

It is highly unlikely that your landlord will pay you to move. In fact, it will be difficult to get the landlord to do anything absent some pressure as I described above.

When you visit the Tenants Union you should pick up the approved attorneys list and discuss the feasibility of a lawsuit with several lawyers.

Remember, the more tenants involved, the better.

 

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

My Landlord Said I Could Add Roommates, Then Changed His Mind

My Landlord’s Threatening To Evict Me Because My Boyfriend Moved In To Take Care of Me

My Landlord’s Threatening To Evict Me Because My Boyfriend Moved In To Take Care of Me

I saw your post on subletting and assignment. My lease has a blanket prohibition in it but I feel my situation is different than other people’s.

Recently my boyfriend moved in. I asked him after several months of coping with a debilitating injury. I asked the landlord several times to fix the intercom which she never did and I was unable to get groceries or answer my door. I live on the fourth floor of a walk-up. I told her he was coming in writing and why. She responded by saying i had to keep her informed of my condition. I have kept her up to date on a regular basis but it is a tendon injury and can take 6 months to initially recover and even longer before I can lift heavy things. She also prohibited me from giving the door code to anyone and basically made me a prisoner. No laundry service. No ability to live.

My boyfriend and I were broken up. But after one long night of crying and feeling like my stomach was going to implode from hunger, I begged for him to come stay here and help me out. Now, since she spies on everyone in the building, she is threatening to evict me because he is here. Even though being here has allowed me to rest and recover. And I am slowly getting better. I am not better yet and am lucky that I have a job that does not require any walking or standing, and which pays enough to pay the 3500/mo I pay for this 2 bedroom apartment. Trust me he would not have been invited if I didn’t absolutely need a caretaker. I have mounds of doctor bills to prove my injury and she won’t budge. Is there nothing I can do?

To paraphrase David Mamet, the landlord business is a people business. It’s a fucking people business. I’m sure your landlord understands this, but $42,000.00 in annual rent just isn’t the market rate any more. Your landlord must be suffering from compassion fatigue.

Does your boyfriend pay you any rent? If he does not, he cannot be characterized as a subtenant. Does he maintain his own residence despite staying with you much of the time? If he does, you should give the landlord a copy of his lease to show that he is not a subtenant.

If your boyfriend pays your a portion of the rent and he does not live elsewhere he is a subtenant subject to San Francisco Rent Board Rules & Regulations §6.15A. This section is applicable to absolute prohibitions on subletting.

Take a look at your lease and see if it includes these items as stated in Rules & Regulations §6.15A (a)(1-2):

(1) The prohibition against sublet or assignment is set forth in enlarged or boldface type in the lease or rental agreement and is separately initialed by the tenant; or

(2) The landlord has provided the tenant with a written explanation of the meaning of the absolute prohibition, either as part of the written lease or rental agreement, or in a separate writing.

Then take a look at your original letter to the landlord. Did you ask her to add your BF to the tenancy. If you did and she didn’t respond in the negative, the landlord may have waived her right to refuse the subtenancy by not responding in 14 days.

I also noticed that you live in a two-bedroom apartment. If you had a roommate in the past, to add your BF to the tenancy you can simply go through the rest of the steps as outlined in Rules & Regulations §6.15A. The rules allow a one-for-one replacement despite an absolute prohibition on subletting.

Intercom systems are integral to multistory buildings. You should call a housing inspector from the DBI to inspect the intercom and any other potential violations in your unit or the building. Then file a petition for substantial decreases in services at the Rent Board.

I also did a little research to determine if you could request a reasonable accommodation to allow your BF to stay with you pursuant to the Americans with Disability Act. While this is not my area of expertise, I found this from the Disability Rights California website:

The length of time that an impairment affects major life activities may help to determine whether the impairment substantially limits those activities.
Even so, the law expressly states with respect to those “regarded as having such an impairment” that protection under the ADA shall not be given to “impairments that are transitory and minor.”  “A transitory impairment is an impairment with an actual or expected duration of 6 months or less.”

Readers: The next time some free-market wanker starts moaning about market rate rents, give them this example. This is the market jackwad–$42,000 per year for a fourth-floor walkup with no doorbell and a three-headed bitch (Cerberus was a hound) guarding the gates of ones own personal Hades.

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

My Absentee Master Tenant Was Scamming Me And My Landlord

My Absentee Master Tenant Was Scamming Me And My Landlord

My Absentee Master Tenant Was Scamming Me And My Landlord

So in December 2011 I started living in an apt with 3 other girls in SF. Lo and behold I found out that the man who we were paying our rent to was the master tenant not an actual landlord and that he actually lived in San Diego. So since he was there he designated one of the roommates as his spokesperson. She kept in contact with him about any problems with the apartment was in charge of finding new roommates etc. She told me that the way deposits work is that the new roommate writes the deposit out to the old roommate that moves out and whenever I move out the same would be done for me. I have this all in writing in my original rental agreement that I was given.

Now at the end of July 2012 I ended up moving to Chicago for my job. When I asked his “spokesperson” about when I would receive my deposit back she told me that it wasn’t her responsibility and for me to deal with the master tenant. When I did he told her no its your (his spokesperson) job since you deal with the apartment’s business. I have not heard from her since then. In fact she ended up abandoning the apt without notice and supposedly no one has seen her since. It has been almost 3 months and I still do not have my deposit.

I have been in constant contact with the master tenant and he constantly says that he hasn’t heard anything from the landlord and that he doesn’t know what to do. I felt bad for him until I received a forwarded letter in Chicago about a landlords petition where we (I was still included on the list even though i moved out already) were supposed to show up to a court hearing. All of our names were included even though it was dated almost 2 months after I left. Clearly the landlord is not sitting idly by. I brought it up to the master tenant and he says he had no idea and never received a notice (although his address included with his name on the petition was the same address we mailed our checks to.)

Since then I have contacted the SF Rent Board and was told I had the right to bring the master tenant to small claims court. When I brought it up to him in a very civil manner (I even gave him until the end of the month and have the email as proof!) he responded very nasty saying that I could bring him to court but he wouldn’t ever pay me so what good would that do and that I didn’t pay the deposit to him so what could I possibly do to him.

I find it hard to believe that somebody that is not doing all that he can to get us our deposit back is able to just do that with no sort of consequence. What can I do?

I find it hard to believe that you can actually muster up some concern for this sociopath after he blatantly ripped you off.

Before I tell you that your chances of recovering your security deposit are only slightly better than Mitt Zomney’s chances of winning last night’s election, you should call the Rent Board again and find out if decision was made on the landlord’s petition and get a copy of that decision.

I think the landlord probably discovered that the master tenant did not live in the unit and was likely making a profit on the rent by overcharging the roommates. The landlord probably filed a petition under Rent Board Rules & Regulations §1.21 alleging his right to increase the rent to market rate based upon the fact that the master tenant did not reside in the unit.

I’ve written about this issue several times. See, for example, “Tenant Troubles: Why An Absentee Master Tenant Is A Bad Idea” and “Bad Master Tenant.”

Simply put, your ex-master tenant is a liar. He received the notice from the Rent Board and he never talked to the landlord about getting your money.

Essentially a landlord can collect a security deposit at the inception of the tenancy, when the tenant or tenants sign a lease. The deposit is held, as security against damage, nonpayment of rent, etc. Even if roommates come and go, the landlord does not have to return the security deposit until the tenancy ends, until a new lease is signed with, presumably, new tenants. The building owner/landlord has no duty to return your portion of the security deposit.

The master tenant knew this. He would never jeopardize his little enterprise by contacting the landlord for you.

It is also likely that the lease provided that he had to seek the landlord’s permission to sublet. Do think he did that? You’re actually lucky that weren’t named in an unlawful detainer (eviction lawsuit). I recommend that you contact the real landlord and inform him that you moved out in July just in case he decides to evict the rest of the roommates.

Normally I would advise you to sue ’em all and let the court sort it out. But master tenants rarely have assets or jobs that you can lien and/or attach. That’s why they set up these schemes in the first place. To complicate matters, the roommate/manager (thief number 2) absconded with your security deposit and you don’t know where she is to be able to serve her with a summons to appear in Small Claims Court.

You don’t mention the amount of your deposit, nor do you say if you still live in Chicago. Each of those factors should be considered before you file a claim. Will the amount of the security deposit justify flying back to California to present your case when it’s likely you’ll be suing two deadbeats?

If you want to find out more about the small claims process read Everybody’s Guide to Small Claims Court from Nolo Press.

Sweet Jesus, Mary and Joseph! Tenants: Never, ever rent a room from an absentee master tenant!

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

Am I Still The Master Tenant If I Moved Out Of My Apartment For Six Years?

Am I Still The Master Tenant If I Moved Out Of My Apartment For Six Years?

Am I Still The Master Tenant If I Moved Out Of My Apartment For Six Years?

I live in an apartment building that has six units, built in 1907, in the Mission, near Dolores Park, in San Francisco. My brother and I and a 3rd roommate signed a one-year lease in 2004. In the last 8 years our apartment has been a revolving door of tenants, each we have subleased without the landlord knowing. They are very hands off and don’t ever visit or seem to care about the property as long as they get a check each month.

In 2005, I moved out along with the 3rd roommate on the lease, leaving my brother as the only original lease-signer living in the apartment with two subletters. We never told the landlord.

Fast forward 6 years and I move back in to the apartment, around January 2011, with my brother and a 3rd roommate not on the lease, let’s call her Jamie. Sorry as this gets complicated. My brother moves out in August 2011 and now I am writing the check to the landlord every month for the entire rent amount and I am now the only original lease-signer living here.

I subleased to somebody else, let’s call him John, when my brother moved out, and now our relationship is very rocky. I want to kick John out, and he wants me to leave. I am unsure of my rights and his rights at the moment.

He wants me to leave, but I think that since I’m the only original lease-signer still living here, if I left, Jamie and John would probably be kicked out and the rent would increase; if my landlord even allowed them to stay or sign a new lease.

As far as my landlord knows, I’ve been living in the apartment since my original lease signing, with my brother and the original 3rd roommate, and they have no idea other people live here other than us. This apartment is rent controlled as well.

So, what happens if I leave and nobody on the original lease lives here to write them a check? Am I within my rights to evict John who I’ve been subletting for the past year? What happens if John and I cannot resolve who leaves the apartment, and neither of us will leave willingly?

Whew! Before I answer your question, I have to tell you, “Warning! Warning! Danger! Danger!” If your landlord gets wind of these facts, he may be inclined, given the current rental market, to evict you for illegal subletting. If you plan to stay in the apartment, you should begin to seek permission to sublet for each new roommate you you take on. But that’s for the future.

Technically you are not an original occupant because you moved out for six years. If you find yourself in a Rent Board hearing of some sort, you will not be able to testify, under oath, that you are an original occupant. That could be a problem. You won’t have a great defense based upon the fact that the landlord has continued to accept your rent checks. The landlord can claim that he was ignorant of the facts and that he would not have accepted your checks had he known the truth.

Hypotheticals aside, when you vacate, the landlord will very likely assume that you are the last remaining original tenant. He will certainly be able to increase the rent to market rate pursuant to Rent Board Rules & Regulations §6.14.

Moreover, the roommates are unapproved subtenants and the landlord can evict them using Rent Ordinance §37.9(a)(7) which articulates a just cause allowing a landlord to evict holdover subtenants if “[t]he tenant holding at the end of the term of the oral or written agreement is a subtenant not approved by the landlord.”

You are correct in your first assumption.

I don’t think you have the right to evict John because you don’t have the standing to do so. In law, standing means the status of being qualified to bring a legal matter before a court because a plaintiff has a sufficient and protectable interest in its outcome. Only a master tenant can evict a subtenant. Technically speaking you are a master tenant, but you cannot demonstrate that you are an original occupant because you moved out for six years, unless you lie. Problem.

Even if you do have standing to evict John, unless he signed a sublease or other document that clearly stated his subtenancy was exempt from the just cause provisions of the Rent Ordinance, you cannot simply serve him a notice to vacate without cause. (See Rent Board Rules & Regulations §6.15C.)

As you presented them, the facts don’t seem to rise to the level of a just cause under the Rent Ordinance.

So, no, I don’t think you can evict John, but he cannot evict you either.

Finally, if you and John can’t resolve the issues between you, it looks like somebody’s gonna have to move. But to paraphrase the late Rodney King, Why can’t you all just get along?

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

Can I Be Evicted For Subletting Without Permission?

Can I Be Evicted For Subletting Without Permission?

Can I Be Evicted For Subletting Without Permission?

Recently a friend of mine was handed an eviction notice from her landlord for subletting one of the rooms in her apartment while she was traveling. It shocked me that out of nowhere, the landlord could evict someone for something like this. She was already back at the house, and the issues was solved. It makes me a bit nervous about my own situation.

I live in a two bedroom flat in the Mission with a third room; a small “office.” Like many tenants in San Francisco, we have rented out the small, extra room to a friend. Having a third tenant was expressly verboten by the landlord when I signed the lease. However, this third person has lived with us for almost three years and there is a good chance the landlord already knows about it; he has made comments in passing such as “let your roommates know,” has probably seen the third person around, etc. I get along very well with my landlord and always pay my rent on time.

I have two questions:

1. A lawyer friend of mine mentioned something about “implied consent,” in terms of tenant/landlord relations, where if there is sufficient reason to believe the landlord is aware of a situation that is in violation of the lease, he or she is implicitly consenting to the violation. Is there any truth to this?

2. Can a landlord serve someone with an eviction notice without warning, or without a notice telling the tenant he or she must fix the situation? If landlords find out you’ve been subletting your room, or you’ve got an extra person in your flat, can they just evict you on the spot without telling you to stop subletting or ask the extra person to leave?

Issues with sub-tenants and people living in laundry rooms are issues that will increasingly apply to San Francisco tenants; this is an expensive place to live. I think we would all benefit from some extra information on the matter.

Having a third tenant was expressly verboten by the landlord when I signed the lease. What can I say? If your lease prohibits a third roommate and your landlord decides that the rent is too low and decides to evict you, it’s his prerogative. He can serve a three-day notice to cure or quit and if the roommate is not gone in three days, boom, the landlord can serve an unlawful detainer (eviction lawsuit). End of story.

Your lawyer friend is referring to the concept of waiver. Waiver is defined as an intentional relinquishment of a known right. In your case the landlord must know about your roommate’s presence and essentially consent it. Notice the term “intentional relinquishment.” How are you going to prove that in court? Certainly not by alluding to vague comments in which the landlord used roommates in the plural form.

The landlord never can evict a tenant “on the spot.” They must follow the rigid procedures defined in state and local law. The first step would be to serve a three-day notice to cure or quit as I described.

A couple of years ago, my business partner Solvejg and I represented a tenant whose predicament was similar to your friend’s. In that case the landlord had served a three-day notice to quit for illegal subletting. By the time we got the case, the landlord had served an unlawful detainer. Our client had to come back from the East Coast to defend the action.

We wrote a demurrer to the complaint alleging that the complaint was defective because the notice did not allow the tenant to “cure” the default as required in the San Francisco Rent Ordinance, but not state law. The notice did not allow the tenant an opportunity to remove the illegal subletter. Our client got lucky, but it cost her about five thousand dollars to keep the tenancy. She was lucky because she had the money to defend the case, and she made a good business decision because her rent was well below market rate.

Most tenants don’t have the kind of dough to pay lawyers to assert their rights and that’s the real point. Yes, tenants have rights and various defenses to unlawful detainer actions, but they often don’t have the resources to adequately assert those rights or to allege a viable defense. Landlords are well aware of this.

Clearly you, and most tenants, don’t understand the stress, pain and costs of defending a lawsuit, otherwise you would not knowingly violate your lease.

Why would you put your roommate through this? He didn’t do anything wrong, yet he could be either forced to move in three days or be named in a lawsuit and potentially screw up his credit.

San Francisco is expensive and many landlords these days want to cash in on the new Twitter/tech boom. One of the easiest ways to remove rent-controlled tenants is to sue them for illegal subletting. Often subletting from which the landlord turned a blind eye in the past, but that was the past and now those eyes are open.

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