I live in an apartment that does not have adequate heating. The house doesn’t have gross violations; there isn’t mold, leaks, or gaping holes in the walls or windows. However, it is really drafty and the building is old so it does not keep out the cold.
There are wall heaters in each of the rooms, but they are electric, so we have to keep them on 24 hours a day to even come close to the 68F degrees law. Our PG&E bill is astronomical! It often doesn’t stay at 68 degrees during the day. When I complained to the property manager about it he said that they could come and put in more electric heaters, but this would only raise our PG&E bill even more.
Is there any law that requires landlords to provide affordable heating?
Ha, like the law that requires landlords to provide affordable housing?
First, thanks for checking the Tenants Union site, as you linked to above. The TU is a good place to go for in-depth tenant counseling. As we discussed, your question is a good one because there should be a law requiring landlords to provide affordable heating because affordable heating is also energy efficient heating.
That your property manager so readily offered to install more electric heaters gives me pause. How are they going to install them and wire them to the existing ones? I wonder if the heaters are legal in the first place.
When we corresponded, you mentioned that your unit had been remodeled a couple of years ago. I’m wondering if the landlords applied for the proper permits to install the heaters. You can go online to the Department of Building Inspection Online Permit and Complaint Tracking to check out building and electrical permits for your address. BTW, tenants should always use this site to check out complaints on a given address before they rent. This site is a great Cheese Ball detector.
As I discussed in a previous column, “Wet, Cold and Moldy,” California Civil Code §1941.1 requires that a dwelling unit be weather tight. You don’t have to demonstrate gaping holes, leaks or mold for a unit to be in violation. In San Francisco many old building are drafty because the old double hung windows are not sealing correctly. Often that occurs because the windows are rotten or the glazing has fallen out. Buildings are also drafty because they are not insulated. Unfortunately, there is no requirement for landlords to insulate before they can rent a unit for a modest $4,500 per month.
Because you have already informed the property manager about the problem, I think you should lodge a complaint with a housing inspector at the DBI and arrange an inspection of your unit to see if there are any housing code violations. Then you can file a petition at the Rent Board for a decrease in services based on the fact that your landlord violated the implied warranty of habitability in your lease.
Generally, in San Francisco, it’s not a good idea to rent an apartment in an old building that has electric heat unless it’s considerably cheaper than other comparable units. Electric wall or baseboard heaters are often indicative of Cheese Ball landlords too cheap to repair an old heating system that, once upon a time, actually worked.
Call the Tenant Lawyers now for a free consultation. (415) 552-9060
The UD Shuffle
This is a dance you probably shouldn't try to do by yourself. Almost all tenants need a lawyer to lead. You likely have a better chance buying a house than you do prevailing in an unlawful detainer by defending yourself.
But if you insist here are are some of the basic moves.
If you are living in an apartment with more people than provided for on the lease, but the landlord knowingly accepts rent checks from the extra parties, does this constitute a sort of “oral agreement” in which the landlord must abide the same laws governing his relationship with the other tenants? More simply, if he accepts my rent check as one of the “extra parties,” can he still “evict me” because I’m not on the lease?
Ah, leases…scintillating, page tuning reading, NOT! Imagine a Broadway musical called, “Lease!” No amount of nudity could keep it from flopping.* Unfortunately you need to understand your lease to answer many questions about your tenancy. So my general advice to tenants is: “Read your lease.”
Most leases have a clause governing assignment and subletting. Interestingly, many tenants think that subletting only occurs when one vacates an entire unit and turns it over to somebody else. When you add or replace roommates you are subletting part of the unit, so the subletting cause in your lease applies.
Typical leases provide that tenants may not sublet without the written consent of the landlord.
Assuming your lease is typical; your case is relatively straightforward. Your landlord accepted and presumably cashed your check. It’s likely that he signed the back of it when he deposited it into the bank. By accepting rent directly from you he has waived (given up) his right to evict you and your roommates for breach of the covenant against subletting.
We lawyers also argue that by his conduct of directly accepting your check, the landlord is estopped (prohibited) from claiming that he did not accept your tenancy.
The landlord may attempt to serve you and your roommates a 3-day notice to perform covenant or quit for breaching the lease. If you don’t move out after 3-days, theoretically he can serve an unlawful detainer (eviction) lawsuit to evict everybody. A landlord cannot legally evict one tenant in the premises; he must sue to get possession of the entire unit.
Given what you’ve told me, if the landlord tries to accuse you of breaching the lease, you have a good defense. You should contact your bank and get copies of all of your checks indorsed by the landlord to use as evidence that he accepted your tenancy.
Mind you, more lies per square foot are told in court than anywhere else but church. And landlords suffer more amnesia than soap opera starlets. Just because you have a good defense to an eviction doesn’t mean the landlord won’t try to boot you out.
I’d like to take my husband off our rental agreement because he left and refuses to pay rent. How can I do that without having hassles from my landlord that I can afford to live in my apartment on one earning? Do I have to enter into a new lease, with a new rent? I’m on the lease now, and the building is protected under rent control, (if that matters.)
It does matter that your tenancy is rent controlled. The just cause eviction provisions of the Rent Ordinance allow your lease to continue on a month to month basis because you can only be evicted for one of the 16 just causes. The Rent Ordinance also provides that your rent can only be increases by the allowable annual increase.
If you are named on the lease you probably don’t have to do anything. You certainly do not have to sign a new lease with a new rent. Rent Board Rules and Regulations §12.20 specifically prohibits a landlord from endeavoring to evict a tenant based on a breach of a term in a lease that “was unilaterally imposed by the landlord and not agreed to by the tenant and either was not included, or is not materially the same as an obligation or covenant in the rental agreement mutually agreed to by the parties.” A new rent amount, unless it is lower, will qualify as such a term. How many times has your landlord tried to lower your rent?
Read your lease. If there is a term requiring you to notify the landlord that your husband moved, do so. Other than that, you should be fine.
Call the Tenant Lawyers now for a free consultation. (415) 552-9060
Even Dracula Had to Knock
In vampire lore it is said that a vampire had to have an invitation before it could enter one’s dwelling.
What about landlords? How many times have you heard your landlord say, “This is my property and I can come in whenever I want?” Jeez, if you’re going to suck my blood, at least be charming about it.
If you’re a sub-tenant/not on the lease, what are your rights? Can the master tenant kick you out, or raise the rent, at his/her discretion?
Some master tenants just can’t resist throwing their weight around. The really bad ones think they own the unit. They can be as oppressive as the worst landlords. “It’s my way or the highway, Chucko!”
The worst master tenant doesn’t even live with you. He tells you that his stuff in the closet means he’s a roommate and he can drop in whenever he wants. He charges the subtenants $1,000 per month per room. Because the total, rent controlled, rent is only $400.00 per month, he can rent a really cool loft in Los Angeles while he works on his screenplay…until your landlord finds out.
Imagine the brouhaha when the landlord finds out he’s losing, say, $2,600.00 per month or $31,400.00 per year. You can bet that everybody’s going to get the boot. Not to mention that master tenants who pull this shit are the stuff of urban legend to the landlord class. They screw up rent control for the rest of us. But I digress…
Your rights in San Francisco with regard to a master tenant can be found in the Rent Board Rules and Regulations § 6.15C. A master tenant may be able to evict you without one of the just causes in the Rent Ordinance only if, “prior to commencement of the tenancy, the Master Tenant informs the tenant in writing that the tenancy is not subject to the just cause provisions of Section 37.9.” Section 37.9(a) lists the just causes, like nonpayment of rent, nuisance, etc.
Usually a master tenant will include that language in a sublease. If you were not informed
in writing that you could be evicted at will, the master tenant cannot just throw you out. Even if a master tenant can evict without cause he must provide you with a 30-day notice or a 60-day notice if you have lived in the premises for more than one year.
Master tenants don’t raise rent, landlords do. One of the more controversial provisions of Rules and Regulations 6.15C(3)(a) provides that a master tenant cannot charge a subtenant more than his proportional share of the rent, with differential calculations including services provided by the master tenant, room size comparison, etc. Arguably, if the master tenant increased your rent without a corresponding increase from the landlord, he may be in violation of the Rules and Regs.
Call the Tenant Lawyers now for a free consultation. (415) 552-9060
The Formula
Take the total amount of the security deposits you hold (A), and subtract the probable number of tenants asserting their rights, (B), multiplied by the average judgment in small claims court, (C). A minus (B times C) equals X.
If X is less that the total amount of security deposits you hold, you don't bother to refund any of them.
I need to sue my former landlord, who I believe held my deposit on an old apartment in bad faith.
I paid $950 for standard security plus a pet deposit on 7/7/07. I was forced to move out on 9/30/07 by my roommate at the time, and had given the landlord more than 30 days notice. However, the landlord refused to return my deposit on the many occasions that I demanded it, with no explanation. I have even attempted to contact the main management company with no luck.
I believe it is a 2-year statute of limitations, but from what date is this calculated? I have several different dates in mind – my move-out date, the 21-day period in which they are required by law to refund, or when I sent the first official demand letter (10/28/07). This has been an incredible hassle and I really want to get my money back – is it still possible?
I get very pissed off when landlords steal tenants’ security deposits. But thinking about statutes of limitation is a total righteous indignation buzz kill. Your question is still a good one because it illustrates that you can’t just sit on your rights because you may lose them.
You mention that your roommate forced you to move out. If the roommate continued to live in the unit, then the landlord had no obligation to return your portion of the security deposit because, as far as he was concerned, the unit was still governed by the existing lease. The landlord does not have to refund the security deposit until the lease is extinguished when everybody moves out. If this is the case, your beef is with your former roommate, not the landlord. There are other possible scenarios that we don’t have space to cover and you should seek specific advice.
Security deposits in California are governed by Civil Code §1950.5. The statute of limitations begins to run when the claim “accrues.” In security deposit cases, the claim accrues on the 22nd day after you move out because the landlord has 21 days to refund.
There is a two-year statute of limitation on claims for the breach of an oral contract. If you do not have a lease or written agreement with your roommate or landlord, your claim may already be going down the drain. Speak to a lawyer immediately and/or file it!
Generally, one has three years to sue for a liability created by statute which could include security deposit actions since they are governed by specific statute like Civil Code §1950.5. It is unlikely that a court would find that this can apply to an oral lease because any action on the lease would be barred after two years. On the other hand, the statute of limitation for a written lease is four years.
Civil Code §1950.5 provides for statutory damages of twice the amount that a landlord wrongfully withholds. In other words if your landlord or roommate kept your dough without any reason you could sue for $950.00 plus $1,900.00 for a total of $2,850.00. It is likely that you would lose the right to collect those damages, but not the original amount, if you had a written lease and you sued the landlord after the three-year limitation for a statutory claim. After four years you’re SOL.
If you are a San Francisco tenant there are two websites that you should bookmark forever in your browser: the San Francisco Rent Board and the San Francisco Tenants Union. There are many other great tenants’ services and resources out there, but between the Rent Board and the TU, you can cover just about everything. The Rent Board site is a treasure trove of general and San Francisco specific information. The Tenants Union site is also very complete, but the best thing about them is they will counsel you about the specific facts of your case and light a fire under your ass to do something about it.
Call the Tenant Lawyers now for a free consultation. (415) 552-9060
The Formula
Take the total amount of the security deposits you hold (A), and subtract the probable number of tenants asserting their rights, (B), multiplied by the average judgment in small claims court, (C). A minus (B times C) equals X.
If X is less that the total amount of security deposits you hold, you don't bother to refund any of them.
I live in the Panhandle area in a 6-unit building. My apartment building has some serious temperature and mold issues.
Our common entryway has a broken skylight that leaks every time it rains. The first floor rug is now discolored and smells of mold. The landlord insists he’s “done as best he can” to fix the leak.
All of the units’ bedroom closets have huge mold problems on the walls. The landlord’s best response is to just to keep bleaching the walls. Other areas of each apartment have mold the landlords only “solutions” are to cover the areas over with paint or tile.
The building’s steam heat works inconsistently. The timer doesn’t seem to be working correctly. The windows don’t seal properly or have chunks of wood missing from the base. When tenants complain of the cold, the landlord’s only response to this is to apply cheap foam weather stripping (that’s since fallen off) to the windows.
For what we pay, we shouldn’t have heat or mold issues. So my question is, besides putting our own money into the building, can we as tenants do anything to turn our building around and into shape?
Dear Wet, Cold and Moldy in the Panhandle,
As I write this, the first big storm of the season has begun. It’s time for you and your fellow tenants to get proactive. I get the sense that everyone in the building is fed up and that you might be able to work together as a team. That’s great. Remember, there is safety in numbers.
The landlord says he’s “done as best as he can.” What is he–a four-year-old at a Berkeley T-Ball tournament? Shall we give him a trophy just for showing up? This is the type of landlord I like to call a Cheese Ball, a cheap buffoon who thinks he can own an apartment building, take all the tax deductions, collect the outrageous rent and not spend a dime to maintain it. Oh, he’ll bitch and moan about rent control and whine about all the labor he’s expended, but you must understand that this Cheese Ball wouldn’t maintain his property if he could charge $10,000.00 a month per unit and he would never pay a professional to fix anything. I can go on and on, but maybe I should answer your questions.
The landlord is breaching the implied warranty of habitability in your lease. The landlord has the duty, even if it is not in the lease, to provide you with a “habitable” unit. California Civil Code §1941.1provides a long list of characteristics of a unit that make it “untenantable” or uninhabitable.
Roof leaks and the problems caused by them, i.e. mold, cracked paint, and of course, water dripping inside are usually clear and substantial breaches. (Civil Code §1941.1[a]) The problems you describe indicate a more general roof problem than just the skylight. While mold and mildew occur frequently in bathrooms without roof leaks, the closets are a tip-off to me.
As a former housepainter, I know that you cannot just paint over mold and mildew; it grows through the paint. And even if you kill the mold, it will return if the roof has not been adequately repaired.
Windows that rattle and leak air and, as you indicated in the unpublished part of your letter, sills that are rotted off are also violations of Civil Code 1941.1(a). Cheap foam insulation doesn’t count as repair.
Finally inadequate heat is a violation of Civil Code 1941.1(d). San Francisco Housing Code §701(c) also requires that a permanent heating source be provided that is capable of maintaining a temperature of at least 68 degrees Fahrenheit in all habitable rooms, excluding bathrooms and hallways. The Housing Code specifically requires this level of heat to be provided 13 hours a day, from 5 AM to 11 AM and also from 3 PM to 10 PM. See Rent Board Topic No. 257.
All right, now you know that it’s likely the landlord violated the law. What do you do about it? Normally I would suggest you write your landlord a letter outlining all of the problems and asked him to fix them in a short period of time, preferably not before the next ice age. BTW, if you haven’t already done so, begin to communicate with the landlord only in writing. Even if he can’t read, he will understand that your relationship has changed.
You and all of your fellow tenants at the building should join the San Francisco Tenants Union. They can provide more specific counseling based on the facts of your situation.
Remember, you pay your rent in exchange for the landlord providing a service, nothing more or less. If he gets pissed off because you make him do his job, it’s his problem. Don’t let him make it yours. Good luck.
Call the Tenant Lawyers now for a free consultation. (415) 552-9060
They Don't Call 'Em Landlords For Nothing
How many times have you heard your landlord say, “This is my property and I can do anything I want?” Before you tell him to stick his "anything" where the sun don’t shine, understand that your landlord is simply a romantic. He should be wearing a cod piece and tights.
In my blog post Grand Theft Security Deposit, published June 16, 2009, I speculated that hundreds of millions of dollars were pilfered every year in California because landlords unreasonably retained tenants’ security deposits after move out. I pointed out that in my experience as a tenant counselor at the San Francisco Tenants Union, each shift I attended I heard anecdotal evidence that landlords were stealing about $3,000.00. This hasn’t changed.
As you may know I have been conducting a poll on this site for the last several months. The poll asked this: “In your overall experience as a tenant, how much money have landlords stolen from you by keeping your security deposits without cause to do so?” While the sample was small and cannot be conclusive on the matter, to me the results were not unexpected:
29% reported that their landlords never ripped them off; 10% said they lost less than $100.00; 39% claimed they had lost between $101.00 and $1,000.00; 6% said they lost $1,001.00 and $3,000.00; 16% claimed landlords had stolen over $3,000.00.
Is it true that 71% of all tenants have been ripped off in some amount by their landlords? I understand my readers may be biased, yet it is clear from my experience and news accounts that landlords steal tenants’ security deposits. Landlords also collect substantially larger security deposits these days because rents have gone through the roof. The temptation to steal is there and many landlords succumb. What can you do about it?
Demand that small claims limits be raised for real people.
In California, Civil Code §1950.5 governs security deposits. Civil Code §1950.5(n) envisions that security deposit disputes will be resolved in small claims court: “Any action under this section may be maintained in small claims court if the damages claimed, whether actual or statutory or both, are within the jurisdictional amount allowed […]”
The small claims limits should be raised to at least $10,000 if not more.
Currently the maximum a tenant can collect in small claims court is $7,500. What do you do if the landlord kept your $3,000 in bad faith and you want to collect the full amount of statutory damages? Your claim is $9,000, but you can only sue for $7,500.00. It is unlikely that you’ll want to hire a lawyer for thousands of bucks to make $1,500 unless you have other claims or a lease that can get attorney’s fees if you prevail. So you’ll forfeit your $1,500. You’ll eat it.
Last June, San Diego Union-Tribune columnist, Michael Stetz, proposed raising the small claims limit in California to $10,000. He noted that Georgia and Delaware have limits of $15,000 and that even Tennessee has a $10,000 limit. Opponents to raising small claims limits worry that businesses like credit card companies will use higher limits to go after consumers in the easier, cheaper venue of small claims court. But California law already foresees that issue by only allowing natural persons, i.e. real, flesh and blood people as opposed to vampire corporations, to sue for $7,500. Corporations and municipalities can only sue for $5,000. Naturally, I’d suggest that corporations be barred from using small claims court at all. Tenants need to be able to recover all of their damages without the added expense of lawyers and superior court. The small claims limits should be raised to at least $10,000 if not more.
Demand that landlords be required to hold deposits in a separate trust account.
As an attorney, I have to keep a trust account. Why shouldn’t landlords be forced to do the same? Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, New York and other states require landlords to keep separate accounts for tenants’ security deposits. California does not. It’s a no-brainer. If landlords are required to account for security deposits by establishing a trust account, the temptation to spend the dough now and try to withhold it later can be mitigated.
Demand that interest be paid annually on security deposits.
San Francisco already requires that interest be paid annually on security deposits. The interest rates are set by the San Francisco Rent Board. While most landlords “forget” to pay on an annual basis, many tenants are pleased and surprised at the small windfall if the landlords pay the accumulated interest on the deposit at the end of the tenancy. And that’s a big if. I see many instances where landlords don’t pay interest at all and the tenants were unaware of their right to collect it.
Other cities require that interest is paid on security deposits, but this should be mandated on a statewide basis.
Send an email or letter to your state legislators with these demands.
Tell your representatives that these proposals are neither new nor radical. Point out that other states have implemented these requirements and nobody got hurt. Landlord and real estate lobbyists always argue that this type of legislation will put Ma and Pa Cheese Ball out of business. It is simply not true. Requirements like these will only make Ma and Pa a bit more professional while making Mr. Big Slumlord much more accountable.
UPDATE:
Demand that a landlord who has not refunded the deposit in 21 days and failed to provide an accounting to the tenant forever loses the right to defend his case.
My business partner Solvejg Rose successfully helped a friend get her security deposit in Florida after the landlord initially refused to refund it. In Florida, if the landlord does not account for the security deposit to the tenant providing the rationale for retaining it, he waives his right to do so! He cannot later offer any defense why he should not pay the money back. This is powerful medicine, but necessary in California.
Demand that Civil Code §1950.5 also provide a remedy for prevailing party attorneys fees.
Illinois has this provision in their security deposit law. If a tenant wants to engage the services of an attorney rather than suing in small claims court and has a good case, why not take it to superior court with the expectation that she can recover her attorneys fees? The addition of this remedy would make a landlord think long and hard before he arbitrarily withheld a security deposit. The prospect of paying tens of thousands of dollars for the folly would deter many unscrupulous landlords.
Call the Tenant Lawyers now for a free consultation. (415) 552-9060
The Formula
Take the total amount of the security deposits you hold (A), and subtract the probable number of tenants asserting their rights, (B), multiplied by the average judgment in small claims court, (C). A minus (B times C) equals X.
If X is less that the total amount of security deposits you hold, you don't bother to refund any of them.
When your landlord invites you to do the Eviction Shuffle, like any polite invitee, you must respond. Unfortunately you cannot just tell the court that you are not planning to attend. Nor can you just ignore the invitation. The landlord will respond like a jilted lover and exact revenge. A failure to respond in the required amount of time will give the landlord the opportunity to ask a court to enter a default. The court almost always will default you if the landlord provides documentation that you were served and had an opportunity to respond. In San Francisco, the sheriff could be knocking at your door in a couple of weeks. Stick a fork in it, you’re done. You’re out on the street.
Unless you have a damned good reason for your failure to respond, which I will cover later, it is very, very difficult to overturn (vacate or set aside in legalese) a default. So don’t default.
You have five days to respond, in writing, to a complaint in unlawful detainer. Don’t call the landlord. Don’t call the landlord’s attorney. Respond to the complaint at the court, in writing. Do Saturdays and Sundays count? YES! You start counting your five days the day after you have been served with the summons and complaint. So if you are served on a Friday, you must respond on Wednesday. A disproportionate amount of complaints are served on Fridays because tenants only have three business days to figure things out, i.e. calling lawyers, finding self-help centers, and researching how to defend themselves. The only time you may get more days, is if the last day you could respond falls on a court holiday. That is not to be confused with Ferris Bueller’s Day Off. Check the court schedule online.
You must be personally served.
That is, a person who is not a party to the lawsuit, not the landlord, must hand you the summons and complaint. Don’t try to get cute and refuse to take a summons meant for you. If the process server can identify you and declare that he attempted to give you the papers, you have been served. In California the landlord can post the summons and complaint on your door along with mailing it to you, but only if he gets a court order. He can only get a court order if his server declares that he tried to serve you personally with due diligence. Usually, around three tries is enough. Okay, you have a UD summons and complaint in your hand, what do you do?
Get advice from people who know landlord tenant law.
Note, I didn’t say lawyers. Not all lawyers are familiar with landlord tenant law. Frankly, I love it when a landlord is represented by his brother-in-law, who may be a crackerjack estate lawyer, but who doesn’t know diddly-dick about a three-day notice. But also note that I didn’t suggest your friends who heard a story from their friends. I can’t tell you how many times I have spoken to tenants who have some preposterous assumption about UD. Inevitably they tell me “I heard that (for example) I can stay in my apartment for months before my landlord can evict me.” Not true, most of the time. “I heard that…” Three words that will get usually guarantee that you’ll be out on your ass. I heard that President Obama was born in Kenya. Get my drift?
In the Bay Area we are very lucky. There are numerous agencies and generous tenant lawyers to whom tenants can turn. The Eviction Defense Collaborative is the best San Francisco resource to help you write a response to an unlawful detainer. There are many other agencies who provide similar services in Oakland and Berkeley. Check out our links here. You can get solid advice about your notice and your complaint at the San Francisco Tenants Union, but they will send you to the EDC to write your response. The TU can also provide you a list of their approved tenant lawyers. Crow & Rose is proud to be included on that list. If you don’t live in the Bay Area, search online for “eviction defense” or “eviction help” to find an agency or lawyer to look over your documents. Also go to Caltenantlaw’s list of tenant lawyers in California to get a comprehensive list of tenant advocates. It is worth paying to have a tenant lawyer look over your complaint and notice to quit because they are trained to find subtle flaws that might enable you to get the case tossed before you have to answer.
Pre-answer motions
Someone who really understands landlord tenant law will carefully scrutinize the complaint; the notice to quit, which should be attached to the complaint in California; and your lease, if it is attached. The lease must be attached if you are being accused of violating a covenant of the lease.
When I see a complaint that wrong, my fangs pop out, dripping with venom, ready to strike.
In California, a document supporting the complaint is considered to be part of the complaint. Therefore, if there are inconsistencies between the attached documents and the complaint it may be able to be challenged in a motion called a demurrer. That’s French for WTF? No, it’s really just an objection to the pleadings, the papers filed in the case.
There a quite a few requirements for a notice to quit to be “sufficient.” For example, in California a landlord can only demand rent in a 3-Day Notice to Pay or Quit. If he asks for late fees or utility bills, the notice can be defective and the case can get tossed. In San Francisco and other rent-controlled jurisdictions there are often very strict notice requirements that a notice contain certain information above and beyond state requirements. There are magic words! I will not reveal them here in case landlords read this. But really, there are magic words depending on what kind of notice you receive in San Francisco. If the landlord doesn’t include them in the notice, the whole complaint is defective and can be tossed.
Motion to Strike
We love cases with defective notices. Demurrers have longer timing requirements to be heard. When we file them we extend the UD process by up to an extra month, giving us time to negotiate and to do things like depose the landlord before we even answer. Finally, it’s great fun winning them in a hearing; getting the case tossed and in some cases being able to collect exorbitant fees from errant landlords.
There are various other pre-answer motions that are possible. Another is a motion to strike. When a complaint does not, for some reason comply with the law, all or part of it can be thrown out. I have had a couple of case where the attorneys who drafted and signed the complaints were not licensed to practice law. When I see a complaint that wrong, my fangs pop out, dripping with venom, ready to strike.
The answer
If you cannot find a mistake on the face of the complaint, you file an answer. This is where you deny the allegations in the complaint and you state your defenses, your reasons why you didn’t pay, etc. Note that there are various affirmative defenses. This is where, for example, you say that you didn’t owe rent the landlord demanded because there were breaches in the warranty of habitability. This is where you claim that the landlord violated the Rent Ordinance or that he discriminated against you in some manner. Again, you must be very thorough because there are some defenses that you can waive (lose forever) if you don’t mention them when you answer.
Like I told you, eviction defense is complicated. Many tenants think that once they’ve answered, they can wait until a settlement conference to make their case. Not true. Look what it takes just to RSVP for the UD Shuffle!
This is a dance you probably shouldn't try to do by yourself. Almost all tenants need a lawyer to lead. You likely have a better chance buying a house than you do prevailing in an unlawful detainer by defending yourself.
