(415)552-9060
Tenant Troubles Is Back!

Tenant Troubles Is Back!

Tenant Troubles Is Back!

What happened to Tenant Troubles?

Where has Dave Crow been? Probably not a burning question, but I’d like to explain anyway.

I haven’t been focused on my extracurricular writing due to work. You know…the excuse we all use to avoid living our lives—the “excuse” all of us tenants have when we have to pay 30%, 40%, 50% or more of our net income for rent. My job involves a lot of writing anyway. If you think you want to be a lawyer and you don’t want to write, you’re considering the wrong profession. It didn’t make for good TV to portray Perry Mason, Jack McCoy or (insert your your favorite TV lawyer here) spending hours of time writing legal briefs.

My job involves too much writing that, to be honest, pisses me off. For example, last year Solvejg and I spent weeks responding to an appellate case, chipping away at the reasons why Costa Hawkins didn’t preempt the trial court’s ruling in favor of our clients. In their decision, the appellate court essentially agreed with us, but ruled against our clients anyway. That Costa Hawkins should be repealed is simply a no-brainer.

But look where that got us, despite the efforts of organizations like Tenants Together, the San Francisco Tenants Union, the Housing Rights Committee and others. Up close and personal, tenant troubles break my heart. When meeting with clients or prospective clients, the palpable sorrow, the tears and the dismay at being uprooted from community, leave me little to say. “Where will I go?” is an unanswerable question that cannot be adequately assuaged by “you do have some rights.” or “you can sue the landlord later.”

So I stopped writing for awhile. I often incorporated musical references in many of my Tenant Troubles columns in the past—from Elvis to Dusty Springfield to the Butthole Surfers. When my six-year old niece wanted to take guitar lessons several years ago, she and I went together. She lost interest (she plays the sax now) but I kept going. I began to substitute the time I spent writing Tenant Troubles to practice the guitar.

“The effect of rock and roll on young people, is to turn them into devil worshippers; to stimulate self-expression through sex; to provoke lawlessness; impair nervous stability and destroy the sanctity of marriage. It is an evil influence on the youth of our country.” – Minister Albert Carter, 1956.

I’ve always loved electric rock ‘n roll and punk—synapse frying, ear splitting, raging…yes…devil music. So I bought a used Stratocaster and a small amp. Then a vintage 1967 Galanti Grand Prix. Then a larger amp. Yeah, it’s a mania, with which some of you may be familiar. As I revisited the music I love, to learn to play it, I understood the common thread again—not simply generational rage, but a fleeting, clear, unadulterated vision that only young adults can possess.

“You and me we keep walkin’ around and we see All the bullshit around us You try and keep your mind on what’s going down Can’t help but see the rhinoceros around us And you wonder what you can be And you do what you can To get balled and high…” —Jefferson Airplane, The House at Pooneil Corners, Crown of Creation, 1968

When I first heard Crown of Creation, Jefferson Airplane’s post apocalyptic masterpiece, I was too young at the time, to truly understand some of the lyrical themes, but I loved the feedback—that visceral howl—San Francisco beckoning. I devoured San Francisco psychedelic rock, Quicksilver, Big Brother, The Dead, Santana, and Blue Cheer like each was a last meal. Certainly I will never play as well or as weird as Jorma Kaukonen of the Airplane, but I have gained new respect for musicians of any stripe who the courage and the determination to play well, no matter how weird. Better yet, that old useless idealism creeps back into my head like DNA unravelling. I catch myself asking questions like, “What if they gave a war and nobody came?”

“Just when you think tastelessness has reached its nadir, along comes a punk rock group called ‘The Dead Kennedys’, which will play at Mabuhay Gardens on Nov. 22, the 15th anniversary of John F. Kennedy’s assassination.” —Herb Caen, November, 1978

I had arrived in the Bay Area about six weeks earlier, staying with my friend, Tom, in Alameda. November 1978 was shaping up to be a lousy month for the Bay Area. The tragedy in Jonestown had been reported on November 18, but we were determined to go to see this weird, irreverently named group. And that night charted a new course in my musical journey. There it was again, the cutting, guitar screaming, fuck-all-you-all, satire—the roar from those too young to know they may have something to lose.

It’s the American in me that makes me watch TV see on the news, listen what the man said. He said “Ask not what you can do for your country what’s your country been doing to you Ask not what you can do for your country what’s your country been doing to your mind?”
—The Avengers, The American in Me, 1978

In 1979 I had the good sense to vote for Jello Biafra for Mayor of San Francisco largely because one of his campaign planks required businessmen to wear clown suits within the city limits. San Francisco was a vast, post modern circus that needed its clowns. SOMA was an industrial wasteland where one could take in one of Mark Pauline’s Dangerous and Disturbing Mechanical Presentations. One could witness mummified cats, dogs, and raccoons lasered on the Mummy-Go-Round. In that era my list of bands included the DKsJoy Division, Husker Du, Flipper, The Mutants, X, Romeo Void, Suicidal Tendencies, and so many, many more. That music is a little easier for me to play, not that I’m any good. But what about the anarchy? The raw defiance? Is it as easy to embrace now? What if they gave a war and nobody came?

At its best New Wave/punk represents a fundamental and age-old Utopian dream: that if you give people the license to be as outrageous as they want in absolutely any fashion they can dream up, they’ll be creative about it, and do something good besides. —Lester Bangs, Psychotic Reactions and Carburetor Dung, Edited by Greil Marcus, 1987

As you know, San Francisco has revoked that license. Almost all of those people are gone–evicted one way or another. For me, evoking my youthful rebellion and the music that informed it, helps me to refocus and stay pissed off. I know I can’t bring back the past, but I can sure as hell try to head off a inhumane, inhuman sanitized future. I am pleased and proud to bring Tenant Troubles to 48 Hills. I’ve known Tim Redmond for over 30 years. We met when he was a reporter and I sold classified ads at the Bay Guardian. Tim has steadfastly supported our San Francisco community for all that time. In this new iteration of Tenant Troubles I will still give you the law, straight up. I’ll tell you how the law can help you and how the law can hurt you—no punches pulled. When the law is not on your side, and that is often, I’ll also urge you to remember your old music, to let your DNA unravel, to undadulterate, to get pissed off and get political. Try this. Listen to The Clash’s cover of “I Fought the Law.” Then reimagine the lyrics:

Payin’ my rent, hurtin’ no one. I fought the law and the law won. Fightin’ the Ellis Act is no fun. I fought the law and the law won… Etc.

 

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

Do I Really Get A Life Time Lease If My Apartment Becomes A Condo?

Do I Really Get A Life Time Lease If My Apartment Becomes A Condo?

Do I Really Get A Life Time Lease If My Apartment Becomes A Condo?

Background: I live within San Francisco in a 4 unit rent-controlled building (currently a TIC). I’ve lived here for a couple of years (had a 1-year lease but have been month to month since then). My apartment building is being converted into condos due to the new bypass law. My landlord has announced his intent to sell when the conversion is complete. I know he has to offer to sell the apartment to me first. If I decline to buy it, I’ve read that he has to offer me a life time lease. I don’t really understand what protection this would give me (if any), since I thought intent to sell was a just cause for eviction. What does this “life time lease” mean for me? If I can do nothing about eviction, does the landlord owe me any relocation costs? I have a good relationship with my landlord and don’t want to cause any strife, but I’d like to see what my protections are – if any!

The new condominium lottery bypass law and new requirements for condominium conversion of buildings with three to six units can be found in San Francisco Subdivision Code sections 1396.4 and 1396.5. Remember, two-unit buildings are still exempt from the lottery and consequently from the new requirements.

You are correct. The landlord must offer to sell you the unit pursuant to the old condominium conversion law. The new law provides that that any tenant (not just elderly, catastrophically ill or disabled tenants) must be offered a life time lease. Subdivision Code §1396.4(g)(1) is clear:

Any application for conversion under this Section shall include a certification under penalty of perjury by the applicants that any non-purchasing tenant(s) in the building has been given a written offer to enter into a life time lease in the form and with the provisions published and prescribed by the Department in consultation with the Rent Board. Such written offer for a life time lease shall be executed by the owners of the building(s) and recorded prior to the time of Final Map or Parcel Map approval.

In other words, proof of the offer must be submitted to the Department of Public Works and any life time lease must be recorded before any conversion under the new law can be finalized. Other language/requirements for such a lease are listed in Subdivision Code §1396.4(g)(2).

Rent Ordinance §37.9(a)(9) tells us:

A landlord shall not endeavor to recover possession of a rental unit unless [t]he landlord seeks to recover possession in good faith in order to sell the unit in accordance with a condominium conversion approved under the San Francisco subdivision ordinance and does so without ulterior reasons and with honest intent.

However, the drafters of the new legislation foresaw that landlords might attempt to evict tenants to prepare a building for conversion, so they prevented conversion of a building that has any “no-fault” evictions. Subdivision Code §1396.4(b)(10) states:

In addition to all other provisions of this Section, […] the applicant(s) must certify that to the extent any tenant vacates his or her unit after March 31, 2013 and before recordation of the final parcel or subdivision map, such tenant did so voluntarily or if an eviction or eviction notice occurred it was not pursuant to Administrative Code Sections 37.9(a)(14) then the applicant(s) shall certify that the original tenant reoccupied the unit after the temporary eviction.

As long as you pay your rent, comply with the covenants (terms) of your lease and don’t commit nuisance (a meth lab in your apartment is a no-no), you cannot be evicted.

Unfortunately I predict a rash of bullshit three-day notices in the future to get around this requirement. For example, a three-day notice endeavoring to evict my client because she listed her business address at her home, allegedly violating a clause in the lease providing for residential use only. The extent of her commercial use involved making phone call from home.

I suggest that you continue to monitor the conversion process in your building. You can do so by reading the general information at the San Francisco Department of Public Works website. Or you can see the progress at your specific address.

All tenants who suspect that their building are undergoing conversion should look at this site regularly. Why? At least 20 days before the issuance of a “tentative map,” DPW must publish the addresses of buildings being considered by approval on its web site and any interested party may submit information contesting the eligibility and request a hearing.

Clearly you will want to challenge a bogus document purporting to have offered you a life time lease. Who would turn that down?

You will also want to challenge a bogus claim that an owner lived in the unit for the requisite period of time. I been involved in several cases in which landlords had their mail delivered to a tenant’s unit, later claiming that they lived in the same unit. When you receive the landlord’s mail, inform him that you are not Mailboxes Etc. If he refuses to change his address, make like Elvis Presley’s angry ex-girlfriend, “Return to sender, address unknown. No such number, no such zone.”

These three articles provide in-depth analyses of the condominium bypass legislation:

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

Oral Lease, May I Sublet A Room Using airbnb In My Apartment?

Oral Lease, May I Sublet A Room Using airbnb In My Apartment?

Oral Lease, May I Sublet A Room Using airbnb In My Apartment?

I live in a rent-controlled flat, where I have no written lease prohibiting subletting (I’ve lived here for 22 years). I don’t get along with the landlord, and he has pressured me for years to move out.

I have recently started using Airbnb to sublet a room in the flat. I continue living there. I have been using the rule of thumb that I have always used for longer term subletting, namely, I don’t earn more from a subletter than I pay in rent.

However, I’m now wondering if I’m breaking the law, and if my landlord could use this as an excuse to evict me (he’d jump at the chance).

What does the law say about this?

I get a lot of calls from tenants who have oral rental agreements with their landlords, concerned that they don’t have a written lease. If I ascertain that a caller has a rent controlled tenancy, I always say, “What’s the problem? You’ve got the best lease possible.”

Why? As you correctly state, there are no covenants–promises (terms)–in an oral lease. The only thing you have to do is pay your rent and pay it on the first of the month. An oral agreement rarely contains a promise to refrain from subletting.  California case law affirms that a landlord cannot evict a tenant for breach of an unwritten covenant in a lease.  Subletting your room should not be a problem.

Regardless of the rent charged, subletting your entire apartment on Airbnb could be construed as a violation of San Francisco Administrative Code § 41A, which prohibits the conversion of residential rent controlled units into transient hotel rooms. If you are simply finding roommates through Airbnb, there is no functional difference between finding a roommate there than on Craigslist or or any other venue that advertises for roommates. So you aren’t running afoul of the law or your rental agreement if you rent to a roommate you find on Airbnb.

None of my comments mean that I condone your actions. Your statement, “I don’t earn more from a subletter than I pay in rent,” seems to indicate that you are also profiting from your master tenancy. I take your statement to mean that your subletters pay the entire rent and you live in the flat for free. If that is the case, I think that you are using Airbnb to attract short-term tourists/roommates who don’t know or don’t care that they may have Rent Ordinance protections. If you really meant to say that you pay half the rent, please don’t take some of my comments personally.

You should not believe that you can rent to a series of short-term roommates without eventually violating the San Francisco Rent Ordinance. If one of your roommates decides to stay past the term of the sublease, you won’t have just cause to evict her. When she finds out about her rights under the Rent Ordinance, she will file a petition to reduce her share of the rent because you are overcharging her pursuant to Rent Board Rules & Regulations §6.15C.

If the landlord gets wind of your subletting on Airbnb, he may try to evict you despite the fact that your actions may be legal. It happens all the time. As you can see, the facts of you situation may not play well and you could find yourself in a trial. Do you really have the time and money to adequately defend yourself?

If my assumption that your subtenants pay your entire rent is correct, you are following the landlord playbook to skirt the Rent Ordinance and you’re a freaking tenant! Your landlord sees you as the greedy tenant from hell, preventing him from realizing a better return on his investment. You’re the poster tenant to whom all landlords point justifying repeal of our Rent Ordinance protections.

Just because the law characterizes you as a quasi-landlord doesn’t mean you have to act like a Cheese Ball landlord.

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

Can I Refuse To Sign A Lease?

Can I Refuse To Sign A Lease?

Can I Refuse To Sign A Lease?

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

Assume I live in a rent-controlled building.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rent Board Rules and Regulations §12.20 provides further guidance:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How Much Do I Have To Help The Realtor Who Wants To Evict Me?

How Much Do I Have To Help The Realtor Who Wants To Evict Me?

How Much Do I Have To Help The Realtor Who Wants To Evict Me?

What are my rights in regard to Open Houses/viewings of my apartment when my building is for sale?

My situation:

I live in a 4-unit rent controlled building (built in 1906). The owners of our building recently died and the trustees of the estate came by with a realtor to assess the building.

I overheard the realtor telling the trustees that they should encourage a buyer to “Ellis us all.” Of course I did my homework and researched Ellis Act, and I know that it’s not as easy as she told them. However, it really upset me that she would say it like that, and encourage them to tell a buyer to do that.

Initially, I was helpful to them but now, without being hostile or breaking any laws, I have no desire to help them sell this building and I have no desire to accommodate this awful realtor. I don’t intend on being hostile but I do want to make things difficult for her because why shouldn’t I?

What are my rights in regard to her Open Houses that she will no doubt plan? Do I have any rights in limiting the viewings that she will schedule? I don’t want to let strangers into my home 24/7 and I also have a dog that will attack strangers/run out if I’m not home so I do need to plan in advance.

Do I have any rights in limiting views of Open Houses? Or do I have to just allow strangers to trample through my home with a disrespectful realtor?

Real estate agents–irrefutable proof that the United States is not a meritocracy. Between the lies, the drivel and the nonsensical notion that real estate agents are professionals, these guys make lawyers look good. On top of it all, despite the fact that it may benefit them, realtors don’t know jack shit about the law. When it comes to legal analytical skills, or the ability to read, it makes me wonder if there’s an IQ requirement to be licensed as a realtor–82 or lower.

Last year, after I had negotiated a postponement of an inspection with a seller’s agent to accommodate my disabled client, the buyer’s agent had the temerity to call me and say, “He (my client) is no more disabled than you or me.” I don’t think she expected my response: “What the fuck did you just say to me?” Needless to say, this moron’s advice to her client cost the buyer thousands of dollars in legal fees and tens of thousands of dollars more paid to my client.

As a tenant, you have no duty to help a landlord or his realtor sell a building. You don’t have to be nice to them. You cannot, however, obstruct the sales process.

All leases have an implied covenant of quiet enjoyment. You have the right to to enjoy possession of the premises without unreasonable interference or unjustified entry from the landlord or his agents. The tension between your right to enjoyment of your apartment and the landlord’s right to sell the building can create significant conflict with respect to marketing a building.

First, I recommend that you read and try to understand California Civil Code §1954(a) which states:

A landlord may enter the dwelling unit only in the following cases:
(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 an inspection pursuant to subdivision (f) of Section 1950.5.
(3) When the tenant has abandoned or surrendered the premises.
(4) Pursuant to court order.

Also note that Civil Code §1954(d)(2) provides:

If the purpose of the entry is to exhibit the dwelling unit to prospective or actual purchasers, the notice may be given orally, in person or by telephone, if the landlord or his or her agent has notified the tenant in writing within 120 days of the oral notice that the property is for sale and that the landlord or agent may contact the tenant orally for the purpose described above. Twenty-four hours is presumed reasonable notice in the absence of evidence to the contrary. The notice shall include the date, approximate time, and purpose of the entry. At the time of entry, the landlord or agent shall leave written evidence of the entry inside the unit.

Second, inform the landlord and the landlord’s agent, in writing, that you have a dog in the unit that could bite a perceived intruder.

Third, within the context that you must be present at any showing because of the dog, try to arrange a schedule with the agent that will comport with yours. Tell her that you are willing to work with her.

If the real estate agent refuses to accommodate you, remind her that her refusal will create liability for the landlord, her client, and point out in writing:

  • You have a right to quiet enjoyment of the premises;
  • She must comply with Civil Code California Civil Code §1954 (Be sure to provide her a copy.);
  • If she continues to enter unreasonably, even if the dog doesn’t bite, you will. That you can file a lawsuit against her and the landlord pursuant to Rent Ordinance §37.10B (landlord harassment) and Civil Code §1940.2 for significant intentional violations of C.C. §1954 that carries a penalty of up to $2,000 per violation; and that you will file a complaint with the San Francisco Association of Realtors and the California Department of Real Estate.

Frankly, I don’t know if complaints filed with the Association of Realtors or the DRE have much weight, but I’ve found that realtors don’t know that either (reading issues) and I have used the threat effectively.

Reread my blog post, Even Dracula Had to Have an Invite Before He Could Enter.

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

My Building Has Turned Into A Den Of Crime

My Building Has Turned Into A Den Of Crime

My Building Has Turned Into A Den Of Crime

Den of crime.

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 Boyfriend Moved Out, And My Rent Went Up

My Boyfriend Moved Out, And My Rent Went Up

My Boyfriend Moved Out, And My Rent Went Up

I have a question about rental/tenant law for a multi-unit building in San Francisco that was built in the 1920s. When a person who was not on the original lease moves in and starts paying checks to a manager in their name, does that give them status as an official tenant for whom the rent cannot be raised? Basically, I moved into the apartment of a man who I was dating at the time.

He moved to LA, and I began to pay rental checks to the manager. About 2 years after the original tenant moved out, it came to the attention of the landlord that I was occupying the apartment and her lawyer sent me a letter raising the rent.

At that time, it was unclear to me whether I was considered an official tenant for whom the rent could not be raised – after all, the landlord’s agent, the manager, had been accepting my checks.

To keep things amicable, I negotiated a slightly lower rental increase (an increase of about 10% or $150/month) and signed a new lease. I’m wondering if I was a sucker and should have held out for maintaining the original rent?

No, you were not a sucker! As a practicing attorney, I have learned (sometimes the hard way) that outcomes in trial or other proceedings like Rent Board hearings are often uncertain. You simply settled your case without going to arbitration. Remember, about 95% of all court litigation settles before trial. You are not a sucker, you’re simply a pragmatist.

Now, let’s do some Wednesday morning quarterbacking.

There are two statutes that come into play when analyzing the facts of your case. If you had gone to arbitration, the landlord would have relied on The Costa Hawkins Rental Housing Act (Ca. Civil Code sections 1954.50-1954.535) to justify the rent increase. Specifically section 1954.53(d)(4) provides:

“Acceptance of rent by the owner shall not operate as a waiver or otherwise prevent enforcement of a covenant prohibiting sublease or assignment or as a waiver of an owner’s rights to establish the initial rental rate unless the owner has received written notice from the tenant that is party to the agreement and thereafter accepted rent.”

The landlord would argue that you are not an original occupant and, despite the fact that you paid rent directly to her agent, she did not waive his right to increase the rent.

By the way, Costa Hawkins should be repealed. I believe that all tenants should email their legislators every hour of every day demanding a repeal of Costa-Hawkins so that rent control can be uniformly applied to all buildings in San Francisco and other rent controlled jurisdictions.

Your counter argument would derive from San Francisco Rent Board Rules & Regulations section 6.14(c)(1-3). A subsequent occupant can show that a landlord , in fact, waived his right to increase the rent by:

“(1) Affirmatively representing to the subsequent occupant that he/she may remain in possession of the unit at the same rental rate charged to the original occupant(s); or

(2) Failing, within 90 days of receipt of written notice that the last original occupant is going to vacate the rental unit or actual knowledge that the last original occupant no longer permanently resides at the unit, whichever is later, to serve written notice of a rent increase or a reservation of the right to increase the rent at a later date; or

(3) Receiving written notice from an original occupant of the subsequent occupant’s occupancy and thereafter accepting rent unless, within 90 days of said acceptance of rent, the landlord reserved the right to increase the rent at a later date.”

(I’m assuming that inception of the original tenancy was after January 1, 1996 and that your BF moved out on or after April 25, 2000.)

In a hearing, you would argue that the landlord agent’s conduct of accepting rent from you for two years operates as a waiver to her right to increase the rent. Hopefully, you could add facts like, “I told the manage that my ex moved out; I handed my check to the manager every month; I made numerous repair quests, etc.”

I’ve seen many of these cases at the Rent Board and they all depend on the facts. Earlier this month we denied an appeal from a landlord because the facts were clear the his agent had accepted the subsequent occupant as a an ordinal tenant. But I have seen cases in which the landlord prevails with, frankly, similar but not as compelling facts.

So, no, you weren’t a sucker settling a case that, conceivably, you could have lost.

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