(415)552-9060
How Do I Dump A Deadbeat Roommate?

How Do I Dump A Deadbeat Roommate?

by | Nov 18, 2010 | Roommates

How Do I Dump A Deadbeat Roommate?

What are the laws governing kicking out one of your roommates? I read in one of your previous columns that its impossible for a landlord to evict individuals but can it be done by roommates? I’ve got a flat that I share with two people and one of them is a deadbeat. Our lease states that we can only pay rent with a single rent check. Not wanting to incur any late penalties and stay in the good graces of our landlord, on many instances we’ve had to cover the deadbeat’s rent while he finds some scheme to come up with the money. The problem has been getting progressively worse and I fear he might skip out on paying rent all together. Is there anything the other roommate and I can do to get rid of this guy?

Held Hostage by Housemate

Dear HHH,

As you may know from reading Tenant Troubles and from our website, my firm, Crow & Rose, does not represent master tenants seeking to evict their roommates. So I’m reluctant to give advice about how to evict a roommate. I do, however recognize that your predicament is one faced by many tenants and, as you pointed out, your entire tenancy has been placed in jeopardy because your roommate can’t pay his rent. So, I’m not going to talk about the procedure you could use to evict your roommate; you’ll have to get advice from a landlord’s lawyer for that. But I am going to answer your question because this happens all the time.

The first questions to ask: Did you and your roommates all move in at the same time? Are you all on the lease? If that is the case, you do not have the right to evict your roommate at all because you don’t have a “landlord-tenant relationship” with him. You are all co-occupants or co-tenants.

I am assuming that you are a San Francisco tenant living in a rent-controlled apartment. If one of you is a master tenant (a named tenant on the lease who rented a room to the roommate), he may have the right to evict the roommate without just cause. (See Rent Ordinance Rules and Regulations section 6.15C.) A master tenant may always evict a sub-tenant for just cause, in this case for non-payment or habitual late payment of rent. It may involve serving an unlawful detainer, an expensive process that most tenants just cannot afford. Talk to a landlord attorney.

I always think that the best course of action is to try to work it out. You have to talk to this guy with the understanding that he is probably scared as shit. Any scheming and bravado masks his fear of homelessness–unless he’s a total sociopath. You are not his mommy and he can’t expect you to pay his share of the rent.

You could try to mediate the problem to come up with an agreement for him to do what’s necessary to pay rent. I believe the Rent Board has expanded its mediation service to include this type of mediation. Give them a call. You might also try contacting Community Boards.

If your rent is more or less market rate, you may want to consider moving. Sometimes that’s the only way to extricate yourself form a problem like this. I’ve talked to roommates who moved and left the deadbeat to fend for himself. If you are considering that option, you should speak to a counselor at the San Francisco Tenants Union to go over your lease and develop a strategy that minimizes the chance of being sued by the old landlord when deadbeat doesn’t pay the rent.

I understand that times are tough. I believe that, as a society we must work for a more egalitarian system–one that can provide low-cost or even free housing for those who need it. I firmly believe that landlords can be parasites.

But this is the real world. In the real world you have to figure out a way to pay your rent. As a roommate, you have to understand that you jeopardize the entire tenancy when you can’t, for whatever reason, pay the rent.

In many cases, tenants will cover for each other. Tenants are great that way.

Hey deadbeat, when your roommates can’t cover you any more, it may be time to move. If you don’t and you drag your roommates down with you, you’re the parasite. You’re the person that confirms all the shitty attitudes out there about tenants. You’re living proof to those who would rule us that an egalitarian society is impossible.

Your roommate is going to have to quit scheming and, ouch, get a job. Maybe it’s a shitty job that’s beneath him, but he can still employ his con-artistry to unionize his fellow employees.

Share On Facebook
Share On X
Share On Reddit
Share Via Email
Share On Telegram

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

Contact Us
Sitemap
Privacy Policy
Is This Legal Advice?

My Sink Stinks

My Sink Stinks

by | Nov 11, 2010 | Habitability

My Sink Stinks

I live in a very old building (circa 1924) and like many old buildings it has problems. Right now I’m having one where for some reason, my sink is bubbling up water and sludge like a geyser every few hours.

I had a similar problem at a similar vintage building. I called the management company, they had someone on the way within hours, and made sure the problem was fixed (it has to do with the vent system for the pipes.) No problem.

Here, however, the manager on site is taking longer to get this fixed. In the meantime I can’t use my sink to do dishes and the smell is awful. It’s not entirely the manager’s fault – the landlord (who lives far away) does not like to hire good contractors and has to approve big projects (in this case requiring the roofers to unblock the vent they accidentally blocked) thus dragging out what the manager has said is a fairly easy problem to solve.

Question is this: if this keeps up I’ll haven not had the use of my sink or my kitchen for at least a week. Do I have any recourse, financially or otherwise? It seems a bit much when I’m paying over $1000/month for a studio to have to put up with this too.

(and yes, I’ve taken photos, etc. and documented all of this).

Back in Florida, or wherever, your landlord thinks he has done enough. He reroofed the building for christsakes, what else do you want? He’s pissed that he had to spend the money, but he also thinks, “Hey, I’m a hero.” After all, how many landlords ever reroof their buildings? For more on this feel free to read my blog post, “A Cave By Any Other Name.”

This issue is more common than you might think. It happens with new tar and gravel roofs. The vents for the sewer pipes usually rise a couple feet over the roof. Yet somehow, either during the removal of the old roof or the application of the new, tar and gravel gets into the vents and falls to the bottom of the pipe assembly. The drains become clogged in the manner you describe. I don’t understand why this happens. Perhaps one of our roofer readers can help me out.

The stinky sink could become a health issue as well as a breach of the warranty of habitability. You have to get into “making a case” mode. It’s good that you have documentation. You should also begin to communicate your frustration to the manager or owner or both in writing. As I’ve said before, emails will do the trick. Tell the manager that you will be calling a Housing Inspector at the Department of Building Inspection if the problem isn’t solved in a couple of days.

You might consider hiring a plumber to repair the clog and deducting the cost from your rent, but that can get dicey. Civil Code §1942 governs the process, but you must make sure you have ample documentation to prove the landlord unreasonably delayed or refused to repair the problem. The code also provides that you cannot deduct more than one month’s rent. This remedy could come back to bite you because the landlord could try to evict you for nonpayment of rent. You don’t want to be a defendant in an unlawful detainer lawsuit, because, even if you’re right, it will cost an arm and a leg to defend the suit. And I rarely think it’s good idea to try to represent yourself in an eviction.

The better, although slower, approach is to call a Housing Inspector. She will definitely write a Notice of Violation for the problem you describe. Usually that gets the landlord to act because he could be fined by the City if he waits. An NOV also starts the clock for you to consider not paying your rent. Civil Code §1942.4 essentially provides that you can refuse to pay your rent 35 days after the NOV, if the landlord hasn’t done anything to fix the problem.

Join the San Francisco Tenants Union. They can help you evaluate your case and decide upon the best strategy to get the drain unclogged and to recover your damages. Good luck.

Share On Facebook
Share On X
Share On Reddit
Share Via Email
Share On Telegram

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

Contact Us
Sitemap
Privacy Policy
Is This Legal Advice?

Foreclosure: Banks Too Big to Fail, Too Big to Obey the Law

Foreclosure: Banks Too Big to Fail, Too Big to Obey the Law

by | Oct 18, 2010 | Tenant Law

Foreclosure: Banks Too Big to Fail, Too Big to Obey the Law

A well-organized gang blatantly violates the law for the sole purpose of lining their pockets. What? Are the Sopranos back in business? They may not use terms like “vig” or “nut”, but the banks are foreclosing as zealously as loan sharks. And they’re throwing innocent tenants out of their houses in the process.

During the last few weeks came revelations that banks have been foreclosing on properties that they may not even own!

None of this comes as any surprise to tenants and tenants’ rights organizations who have been complaining, since the meltdown, about banks’ illegal practices, including tenant evictions.

In May 2009, Congress passed the Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act which required, at minimum, a ninety-day notice to vacate for tenants without a term lease. Banks have been routinely violating the Federal law since it passed.

Even in San Francisco, with just cause eviction protection (foreclosure is not a just cause), we defended tenants who had already provided the bank (Wells Fargo) with copies of their leases! The bank’s attorneys filed an eviction anyway only naming the owner who didn’t live there (they had been informed of that too), but still seeking to remove the tenants from all of the units.

In May 2010, Tenants Together released its 2010 Report: California Renters in the Foreclosure Crisis. In late June, California Attorney General, Jerry Brown, announced that he would investigate whether tenants rights are violated in foreclosures. This month, the Governator signed Senate Bill 1149 which will help tenants who defend improper bank evictions maintain their credit ratings and require banks to inform tenants of their rights with an eviction notice.

Will these new requirements help? Maybe, but if San Francisco’s law requiring landlords to notify tenants of their rights upon placing a building for sale is any indication, the answer is: Not much. Most of the banks’ soldiers in the field, real estate agents and brokers, can’t read at all, let alone read and understand the law. And they don’t give a shit. If their bosses can act with impunity, why can’t they? Think back to why we got here in the first place.

The only real legal solution to this mess is to pass a statewide just cause eviction law. Even Tony Soprano’s home state, New Jersey, allows eviction for 16 just causes and foreclosure is not one of them.

What can you do if your building is sold in foreclosure?

Occasionally tenants will receive a notice of default meant for the owner. If you do, you have an advantage because you can begin to check public records to see if the there will be a foreclosure auction.

When you know the sale is final, stop paying rent to the owner. Remember the owner has been collecting your rent all the while he hasn’t been paying his mortgage. He needs the money and he will lie about the foreclosure to keep collecting your rent as long as he can. I’ve seen several cases in which the owner still wanted to collect rent in exchange for writing up new leases. This may sound attractive, but if a bank can prove you negotiated a sweetheart lease in anticipation of foreclosure, you could lose rights you may have to stay. Besides, it’s fraud.

Don’t spend the rent you withheld. After foreclosure, banks don’t often inform tenants how and where to pay rent, even if tenants ask. After a few months, they simply serve a three-day notice to pay or quit. If you don’t have the money to pay them you can be legally evicted.

Don’t communicate with the “representative of the bank” without proper notice. Often the first inkling you’ll have that the property is bank-owned is when you see a “representative” skulking around the building. He wants to ask you questions about your tenancy. He’s a real estate thug. He will want to talk about a “cash for keys” program and use veiled threats that you could be evicted if you don’t go along. Get his identification and as much information as you can about him and his employer. You can give him a copy of your lease if he will sign a receipt. You can also mention you know your rights as a tenant. Then politely inform him that you will call the cops if he ever shows his face again without proper notice pursuant to the law. In California it’s Civil Code section 1954.

Gather information. Try to find out who you can contact at the bank. It’s usually impossible because, like all experienced con artists, banks don’t answer the phone. Try to find out which attorneys represent the bank. If you happen to be dealing with a representative and ask him where to pay the rent, he might reply vaguely, “Oh don’t worry about that, the lawyers will send you something.” That’s the time to ask, “Who are the lawyers?” You need to be ready if you receive a notice to quit.

If you receive an unlawful notice to quit, don’t panic. If you live a a jurisdiction like San Francisco or Santa Monica that has a rent ordinance and eviction only for just cause, write a letter to the attorneys on the notice and point that out. Also tell them that if they proceed with an eviction you will file a complaint against them at the State Bar.

If you have a lease and you don’t live in an unenlightened city, send the lawyers a copy and tell them you have the right to stay until the lease expires under Federal law or 90 days whichever is longer. Once again, if they try to evict you illegally you will file a complaint with the State Bar.

Always communicate in writing. When I say “tell” I really mean write a letter.

Report abusive real estate agents to the local board or the California Department of Real Estate. When their licenses may be on the line, sometimes realtors will back off.

You get your security deposit back. Just because the bank did not collect the security deposit from the owner does not absolve it of its legal obligation to refund your security deposit in California. Civil Code section 1950.5(j) is clear that the landlord’s successor in interest is liable for your security if a transfer of the deposit has not be made to the new owner according to  Section 1950.5 (h). In a foreclosure scenario that transfer isn’t made because the old owner defaulted.

The foreclosure mess is far from over. It is time for Just Cause Eviction to be enacted statewide. The best thing you can do is to support Tenants Together with your money or your time.

Share On Facebook
Share On X
Share On Reddit
Share Via Email
Share On Telegram

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

Contact Us
Sitemap
Privacy Policy
Is This Legal Advice?

Your Landlord Is Lying To You, Why Are You Lying FOR Him?

Your Landlord Is Lying To You, Why Are You Lying FOR Him?

by | Sep 29, 2010 | Tenant Law

Your Landlord Is Lying To You, Why Are You Lying FOR Him?

Nov. 1, 2008 – Brad, Carmen, and Carole signed a 1 year lease for a single family house built in 1952 in San Francisco.

Aug. 1, 2009 – Carmen is laid off and posts an ad on Craigslist that I answer and then replace her on the 1 year lease.

Oct. 1, 2009 – Carole moves in with her boyfriend and we find a girl named Alison to replace her on the lease as well.

Nov 1, 2009 – The original 1 year lease expires and Brad, Alison, and I opt to stay here on a month to month basis.

May 1, 2010 – Alison moves out to go away to college and a girl named Valerie takes over her month to month status.

Sept. 16, 2010 – The landlord emails us saying we must vacate by Nov 1, 2010 and suggests using our deposits as rent.

Sept. 17, 2010 – I respond telling her that’s a No-Fault Eviction and that he will need to pay me and Brad $4,500 each.

Am I wrong or right about my interpretations of Prop H? I have been here a little over 1 year and Brad has been a little over 2 years.

Also…

A bank employee had come to the house several times the past few months asking if the landlord lives here and I gave purposefully vague answers and then called the landlord who asked that I lie to them next time and say she does live downstairs but was out that day.

This morning I was awakened by the mailman ringing our bell and I threw on my robe and answered the door and I had to sign my name for the envelope that I assumed was our eviction notice. However, I forgot to check the name on it and, after opening it, found it was addressed to the landlord and contained a document that is titled “NOTICE OF DEFAULT AND ELECTION TO SELL UNDER DEED OF TRUST”. I assume that means this place is in foreclosure.

When I mentioned the bank employee in my email to the landlord about relocation fees he called and said the bank has nothing to do with our eviction and that he is just having family from Hong Kong move to the US and needs a place to stay.

He was lying to the bank that he lived here and I think he may be lying about his family moving in too but I don’t think it even matters, no?

Am I really being “evicted”? I thought that was a legal term like bankrupt or divorced and is not the same as being asked to leave when a lease expires. Eviction is something a sheriff and a locksmith do, no? What is the point of the lease at all if the landlord can almost never ask you to leave when it expires without paying you? And what does month-to-month really mean if both parties can’t just up and walk away at a month’s notice?

I read the email thread attached to your question and decided to change the names of the members of your household because I don’t want the landlord to get any ideas if he reads this.

Your analysis of the situation is fairly accurate, but let’s review:

The fact that you live in a single family dwelling built before 1979 means that your tenancy is entitled to the protections of the “just cause” provisions of the San Francisco Rent Ordinance. In other words, you cannot be evicted unless the landlord can demonstrate one of the fifteen just causes under Rent Ordinance §37.9(a).

Your landlord’s email (which you also sent me but in the interests of brevity we did not include in this article) demonstrates that he doesn’t understand the Rent Ordinance when he claims that your lease is expired and that he has the right to ask you to leave. This is a common misconception harbored by landlords and tenants in San Francisco because it would be true without rent control.

If you study Rent Ordinance §37.9(a)(8), the owner-move-in (OMI) just cause, you’ll find that the owner cannot evict you to allow a relative to move in unless they live in the building too.

If the owner deeds the relative a 25% ownership of the house (very unlikely, given that it may be in foreclosure), then the relative (as an owner) can evict your household base on the OMI just cause. Then you and Brad would be entitled to relocation payments, as outlined in Rent Ordinance §37.9C. This year you’d get $5,101.00 apiece assuming you have no disabilities and neither of you is over 60 years old.

The “eviction notice” you received by email from your landlord could never support an unlawful detainer action, a lawsuit filed in Superior Court to formally evict tenants and thereby receive the court’s permission to get the sheriff to kick them out. So, no, you are not being evicted in the formal sense of the word.

How can the landlord evict you? Because you live in a single family dwelling (a house or condominium) and you moved in after 1995, your tenancy is exempt from the annual allowable rent increase section of the ordinance. The landlord can raise your rent as much as he wants as long as he can make a case that he didn’t increase the rent just to evict you. If you don’t pay the increase, the landlord can evict you for nonpayment of rent.

Given your recent interactions with the landlord, I think it would be tough for him to prove that he raised the rent in good faith, without ulterior motive. But you should understand that raising the rent could be the next gambit.

The next time a “bank employee” comes by the house, tell them politely that if they show up again, you’ll call the cops. They have no right at all to bother you if they don’t own the property. If they do own the house, they still need a 24-hour notice to inspect pursuant to California Civil Code §1954. Under that provision of the law, they would not have the right to “inspect” in order to grill you about the landlord’s whereabouts.

If anyone stops by to inquire about the property, always ask them for their ID before you kick them out. You never know who these jokers could be. They could be casing the joint to burglarize it.

Your landlord is probably a liar. This is could be a desperate attempt to empty the house to try to make a last ditch effort to sell it. Your landlord doesn’t have any problems lying to you. I hope you would never consider lying for him.

In this case, if you led the bank to believe that the landlord lives with you, the bank will claim that you are not tenants, but lodgers, when they come to evict you after foreclosure.

It may not be true and the law doesn’t support the premise, but the banks don’t care about the law.

I’ve written about this over and over. Your relationship with your landlord is not personal, it’s simply a business transaction. What if you were my client and I asked you to lie to the bank about the amount you paid me for my services? You’d think I was a sleazy lawyer who should be reported to the State Bar. And you’d be right.

Tenants: Never, ever lie for your landlord!

Share On Facebook
Share On X
Share On Reddit
Share Via Email
Share On Telegram

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

Contact Us
Sitemap
Privacy Policy
Is This Legal Advice?

Management Company Only Pretends We Have A Resident Manager

Management Company Only Pretends We Have A Resident Manager

by | Sep 24, 2010 | Tenant Law

Management Company Only Pretends We Have A Resident Manager

I understand that The California Code of Regulations stipulates that a building of 16 units or more is supposed to have a Resident Manager who shall “have charge of the apartment building.” It looks like certain landlords enjoy making sport of circumventing the clear spirit of this regulation (which certainly could benefit from being more specific) by making the defined duties of their Resident Manager non-existent.

I live in a 30-some-unit former Citiapartments building on Nob Hill, which is now in receivership.The interim property management (we’ve redacted the company’s name) company has installed a company employee in the unit that has always been the Manager’s Apartment. We received a paper notice announcing this person’s arrival as our “Resident Manager.”

However, the phone number the notice provides is answered, during their regular business hours, by the “Guest Services” desk of the property management company’s short-term rental operation. I’m not at all sure these humans are aware of the existence of actual tenants here, as opposed to short-term “guests,” and I believe not one of them has ever or will ever set foot on the premises.

So, when the police arrive at 2 in the morning and want to get in, they wake the first tenant listed on the directory. Likewise when a “guest” arrives after hours. Or the cable guy, exterminator, emergency plumber, or elevator repair team. I often find these kinds of folks standing helpless at the door or randomly dialing on the entry box, as do my neighbors.

The property management company can and does send repair people here, but they don’t buzz them in and show them where the problem is or give them access to it (e.g. the boiler room is locked). Sometimes these folks are given the entry code to buzz themselves in, which creates a whole other security issue, with all kinds of people having the run of the building.

Just this week, there was no heat for almost a week and there was never a notice posted or distributed about it. The phone answerers either had no idea what was going on or were providing nonsensical and/or contradictory information, and that only if you called and pushed for it. When the elevator goes out (not an infrequent event, given its age) there are no repair status reports posted or, more importantly, distributed directly to the disabled, so no way for disabled tenants to work around the outage or even know enough about what’s happening to ask for assistance to survive it.

When I needed repairs in my unit, the property management company told me to leave my door unlocked because they aren’t here to let the folks in and out of my apartment.

They also can’t, from their offices, supervise any repair work or the people doing it. So one comes home to complete messes, incomplete or incorrect repairs, and, in once recent case, a creepy note from a young workman affixed to a female tenant’s fridge.

We have reported the it’s-just-pretend Resident Manager situation to the Department of Building Inspection but when they investigate the complaint, the powers that be at the property management company points to this faux Resident Manager and the BI throws up his or her hands helplessly. The people who answer the phone at the property management company don’t even bother to pretend that this person living in the building has anything resembling “charge over the premises” when we call now. So the message to the regular tenants on this issue, seems to be “Suck on This.”

But must we? I’ve Googled up at least a couple of cases* in which the Rent Board granted “decrease in services” petitions to renters who reported the absence of a Resident Manager. Truly we would rather have the real thing than a bit of extra cash, but we’ll take what we can get.

Is there another or better way to persuade the property management company to comply with the spirit as well as the letter of California Code of Regulations, Title 25, Article 5, Section 42, Page 105? Or, if indeed the reg is too vague to be enforced in cases like ours, any chance there’s a campaign afoot to give it some real teeth?

Lately there has been a lot of discussion about vacation rentals and their impact upon rent control and affordable apartment inventory. New York and Paris have recently cracked down on vacation rentals and pied-à-terres.

You’d think that your property management company’s website alone would be prima facia evidence that the property management company has offered units for tourist or transient use, a blatant violation of San Francisco Municipal Code §41A.5.

Notice that that the Director of the Department of Building Inspection is responsible for the enforcement of Section 41A.5. You and your fellow tenants should write letters describing your property management company’s illegal practices to:

Ms. Vivian L. Day, Director
San Francisco Department of Building Inspection
1660 Mission Street, 6th Floor
San Francisco, CA 9410

Copy your letters to:

Mr. Dennis Herrera
City Attorney
City Hall, Room 234
1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place
San Francisco, CA 94102-4682

Ms. Kamala Harris, District Attorney
850 Bryant Street, Room 322
San Francisco, CA 94103

This will still be a tough case to prove. Why? Because your property management company will maintain that they would be happy to continue to rent “suites” to tenants even as rent controlled tenancies. What do they care if they have a long-term tenant paying $14,000.00 (or whatever) per month?

That’s why you may perceive some reticence to investigate and prosecute from the officials charged with that duty. Although the potential benefit in tax revenue to our cash strapped city should be motivation galore. (Yes, Laramar, Golden Gateway and others who rent “executive suites” should be paying the hotel tax!) But before I begin to castigate our public servants, let’s see what happens.

Write another version of the letter to the building’s receiver emphasizing the lack of the resident manager and the habitability issues. If the receiver has been appointed by the court they have a duty to protect assets, one of which is to avoid being sued.

You should also begin to document all of your complaints in writing. In other words, send letters to the “resident manager” directly, so that you can ask him or her questions like, “Did you receive our complaint?” “What did you do about it?” “Isn’t it your job as the resident manager to respond to tenant complaints?” “Answer the door for the police and workmen?” and “Just what do you do?” in the hearing for your decrease in services petition at the Rent Board.

Report the violations of the warranty of habitability to a Housing Inspector at the DBI.Notices of violation are also good evidence for decrease in services.

Refuse to buzz anyone in who isn’t coming to visit you. Let the “guests” do that. It will make them feel neighbors, members of the building community.

Finally, the Code of Regulations is clear that buildings with over 16 units must have a resident manager, janitor, housekeeper or other responsible person, but it doesn’t provide a penalty for a violation. A housing law written without a remedy is the legislature’s version of “Suck on this!”

Share On Facebook
Share On X
Share On Reddit
Share Via Email
Share On Telegram

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

Contact Us
Sitemap
Privacy Policy
Is This Legal Advice?

A Lease With An “Introductory Rate”?

A Lease With An “Introductory Rate”?

by | Aug 18, 2010 | Tenant Law

A Lease With An “Introductory Rate”?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Share On Facebook
Share On X
Share On Reddit
Share Via Email
Share On Telegram

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

Contact Us
Sitemap
Privacy Policy
Is This Legal Advice?

Can My Landlord Search My Apartment For Pot?

Can My Landlord Search My Apartment For Pot?

by | Jul 7, 2010 | Tenant Law

Can My Landlord Search My Apartment For Pot?

So, I just got this letter in the mail from the real estate company who owns the apartment building I’ve live in (about 15 units), and it just seems weird to me:

INSPECTION OF PREMISES – for Unsanitary Living Conditions, Hoarding, Alterations, Pets, and growing, cultivation, sale or use in any form of marijuana.

The owners and management company will notify and issue a 24-hour notice to inspect the units and building for Unsanitary Living Conditions, Hoarding, Alterations, Pets, and growing, cultivation, sale or use in any form of marijuana to protect and secure ALL tenants in the building.

IMPORTANT NOTE
Refusal to allow access is just cause ground for eviction Please do not lock the bedrooms, our owners; contractor and insurance representative would like to see the condition of each room.

Your advance cooperation is greatly appreciated by the Owners and [redacted].

Do no hesitate to contact this office if you have any questions or comments.

(All whacky punctuation is theirs.)

So, first, the obvious: Marijuana growing or any kind of use?? Are they going to check all the ashtrays and garbage cans for roaches and seeds? How much are they allowed to search? And ARE they allowed to search for something like a half smoked joint somewhere on the premises? I realize pot is illegal, and that counts as illegal activity, but do I really have to toss my stash? (Just kidding. Of COURSE I don’t have a stash!)

Second, does 24-hour notice have to come in the form of a phone call? Or can they mail a letter that I might not get until the day of or after the inspection and have that count as 24-hour notice? And do I really not have the right to insist on a different day if I prefer?

Lastly, who decides what counts as “hoarding” anyway? Could they evict a tenant for having too many magazines stacked next to the bed because they deem that as hoarding? I mean seriously, WTF? And even if they were to claim something like that as hoarding, can they evict you then and there, or does a tenant have a legal right to rectify the situation and keep their apartment?

From what I understand of the code about landlord entry and from your earlier column, they can only come in the case on an emergency, to make repairs etc. that we’ve agreed upon, or to show the unit to potential buyers or tenants. I guess the real question is, are they allowed come in for the reasons they are listing?

If they aren’t, then they can’t really evict me for refusing, right? And, if they aren’t allowed to come in for this “inspection,” and were to do it anyway, essentially illegally, then how could they use anything they find as a legal means of eviction?

But seriously. Looking for POT? And hoarding? WTF?!

WTF?! I have always said that successful real estate brokers and sales people are proof that the United States is not a meritocracy. Imagine my disdain for those involved in property management–real estate “industry” groupies who will do anything to rub up against the big money. I’m guessing that the recent real estate conference, “It May Not Be As Easy To Steal, But Sure As Shoot You Can Still Lie!” had a seminar called, “Evict ‘Em Now Before It Becomes Legal.”

This notice comes straight from the CitiApartments playbook.You probably heard the story about how their goon squad illegally entered an apartment, videoed a bong and then threatened the tenant with eviction for illegal drug use. An entry based on this notice or a subsequent notice with a date and time would be just as illegal from my reading of California Civil Code §1954. Reread “Sorry, CitiApartments, Routine Inspections Are Illegal.” Remember any such notice must be in writing, no phone calls.

We live in a cynical era where politicians and demagogues advance their own petty agendas by justifying them in the name of security. We all know that the Fourth Amendment, indeed the entire Constitution, has taken a beating for the last 30 years. It’s not surprising that I have seen an uptick in landlord demands for passports and greencards of visitors and relatives or inspections like this. My take on this (and I may be too idealistic) is that one still has to get a warrant to search for marijuana in this manner. The key exception is emergency or “exigent circumstances” when the court will allow a warrantless search. But this applies to the police.

Landlords still can’t deputize themselves, declare an emergency and demand entry. I hope I’m not being naïve. Because we don’t live in Arizona, I find it hard to believe that the police would act on an emergency call from the management company based on any of the allegations above. That’s not to say the landlord won’t make something else up, however, they would not be able to conduct the inspection in the manner they wish if the cops are searching for roaches and seeds. If you find yourself in the unfortunate position of asking a cop to see the warrant, show him the notices and suggest (as delicately as possible) that he has been duped by the landlord, wasting valuable public resources.

Real hoarding and cluttering, not a stack of magazines next to the bed, is often the symptom of a disability–depression, elderly dementia, obsessive/compulsive disorder. In my experience at the Homeless Advocacy Project where I more or less specialized in the issue, you know hoarding and cluttering when you see it or smell it. There is a real nuisance or fire hazard.

I’ve seen three-bedroom apartments stacked to the ceilings with newspapers, magazines, clothes and trash. I had a client who, literally, picked up every cigarette butt and every shiny object or piece of metal he found on the street and took it home to supply and construct his spaceship.

Often landlords learn of the problem because other tenants report cockroach and mice infestations or unrepaired leaks from above. If a person is threatened with eviction for creating a nuisance by hoarding, they can often request a reasonable accommodation for their disability to get the time and resources to clean up the mess. If you know anyone in your building who may be hoarding and vulnerable to eviction, refer them to the San Francisco Mental Health Association or the Homeless Advocacy Project.

Your final question is the most difficult one because it presents the universal tenant conundrum. How can you enforce your rights if the landlord tries to evict you illegally based on this idiotic notice? Lawyers are expensive. While many tenant lawyers, ourselves included, will take an occasional case to make a point, it doesn’t happen that often. That’s why many advocacy groups may suggest that you allow entry so you won’t jeopardize your tenancy.

It’s a shitty deal. It’s the reason to contact your legislators, the courts and anyone else involved in the program to find out how you can voice your issues to help implement the new law in California guaranteeing low income tenants the right to representation at an unlawful detainer. Call Tenants Together and ask how you can get involved.

In the meantime, put down that joint, hide your stash, toss the magazines and inform the management Nazis, in writing, that you feel secure enough in your building and that their pre-notice is illegal pursuant to Civil Code §1954.

If you receive another notice, try to take it to the San Francisco Tenants Union or a tenant lawyer to develop a strategy for your next response.

Share On Facebook
Share On X
Share On Reddit
Share Via Email
Share On Telegram

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

Contact Us
Sitemap
Privacy Policy
Is This Legal Advice?