(415)552-9060
Locked Out Of The Laundry Room

Locked Out Of The Laundry Room

Locked Out Of The Laundry Room

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Landlord Crybabies Forced To Ellis Because Landlording Became So Unpleasant

Landlord Crybabies Forced To Ellis Because Landlording Became So Unpleasant

Landlord Crybabies Forced To Ellis Because Landlording Became So Unpleasant

Landlord crybabies.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why Can’t We All Just Get Along?

Why Can’t We All Just Get Along?

Why Can’t We All Just Get Along?

Dear Readers: I want to respond to Steve, who commented on last week’s column, Smoky the Guest You may remember that I specifically avoided advising Princess about how she could take this issue to the landlord. I felt I was responding directly to her reticence to get her neighbor in trouble with the landlord. I also wanted to convey my conviction that it is rarely justifiable for a tenant to campaign for the eviction of another tenant.

Steve asked: This might not be a tenant-vs-tenant issue if: the lease prohibits longterm guests; the lease prohibits subleasing; and/or the lease prohibits smoking. In which case, it would potentially be a landlord-vs-tenant issue, right?

Can a lease in SF legally contain any of the above rules? If so can a landlord enforce them?

The short answer is, I agree, and yes to all of the above. A lease can contain all sorts of prohibitions. Many leases contain clauses prohibiting or limiting long term guests. Almost all leases prohibit or limit subletting. These days more and more leases prohibit smoking in the unit.

There are no laws or rules that regulate actual wording of a lease unless those terms are discriminatory, illegal or void as against public policy. That’s not to say that there aren’t a whole bunch of laws defining what is against public policy. For example, a term limiting or prohibiting a tenant’s right to complain about uninhabitable conditions is unenforceable, as is a term shifting the responsibility to correct those conditions from the landlord to the tenant.

So, yes, a lease in San Francisco can contain all of those terms and none of those categories of terms have been found void as against public policy. (I believe that terms restricting guests or visitors should be void as against public policy because they infringe on the constitutional right of free association, but I don’t think there is much case law on that issue.)

And, yes, the landlord in this case could enforce those terms if they were contained in the neighbor’s lease. But how would the landlord find out about the guest or the illegal sublet or the smoke? Princess or another tenant in the building would have to rat the neighbor out. Then, assuming he followed procedure and could prove his case for breach of the lease, the landlord could evict the neighbor for cause. He could righteously proclaim that he did it for Princess’s benefit, when in fact he did it to get rid of a long-term, rent-controlled tenant and raise the rent to $2,500.00!

As tenants, we have to be very careful about advocating the eviction of other tenants. Clearly, I’m not saying you have to put up with a knife-wielding psychopath who threatens your children. (Often, that’s the landlord anyway, except that he’s a lead-paint-chip wielding sociopath.) But seriously, tenants need to stick together as often as possible.

We need to try to create community in our buildings so that when problems like noisy neighbors or smoky neighbors arise, solutions can be discussed without mutual distrust. Think about it, it is in the landlord’s interest to keep tenants at each others’ throats. When tenants fight among one another they don’t band together politically to, say, make the landlord weatherstrip the front door to keep the smoke out of the hallway or pass laws to require landlords to noiseproof between floors to justify charging the $2,500.00.

Princess did the right thing by refusing to cave into an urge to try to just get rid the problem by getting rid of her neighbor. It’s unfortunate that she didn’t feel like she knew Smoky well enough to invite herself in for a beer and help him rewrite his resume.

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

Tenant Buyouts: The Agreement

Tenant Buyouts: The Agreement

Tenant Buyouts: The Agreement

If you have negotiated a buyout agreement with your landlord, you have to get that agreement in writing. Any landlord who balks at this is going to screw you, end of story. If I was a landlord lawyer I’d say the same thing about a tenant. Unfortunately, in my experience, I find that tenants are more trusting.

Let’s say that you have come to a general agreement that provides for the landlord paying you $30,000.00 to move. Your move-out date is July 1. Now it’s time to get into the specifics.

Get half of your money up front in the agreement.

Most landlords and their attorneys understand that this is not an unreasonable request. I point out that my clients want to move as soon as they can and they usually need a good chunk of cash to accomplish that. After all it’s not unusual anymore to have to put $5,000.00 or $6,000.00 down to to secure a new apartment, not to mention moving costs. Often landlords ask for the first and last month’s rent with a security deposit equivalent to another month’s rent. I would be wary of making a deal that provided for the whole payment to come after you move. There’s just too much temptation for a landlord to find a pretext to refuse to pay you.

Make your move-out date on the first of the month rather that the last day of the month.

This is an obvious one. While I never recommend this, you have all night to tidy up if you need it. If your move-out date fall on a Friday or during a weekend and you are required to deliver the keys to the landlord’s attorney, you want to make arrangements about “surrendering” the property with that in mind.

In one of our negotiations we settled on a vacate date with a time of midnight on that date. My clients were pushing the deadline and they were still cleaning the apartment when, you guessed it, the landlord pulls up and accuses them of breaching the agreement. They finished moving at 1 a.m. Needless to say, I had a discussion about the concept of “substantial performance” with the landlord’s attorney the next day and they got paid.

Don’t agree that the landlord will refund your security deposit “according to law.”

Chances are you’re not thrilled about moving and probably a little miffed at your landlord. You don’t want to have to communicate with him again, 21 days after you move (if ever), to wrangle your security deposit. I like to get a clause that provides for the landlord to do a walk-through and refund the deposit with the final payment.

Add a clause that allows you to leave the unit in “broom clean” condition.

Here’s the one we insist upon:  Tenant agrees that, upon vacating, they will remove all Tenant’s personal property and other things from the premises, and otherwise leave the premises in broom clean condition. “Broom clean” shall be defined as follows: Free of all personal property, debris and garbage in all parts of the premises, common areas, sidewalks in front of the building and any storage areas in the building associated with the premises. The premises shall be swept with a broom. The definition of broom clean shall not include the scrubbing of walls ceilings, appliances, fixtures or carpet cleaning. The definition shall not include repair or maintenance of defective conditions, patching nail holes or painting.

Releases in the agreement should always be mutual.

Releases come in all shapes and sizes. Essentially they are comprised of lists of actions and people that you are releasing from any further liability based upon your relinquishment of your tenants rights. Here is an example of a release clause that is fairly succinct:  “Subject to the provisions of this Settlement Agreement, the Settling Parties forever release each other, their predecessors, officers, employees, members, agents, attorneys, successors, assigns, heirs and personal representatives, and partners from any and all claims, liens, demands, causes of action, obligations, damages, expenses and liabilities of any kind whatsoever, whether at this time suspected, known or unknown.”

I like releases to be mutual like the example above. That way all the parties walk away with assurances that they cannot be sued later. While a tenant may not have as many reasons to sue if she got paid, it’s still a good idea that she didn’t sign away rights unilaterally.

Landlord move-out enforcement.

Some landlords’ attorneys like top use a “Doe Complaint.” It’s a fairly cumbersome agreement in which that landlord actually files an unlawful detainer (eviction) lawsuit naming Jane Doe. The tenant agrees that the landlord can amend the complaint to add the tenant’s real name if the tenant does not timely vacate. It’s a draconian remedy, arguably unenforceable. Other landlords’ lawyers use a “Stipulation of Judgment.” You sign away all your rights to trial, etc. the landlord can use the document to go to court and get a judgment for possession against the tenant.

I am, surprisingly, not put off by most landlords buyout enforcement mechanisms.  I tell my clients, If there is the slightest chance you can’t move out when you agree to do so, don’t sign the agreement. Clearly if something happens to you that is unexpected like emergency hospitalization, you have defenses for non-performance. But I am not talking about waiting for that perfect $900 per month cottage in Pacific Heights.

Insist on an attorneys fees clause to a the prevailing party enforcing the agreement.

If you don’t get your last payment you do not want to have to pay a lawyer to sue to enforce the agreement without a chance to get those fees reimbursed. Attorneys fees clauses are reciprocal by law. Make sure that you’re in the right before you sue to enforce your agreement.

Here is an example:  “In the event any action or proceeding is brought to enforce the terms of this Settlement Agreement, the prevailing party shall recover his or her or its attorney fees and costs to enforce this Settlement Agreement from the other party.”

There are many other nuances to buyout agreements. These are the basics. Even if you can negotiate everything for yourself, it’s still a good idea to have a lawyer look over your final draft.

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

Tenant Buyouts: Strategy for Success

Tenant Buyouts: Strategy for Success

Tenant Buyouts: Strategy for Success

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

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

You’re not going to get your down payment.

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

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

Subdivision Code §1396.2

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

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

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

Negotiate before the notice is served.

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

Negotiation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tenant Buyouts: Your Absolute Bottom Line

Tenant Buyouts: Your Absolute Bottom Line

Tenant Buyouts: Your Absolute Bottom Line

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

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

Are you young enough?

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

Are you disabled enough?

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

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

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

Are you old enough?

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

Understand your absolute bottom line.

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

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

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

Include the security deposit and unpaid interest.

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

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

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

Buyouts

Buyouts

Buyouts

“It’s a game of chicken”—Ted Gullicksen

If you negotiate a buyout with your landlord, you don’t want to be the person plummeting off the cliff. That is why we will help you if you decide to take a buyout.

What are buyouts?

A buyout is simply a negotiated settlement before litigation in which the tenants are paid money to vacate and all of the parties release all of their rights. In rent controlled jurisdictions like San Francisco, landlords often offer tenants money to vacate their unit and waive any future tenants’ rights they have. A landlord who offers a buyout is literally purchasing a tenant’s future rights to the unit.

Landlords offer buyouts to tenants for several reasons.

A couple of years ago when property was hot, developers bought buildings to turn them into TICs with the eventual plan to convert the units to condominiums. A TIC (tenancy-in-common) is a shared ownership of a building. In these cases developers sell shares in a building. Each of the shares includes a right to exclusively occupy a given unit in the building. Often developers used the infamous Ellis Act to clear buildings of tenants. I’ll save the sordid history and diastorous consequences  of the Ellis Act for another post.

Another scenario occurs when an owner wants to move into a given unit in a building. A landlord could be entitled to evict a tenant using the just cause of owner-move-in eviction (OMI).  In San Francisco an owner must jump through several procedural hoops and have the intent to live in the unit as his principal place of residence for three years.

Sometimes landlords are out and out lying about their intentions. They serve Ellis notices and OMI notices as a pretext to evict rent-controlled tenants to simply raise the rents. As you can imagine, there have been many documented abuses of these landlord rights resulting in many wrongful evictions. But unfortunately there are many other tenants who shrug their shoulders and move.

If you are offered a “cash for keys” buyout by a foreclosing bank or a sleazy real estate agent who claims to represent the bank, never take it unless you consult with an attorney or a tenants’ rights group.

Finally there are landlords who offer tenants buyouts just to get them to move to raise rents. Think the notorious CitiApartments and their tactic of tenant harassment with buy-out offers ten times a day. You should almost never consider a buy-out when you are offered one by a big landlord you know can’t even come up with a pretext to evict you.

When can you expect a buyout?

Usually buyout offers come with changes in ownership. A new landlord purchases the building or the greedy children inherit the building from your nice old landlord who immediately made repairs when you requested them and who brought you cookies at Christmas. If there are no changed circumstances in ownership a buy-out offer can indicate a landlord’s future intent to sell the building.

Most legitimate buy-outs are offered to tenants in buildings with six units or less in San Francisco because condominium conversion is prohibited in buildings with more than six units.

Get as much information as you can about the landlord.

Like almost all other decisions you will make regarding your tenancy, this is a business decision. Gather as much information as you can. Talk to other tenants in the building to see if they have been approached by the landlord. Has the landlord evicted tenants like this before?

In one case we represented a long-term tenant with an OMI threat from the landlord. He did excellent research and found that the landlord had served an OMI notice to another tenant in another building a year previously. Clearly the threat to our client was bogus because the landlord couldn’t live in two places at the same time.

So take some time to find out what other properties the landlord owns. Property ownership is a public record available through the Assessor-Recorder’s office. Does the landlord claim he wants to move into your one-bedroom, when in fact, he lives in a mansion in Forest Hills? You want to know this before you negotiate.

Eviction notices are also filed with the San Francisco Rent Board. Sometimes you can determine a landlord’s true motives by understanding his past eviction pattern.

Think it through and do the math.

Remember, if a landlord tells you he’s thinking of moving in or removing all the tenants in the building using the Ellis Act, in San Francisco, you will be entitled to relocation payments pursuant to Rent Ordinance §37.9C—as of this writing, approximately $5,000 per tenant up to three tenants, $3,300 for each disabled or elderly tenant and $3,300 for families with minor children. Check the linked chart. Notice that Ellis payments and qualifications are slightly different. That’s your bottom line. If the landlord offers less, he’s a Cheese Ball, too cheap to hire a lawyer and too stupid to read the law.

Next, think about the additional rent you will be paying if you move. You should factor that in, especially if you think the landlord might be offering you a buyout because the eviction threat is a pretext.

Finally think about how much time you will need to find another place to live and remember the more time you request the less money you will be offered.

Citistop, the tenants’ organization that played a huge role in the demise of CitiApartments, has some very good advice about buyouts from the perspective of tenants whose landlord never had a basis to evict them.

Tenant buyouts, especially those designed to empty units for TICs, deplete rent controlled housing stock. Yet, in some cases, notably Ellis Act eviction threats or quasi-credible OMI eviction threats, a tenant may not have any defenses to a future eviction if they stay and fight it out.

For some tenants, a buyout may be preferable to suing for wrongful eviction in the future, especially if the landlord’s rationale to evict may be sound. I believe it is extremely important to develop a strategy that considers all of your options and all of the pitfalls before you negotiate a buyout.