The Tenant owns me

Palmpilot said:
Here's the text of it. (Note that this article is discussing a city ordinance, not state law. I'm not sure what jurisdiction luvflyin is dealing with.)

An Oakland couple forced to pay more than $6,500 to move back into their own home lost their latest legal battle Wednesday, affirming — at least for now — a controversial city ordinance.

Lyndsey Ballinger and her wife, Sharon Ballinger, sued the city in 2018, claiming the hefty sum was unconstitutional and unfair. The fee came as a shock, they said, because they began renting out their home before Oakland passed the ordinance requiring landlords to compensate some tenants for relocating. When a federal judge dismissed the case in 2019, the Ballingers appealed. On Wednesday, the Ballingers lost again after a panel of appellate judges affirmed the trial court’s ruling, throwing out the couple’s case.

“They’re disappointed and considering their options,” said the Ballingers’ attorney, J. David Breemer with the Pacific Legal Foundation. The couple may take the case to the Supreme Court, he said.

The lawsuit took aim at Oakland’s Uniform Relocation Ordinance that requires landlords to pay tenants thousands of dollars if they are evicted for no fault of their own, such as making way for the owner or a family member to move in or when an apartment is converted into a condo. Tenants’ rights advocates say the ordinance helps displaced renters afford first and last month’s rent and a security deposit in a new place — and helps prevent them from becoming homeless in the Bay Area’s expensive rental market.

San Francisco, Berkeley and Palo Alto have similar ordinances, but landlords have complained the laws put an unfair burden on homeowners.

Oakland’s ordinance eases the hardship of eviction, particularly for tenants who lose their rent control status and are thrust into a significantly more expensive market, according to Oakland City Attorney Barbara Parker.

“This is a victory for the City of Oakland — and for tenants’ rights. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed what we have said since this litigation began: that the City’s Uniform Residential Tenant Relocation Ordinance is a lawful — and vital — protection for Oakland tenants against no-fault eviction,” Parker wrote in an emailed statement. “We hope this decision is also a message to all Oakland landlords that following the laws that support and protect tenants is not optional.”

The Ballingers lived in their three-bedroom home in Oakland until 2015, when both women, who were on active duty in the Air Force, were transferred to the Washington, D.C., area. They rented out their Oakland home while they were away. When they returned in 2018, they gave their tenants a two-month notice and made plans to move back in.

While the Ballingers were away, the City Council passed the relocation-payment ordinance. So the couple had to fork over $6,582.40 to get their tenants out.

Currently, Oakland requires landlords to pay qualifying tenants $7,447 to vacate a studio or one-bedroom unit, $9,166 to vacate a two-bedroom unit and $11,314 to vacate a three or more-bedroom unit. If the renter’s household includes low-income, elderly or disabled people, or children, they are entitled to an extra $2,500 per unit. The amounts are adjusted every year for inflation.

The Ballingers’ tenants lived in the house for less than two years, so their relocation payment was smaller.

Even so, that fee amounted to a “ransom” payment for a home being held hostage, the Ballingers claimed. They argued it was unconstitutional, as the city was taking their money without just compensation.

It was especially unfair, Breemer said, because they and the tenants signed a lease before the ordinance was passed.

But the Ninth Circuit opinion glossed over that fact, Breemer said.

The judges found Oakland has a right to impose the relocation fee.

“Here, the ordinance imposes a transaction cost to terminate a lease agreement,” Judge Ryan Nelson wrote on behalf of the panel. “We see little difference between lawful regulations, like rent control, and the ordinance’s regulation of the landlord-tenant relationship here. Thus, the relocation fee is not an unconstitutional physical taking.”​
Click to expand...
Looks like Oakland decided to further limit, require longer notice, and have higher relocation amounts.

1946.2 9 (g)
(g) This section does not prevent the enforcement of an existing local rule or ordinance, or the adoption of a local rule or ordinance, that requires just cause for termination of a residential tenancy that further limits or specifies the allowable reasons for eviction, requires longer notice or additional procedures for evicting tenants, provides for higher relocation assistance amounts, or is determined to provide a higher level of tenant protections than this section.
 
luvflyin said:
That doesn't seem to be the current Law that is in effect, 1946.2:


(d) If a lessor of residential property issues a notice to terminate tenancy for no-fault just cause, the lessor shall assist the lessee, regardless of the lessee’s income, to relocate by providing a direct payment to the lessee. If a lessor issues a notice to terminate tenancy for no-fault just cause, the lessor shall notify the lessee of the lessee’s right to relocation assistance pursuant to this section.

(1) The amount of relocation assistance shall be determined as follows:

(A) If the lessee has resided in the rental property for six months or more, but less than two years, the amount shall be equal to two months’ rent.

(B) If the lessee has resided in the rental property for two years or more, the amount shall be equal to three months’ rent.
Click to expand...

Where are you quoting this from? I would like to see the source. The actual current 1946.2 does not say any of that. It appears what you are quoting is AB 1481, which was intended to modify 1946.2, however the bill died, it is inactive. You need to educate yourself on AB 1482, which is the actual amendment to 1946.2 which was approved and is actual law.

By the way, you never answered my question. Are you sure any of this even applies to you? Is this a single family home? Is it owned in your name, or an LLC or Corporation?
 
Direct C51 said:
Where are you quoting this from? I would like to see the source. The actual current 1946.2 does not say any of that. It appears what you are quoting is AB 1481, which was intended to modify 1946.2, however the bill died, it is inactive. You need to educate yourself on AB 1482, which is the actual amendment to 1946.2 which was approved and is actual law.

By the way, you never answered my question. Are you sure any of this even applies to you? Is this a single family home? Is it owned in your name, or an LLC or Corporation?
Click to expand...
It's a Duplex in my name. I haven't read AB 1482 all the way through. But all the summaries I've seen have to do with rent increases and notification times. Like 30 days if the tenant has lived there less than a year and 60 days if more than 2 years. Which won't be a thing if I have no authority to evict them at all unless they agree to it. That is what I am asking about. This from 1946.2. It makes it sound like I simply cannot evict them for the reason that I will be moving in. If it turns out that I can evict, I will of of course abide by the rules in how to do it. 'How' to do it. Gotta get the 'can I do it' question answered first

(b) For purposes of this section, “just cause” includes either of the following:
(2) No-fault just cause, which includes any of the following:
(A) (i) Owner intent to occupy the residential property.
(ii) Clause (i) shall apply only if the tenant agrees, in writing, to the termination
 
luvflyin said:
Yes I intentionally just posted part of it. The other No-fault just causes do not apply to my situation.


(B) Withdrawal of the residential property from the rental market.
(C) Unsafe habitation, as determined by a government agency that has issued an order to vacate, order to comply, or other order that necessitates vacating the residential property.
(D) Intent to demolish or to substantially remodel.
Click to expand...

Yougottabeoutofyourmind. Why doesn’t (B) apply? You are withdrawing the property from the market.

What’s the actual issue….you can’t terminate a lease?
 
TCABM said:
Yougottabeoutofyourmind. Why doesn’t (B) apply? You are withdrawing the property from the market.

What’s the actual issue, you can’t terminate a lease?
Click to expand...
Yeah, I suppose I could do that. But it's a Duplex. We're going to move into one of the units. Taking the whole property off the Market and losing that rent is not a thing we are ready to do. Don't want the place condemned so C is out. Don't want it demolished and from what I've read about what constitutes 'substantial' in a remodel probably makes that a no go to.
 
luvflyin said:
(b) For purposes of this section, “just cause” includes either of the following:
(2) No-fault just cause, which includes any of the following:
(A) (i) Owner intent to occupy the residential property.
(ii) Clause (i) shall apply only if the tenant agrees, in writing, to the termination
Click to expand...

Ok, again I'll ask. Give me the source of where you copied this text from. This is NOT 1946.2. Here is the most current version of 1946.2 straight from the horses mouth:

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/...Num=1946.2.&nodeTreePath=8.4.69.3&lawCode=CIV

What you are copying is AB 1481 which was intended to amend 1946.2 - but that bill is dead. It was never approved. Stop quoting it. Stop using it. Forget about it. AB 1482 is approved. It is law. It amended 1946.2

luvflyin said:
It's a Duplex in my name.
Click to expand...

Now we are getting somewhere. Because it is a duplex, then AB 1482 applies. It would only not apply if you occupied one of the units the whole time.

"(6) A duplex in which the owner occupied one of the units as the owner’s principal place of residence at the beginning of the tenancy, so long as the owner continues in occupancy."

Your only way out of AB 1482 is if this was built within the last 15 years.

"(7) Housing that has been issued a certificate of occupancy within the previous 15 years."

luvflyin said:
I haven't read AB 1482 all the way through. But all the summaries I've seen have to do with rent increases and notification times.
Click to expand...

I have read AB 1482 all the way through. Multiple times. It applies to you. Believe me. Read it yourself... all the way through.

luvflyin said:
Like 30 days if the tenant has lived there less than a year and 60 days if more than 2 years.
Click to expand...

No, AB 1482 doesn't change anything regarding notification times. That is 1946.1. You will need to give them 60 days notice if they have been there more than a year.

(b) An owner of a residential dwelling giving notice pursuant to this section shall give notice at least 60 days prior to the proposed date of termination. A tenant giving notice pursuant to this section shall give notice for a period at least as long as the term of the periodic tenancy prior to the proposed date of termination.

(c) Notwithstanding subdivision (b), an owner of a residential dwelling giving notice pursuant to this section shall give notice at least 30 days prior to the proposed date of termination if any tenant or resident has resided in the dwelling for less than one year.

luvflyin said:
If it turns out that I can evict, I will of of course abide by the rules in how to do it. 'How' to do it. Gotta get the 'can I do it' question answered first
Click to expand...

This isn't an eviction. Yes, you can terminate their tenancy if their lease is expired and they are month to month. I already told you how.

(2) No-fault just cause, which includes any of the following:
(A) (i) Intent to occupy the residential real property by the owner or their spouse, domestic partner, children, grandchildren, parents, or grandparents.
(ii) For leases entered into on or after July 1, 2020, clause (i) shall apply only if the tenant agrees, in writing, to the termination, or if a provision of the lease allows the owner to terminate the lease if the owner, or their spouse, domestic partner, children, grandchildren, parents, or grandparents, unilaterally decides to occupy the residential real property. Addition of a provision allowing the owner to terminate the lease as described in this clause to a new or renewed rental agreement or fixed-term lease constitutes a similar provision for the purposes of subparagraph (E) of paragraph (1).
(B) Withdrawal of the residential real property from the rental market.
(C) (i) The owner complying with any of the following:
(I) An order issued by a government agency or court relating to habitability that necessitates vacating the residential real property.
(II) An order issued by a government agency or court to vacate the residential real property.
(III) A local ordinance that necessitates vacating the residential real property.
(ii) If it is determined by any government agency or court that the tenant is at fault for the condition or conditions triggering the order or need to vacate under clause (i), the tenant shall not be entitled to relocation assistance as outlined in paragraph (3) of subdivision (d).
(D) (i) Intent to demolish or to substantially remodel the residential real property.

Was the lase entered in to before July 1 2020? If so, you are good. If not, then I hope you put that clause in the lease. If you didn't put this clause in your lease, then that's on you. You will have to speak to an attorney, but I think the only way to terminate their tenancy at that point is to get them to agree in writing. Pay them. It's called cash for keys. Or just take your chances, give them a 60 day notice, and hope they comply. They probably don't know the intricacies of AB 1482 either.
 
Direct C51 said:
Ok, again I'll ask. Give me the source of where you copied this text from. This is NOT 1946.2. Here is the most current version of 1946.2 straight from the horses mouth:

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/...Num=1946.2.&nodeTreePath=8.4.69.3&lawCode=CIV

What you are copying is AB 1481 which was intended to amend 1946.2 - but that bill is dead. It was never approved. Stop quoting it. Stop using it. Forget about it. AB 1482 is approved. It is law. It amended 1946.2



Now we are getting somewhere. Because it is a duplex, then AB 1482 applies. It would only not apply if you occupied one of the units the whole time.

"(6) A duplex in which the owner occupied one of the units as the owner’s principal place of residence at the beginning of the tenancy, so long as the owner continues in occupancy."

Your only way out of AB 1482 is if this was built within the last 15 years.

"(7) Housing that has been issued a certificate of occupancy within the previous 15 years."



I have read AB 1482 all the way through. Multiple times. It applies to you. Believe me. Read it yourself... all the way through.



No, AB 1482 doesn't change anything regarding notification times. That is 1946.1. You will need to give them 60 days notice if they have been there more than a year.

(b) An owner of a residential dwelling giving notice pursuant to this section shall give notice at least 60 days prior to the proposed date of termination. A tenant giving notice pursuant to this section shall give notice for a period at least as long as the term of the periodic tenancy prior to the proposed date of termination.

(c) Notwithstanding subdivision (b), an owner of a residential dwelling giving notice pursuant to this section shall give notice at least 30 days prior to the proposed date of termination if any tenant or resident has resided in the dwelling for less than one year.



This isn't an eviction. Yes, you can terminate their tenancy if their lease is expired and they are month to month. I already told you how.

(2) No-fault just cause, which includes any of the following:
(A) (i) Intent to occupy the residential real property by the owner or their spouse, domestic partner, children, grandchildren, parents, or grandparents.
(ii) For leases entered into on or after July 1, 2020, clause (i) shall apply only if the tenant agrees, in writing, to the termination, or if a provision of the lease allows the owner to terminate the lease if the owner, or their spouse, domestic partner, children, grandchildren, parents, or grandparents, unilaterally decides to occupy the residential real property. Addition of a provision allowing the owner to terminate the lease as described in this clause to a new or renewed rental agreement or fixed-term lease constitutes a similar provision for the purposes of subparagraph (E) of paragraph (1).
(B) Withdrawal of the residential real property from the rental market.
(C) (i) The owner complying with any of the following:
(I) An order issued by a government agency or court relating to habitability that necessitates vacating the residential real property.
(II) An order issued by a government agency or court to vacate the residential real property.
(III) A local ordinance that necessitates vacating the residential real property.
(ii) If it is determined by any government agency or court that the tenant is at fault for the condition or conditions triggering the order or need to vacate under clause (i), the tenant shall not be entitled to relocation assistance as outlined in paragraph (3) of subdivision (d).
(D) (i) Intent to demolish or to substantially remodel the residential real property.

Was the lase entered in to before July 1 2020? If so, you are good. If not, then I hope you put that clause in the lease. If you didn't put this clause in your lease, then that's on you. You will have to speak to an attorney, but I think the only way to terminate their tenancy at that point is to get them to agree in writing. Pay them. It's called cash for keys. Or just take your chances, give them a 60 day notice, and hope they comply. They probably don't know the intricacies of AB 1482 either.
Click to expand...
All right. We're on to something here. I do not remember the exact source I got the 1946.2 from that I've been quoting. I would not have done it if it didn't seem genuine.
It said this;
(2) No-fault just cause, which includes any of the following:
(A) (i) Owner intent to occupy the residential property.
(ii) Clause (i) shall apply only if the tenant agrees, in writing, to the termination, or if a provision of the lease agreement allows the owner to terminate the lease if the owner unilaterally decides to occupy the residential property.

AB 1482 says
SEC. 2.
Section 1946.2 is added to the Civil Code, to read:
.......
(2) No-fault just cause, which includes any of the following:
(A) (i) Intent to occupy the residential real property by the owner or their spouse, domestic partner, children, grandchildren, parents, or grandparents.
(ii) For leases entered into on or after July 1, 2020, clause (i) shall apply only if the tenant agrees, in writing, to the termination, or if a provision of the lease allows the owner to terminate the lease if the owner, or their spouse, domestic partner, children, grandchildren, parents, or grandparents, unilaterally decides to occupy the residential real property. Addition of a provision allowing the owner to terminate the lease as described in this clause to a new or renewed rental agreement or fixed-term lease constitutes a similar provision for the purposes of subparagraph (E) of paragraph (1).

So it seems my first copy was in error. AB 1482 was codified as the Tenant Protection Act of 2019. Question now, has anything changed since. So here's what I have. Place built in 1962. Last time we occupied it was in 2008. Rental Agreement was entered into in May of 2020 with occupancy of one person beginning June 2020. So far, so good. Later, after July 2020, she got a room mate. Rental agreement was Amended to occupancy of two persons. Does that screw things up?

 
Last edited:
luvflyin said:
So it seems my first copy was in error. AB 1482 was codified as the Tenant Protection Act of 2019. Question now, has anything changed since. So here's what I have. Place built in 1962. Last time we occupied it was in 2008. Rental Agreement was entered into in May of 2020 with occupancy of one person beginning June 2020. So far, so good. Later, after July 2020, she got a room mate. Rental agreement was Amended to occupancy of two persons. Does that screw things up?
Click to expand...

Glad we got that cleared up. So here's the thing, AB 1482 has never been tested in court. Any of these gray areas are a gamble. From my interpretation, you seem to be good since:

1: You intend to owner occupy the unit.
"(A) (i) Intent to occupy the residential real property by the owner or their spouse, domestic partner, children, grandchildren, parents, or grandparents."

and

2: You entered the lease agreement prior to July 2020.
"(ii) For leases entered into on or after July 1, 2020, clause (i) shall apply only if the tenant agrees, in writing, to the termination, or if a provision of the lease allows the owner to terminate the lease if the owner, or their spouse, domestic partner, children, grandchildren, parents, or grandparents, unilaterally decides to occupy the residential real property. Addition of a provision allowing the owner to terminate the lease as described in this clause to a new or renewed rental agreement or fixed-term lease constitutes a similar provision for the purposes of subparagraph (E) of paragraph (1)."

However, I have no idea how a judge would interpret it. The best solution is probably to ask a lawyer in the field. However, tenants really don't know anything about AB 1482, or the laws in general. I highly doubt they are going to try to make this a problem for you. There are some tenants rights groups and lawyers looking to get money out of big time real estate investors, but they aren't going to target little ol' you with your duplex. The location of the property matters a lot as well. If this is anywhere near the Bay Area or LA the tenants are going to think they have all of the power. If this is in rural Bakersfield, they'll probably comply no problem.

I am not a lawyer, and I don't want to try to give you legal advice, but honestly, here is how I would handle it. I would give the tenants a 60 day notice and let them know you intend to move in to the unit to occupy it yourself. If they are immediately ok with it, then move along. If they baulk at it in any way, I would let them know you understand it is a big inconvenience, and you would like to waive their last months rent so that they have enough money to find another place to live. If they refuse to vacate, then you will have to hope the judge interprets AB 1482 like I did above.
 
Direct C51 said:
Glad we got that cleared up. So here's the thing, AB 1482 has never been tested in court. Any of these gray areas are a gamble. From my interpretation, you seem to be good since:

1: You intend to owner occupy the unit.
"(A) (i) Intent to occupy the residential real property by the owner or their spouse, domestic partner, children, grandchildren, parents, or grandparents."

and

2: You entered the lease agreement prior to July 2020.
"(ii) For leases entered into on or after July 1, 2020, clause (i) shall apply only if the tenant agrees, in writing, to the termination, or if a provision of the lease allows the owner to terminate the lease if the owner, or their spouse, domestic partner, children, grandchildren, parents, or grandparents, unilaterally decides to occupy the residential real property. Addition of a provision allowing the owner to terminate the lease as described in this clause to a new or renewed rental agreement or fixed-term lease constitutes a similar provision for the purposes of subparagraph (E) of paragraph (1)."

However, I have no idea how a judge would interpret it. The best solution is probably to ask a lawyer in the field. However, tenants really don't know anything about AB 1482, or the laws in general. I highly doubt they are going to try to make this a problem for you. There are some tenants rights groups and lawyers looking to get money out of big time real estate investors, but they aren't going to target little ol' you with your duplex. The location of the property matters a lot as well. If this is anywhere near the Bay Area or LA the tenants are going to think they have all of the power. If this is in rural Bakersfield, they'll probably comply no problem.

I am not a lawyer, and I don't want to try to give you legal advice, but honestly, here is how I would handle it. I would give the tenants a 60 day notice and let them know you intend to move in to the unit to occupy it yourself. If they are immediately ok with it, then move along. If they baulk at it in any way, I would let them know you understand it is a big inconvenience, and you would like to waive their last months rent so that they have enough money to find another place to live. If they refuse to vacate, then you will have to hope the judge interprets AB 1482 like I did above.
Click to expand...
Thanks for all the info. We are probably going to get a lawyer. The plan right now is to give about 4 months notice and give her 3 months rent as relocation assistance. That will be in compliance with 1946.2 as it stands, I think. This is in Santa Barbara.
 
luvflyin said:
Thanks for all the info. We are probably going to get a lawyer. The plan right now is to give about 4 months notice and give her 3 months rent as relocation assistance. That will be in compliance with 1946.2 as it stands, I think. This is in Santa Barbara.
Click to expand...

Makes me sick…
 
luvflyin said:
Thanks for all the info. We are probably going to get a lawyer. The plan right now is to give about 4 months notice and give her 3 months rent as relocation assistance. That will be in compliance with 1946.2 as it stands, I think. This is in Santa Barbara.
Click to expand...

Just when I thought we were making progress! Here is what AB 1482, and therefore also 1946.2 says about relocation:

(d) (1) For a tenancy for which just cause is required to terminate the tenancy under subdivision (a), if an owner of residential real property issues a termination notice based on a no-fault just cause described in paragraph (2) of subdivision (b), the owner shall, regardless of the tenant’s income, at the owner’s option, do one of the following:
(A) Assist the tenant to relocate by providing a direct payment to the tenant as described in paragraph (3).
(B) Waive in writing the payment of rent for the final month of the tenancy, prior to the rent becoming due.
(2) If an owner issues a notice to terminate a tenancy for no-fault just cause, the owner shall notify the tenant of the tenant’s right to relocation assistance or rent waiver pursuant to this section. If the owner elects to waive the rent for the final month of the tenancy as provided in subparagraph (B) of paragraph (1), the notice shall state the amount of rent waived and that no rent is due for the final month of the tenancy.
(3) (A) The amount of relocation assistance or rent waiver shall be equal to one month of the tenant’s rent that was in effect when the owner issued the notice to terminate the tenancy. Any relocation assistance shall be provided within 15 calendar days of service of the notice.
(B) If a tenant fails to vacate after the expiration of the notice to terminate the tenancy, the actual amount of any relocation assistance or rent waiver provided pursuant to this subdivision shall be recoverable as damages in an action to recover possession.

You only need to give them one months rent in relocation assistance. You are getting 3 months from AB 1481, which again, was never accepted.
 
Direct C51 said:
Just when I thought we were making progress! Here is what AB 1482, and therefore also 1946.2 says about relocation:

(d) (1) For a tenancy for which just cause is required to terminate the tenancy under subdivision (a), if an owner of residential real property issues a termination notice based on a no-fault just cause described in paragraph (2) of subdivision (b), the owner shall, regardless of the tenant’s income, at the owner’s option, do one of the following:
(A) Assist the tenant to relocate by providing a direct payment to the tenant as described in paragraph (3).
(B) Waive in writing the payment of rent for the final month of the tenancy, prior to the rent becoming due.
(2) If an owner issues a notice to terminate a tenancy for no-fault just cause, the owner shall notify the tenant of the tenant’s right to relocation assistance or rent waiver pursuant to this section. If the owner elects to waive the rent for the final month of the tenancy as provided in subparagraph (B) of paragraph (1), the notice shall state the amount of rent waived and that no rent is due for the final month of the tenancy.
(3) (A) The amount of relocation assistance or rent waiver shall be equal to one month of the tenant’s rent that was in effect when the owner issued the notice to terminate the tenancy. Any relocation assistance shall be provided within 15 calendar days of service of the notice.
(B) If a tenant fails to vacate after the expiration of the notice to terminate the tenancy, the actual amount of any relocation assistance or rent waiver provided pursuant to this subdivision shall be recoverable as damages in an action to recover possession.

You only need to give them one months rent in relocation assistance. You are getting 3 months from AB 1481, which again, was never accepted.
Click to expand...

As a tenant, don’t pay rent, get the Covid rent relief check for not paying rent for 2 years, cash it and don’t give it to the landlord. Now the landlord wants you to leave and is required to pay you one month before vacating, as a tenant take that cash then refuse to leave and leave it up to the courts to sort it. Mind you the courts don’t enforce monies owed nor assist with it. The landlord meanwhile is expected to upkeep the home, pay utilities (if necessary), pay property taxes (why weren’t these forgiven?) and insurance. Now many factory jobs are paying staff with prepaid credit cards to avoid garnishments since such a high percentage of workers have judgments out against them and they know better than to use a bank account or get a job that pays by ACH direct deposit.
 
Everskyward said:
I would never be a landlord. Especially in California. I've heard too many stories about bad tenants who are impossible to remove.
Click to expand...

Yet good Landlords in California are some of the wealthiest people around. There is no better way to amass wealth than by using huge amounts of leverage and tax incentives. Sure everyone knows some small time uninformed landlord who doesn't know what they are doing that has had trouble with tenants. Not everyone gets it right.
 
mandm said:
As a tenant, don’t pay rent, get the Covid rent relief check for not paying rent for 2 years, cash it and don’t give it to the landlord. Now the landlord wants you to leave and is required to pay you one month before vacating, as a tenant take that cash then refuse to leave and leave it up to the courts to sort it. Mind you the courts don’t enforce monies owed nor assist with it. The landlord meanwhile is expected to upkeep the home, pay utilities (if necessary), pay property taxes (why weren’t these forgiven?) and insurance. Now many factory jobs are paying staff with prepaid credit cards to avoid garnishments since such a high percentage of workers have judgments out against them and they know better than to use a bank account or get a job that pays by ACH direct deposit.
Click to expand...

That's not how it works. The eviction moratorium ended at the end of Sep 2021. If they didn't pay rent on Oct 5th 2021, then you give them a 3 day notice to pay or quit and start the eviction process. You don't have to pay relocation assistance for just cause evictions.

Better yet, screen your tenants well and don't rely on property management companies to run your business. I have never had a single one of my tenants pull anything with Covid relief.
 
Direct C51 said:
That's not how it works. The eviction moratorium ended at the end of Sep 2021. If they didn't pay rent on Oct 5th 2021, then you give them a 3 day notice to pay or quit and start the eviction process. You don't have to pay relocation assistance for just cause evictions.

Better yet, screen your tenants well and don't rely on property management companies to run your business. I have never had a single one of my tenants pull anything with Covid relief.
Click to expand...

That’s how it worked and was terribly wrong !! Some are good, many took advantage of the system. As a result, raise rents for everyone. Huge demand for housing now because landlords are getting tired of it and expecting more.
 
Direct C51 said:
Just when I thought we were making progress! Here is what AB 1482, and therefore also 1946.2 says about relocation:

(d) (1) For a tenancy for which just cause is required to terminate the tenancy under subdivision (a), if an owner of residential real property issues a termination notice based on a no-fault just cause described in paragraph (2) of subdivision (b), the owner shall, regardless of the tenant’s income, at the owner’s option, do one of the following:
(A) Assist the tenant to relocate by providing a direct payment to the tenant as described in paragraph (3).
(B) Waive in writing the payment of rent for the final month of the tenancy, prior to the rent becoming due.
(2) If an owner issues a notice to terminate a tenancy for no-fault just cause, the owner shall notify the tenant of the tenant’s right to relocation assistance or rent waiver pursuant to this section. If the owner elects to waive the rent for the final month of the tenancy as provided in subparagraph (B) of paragraph (1), the notice shall state the amount of rent waived and that no rent is due for the final month of the tenancy.
(3) (A) The amount of relocation assistance or rent waiver shall be equal to one month of the tenant’s rent that was in effect when the owner issued the notice to terminate the tenancy. Any relocation assistance shall be provided within 15 calendar days of service of the notice.
(B) If a tenant fails to vacate after the expiration of the notice to terminate the tenancy, the actual amount of any relocation assistance or rent waiver provided pursuant to this subdivision shall be recoverable as damages in an action to recover possession.

You only need to give them one months rent in relocation assistance. You are getting 3 months from AB 1481, which again, was never accepted.
Click to expand...
Yeah. The 1946.2 I had been using to start this whole thing out sure seems to have been attached to the 1481 bill, which didn't get enacted. So it's one month. However I'm stuck with this that says 3 months. Haven't figured out yet if it is allowable under the 1946.2 per 1482. They sure seem to think so.
https://www.sbrpa.org/new-relocation-assistance-ordinance
 
Direct C51 said:
Yet good Landlords in California are some of the wealthiest people around. There is no better way to amass wealth than by using huge amounts of leverage and tax incentives. Sure everyone knows some small time uninformed landlord who doesn't know what they are doing that has had trouble with tenants. Not everyone gets it right.
Click to expand...
I'm guessing that the OP and myself are 'small time'. Also, California, especially the city where I own, has laws that are stacked against the owner, and favor tenants. I declined an offer to rent my house in Colorado, and sold it instead. Glad I did, even though it would have appreciated a lot since then.
 
Not sure if mentioned, but you might need at least 60 days notice to evict without cause.

That said, have a friendly conversation with the tenants. Trading more time and a month or two of "free" rent may turn out to be a better deal than anything "forceful" just because the law says you can.

The costs for an eviction can get absurd.

One more Q. Is you area rent controlled? Isa gov agency involved in paying part of the rent? If so additional laws and paperwork to the city my apply.
(Not legal advice)
 
For Santa Barbara I'd probably give Rosario Perry a call 310 394 9831. He is a lawyer that specializes in this.
 
The one jury I served on was for non-payment of rent. It was in San Jose. However, it was in the early 1990s and I know the law has changed since then. But, in case you were wondering, we found for the landlord (plaintiff) in total and threw the bums out
 
mandm said:
As a tenant, don’t pay rent, get the Covid rent relief check for not paying rent for 2 years, cash it and don’t give it to the landlord. Now the landlord wants you to leave and is required to pay you one month before vacating, as a tenant take that cash then refuse to leave and leave it up to the courts to sort it. Mind you the courts don’t enforce monies owed nor assist with it. The landlord meanwhile is expected to upkeep the home, pay utilities (if necessary), pay property taxes (why weren’t these forgiven?) and insurance. Now many factory jobs are paying staff with prepaid credit cards to avoid garnishments since such a high percentage of workers have judgments out against them and they know better than to use a bank account or get a job that pays by ACH direct deposit.
Click to expand...
We saw this in our area too. In one case we had a local business complain that they had a new employee quit because her wages were garnished after judgement on eviction for non-payment of rent.
This is the reason I sold our rentals.
 
Everskyward said:
I'm guessing that the OP and myself are 'small time'. Also, California, especially the city where I own, has laws that are stacked against the owner, and favor tenants. I declined an offer to rent my house in Colorado, and sold it instead. Glad I did, even though it would have appreciated a lot since then.
Click to expand...
Yup, we are small time. We have 3 rentals, just this one in California. We're talking about it isn't worth the hassle so lets just sell the damn thing. It might not be easy to get a reasonable price though. The rents we charge are very low, way under market value. This one is $1900 and it's value in the current market is close to $3000. If I'm reading the Laws right, a new owner is stuck with the existing tenant unless they can find an 'at-fault' cause to get them out. That would have a big effect on the value of the property.
 
Pi1otguy said:
Not sure if mentioned, but you might need at least 60 days notice to evict without cause.

That said, have a friendly conversation with the tenants. Trading more time and a month or two of "free" rent may turn out to be a better deal than anything "forceful" just because the law says you can.

The costs for an eviction can get absurd.

One more Q. Is you area rent controlled? Isa gov agency involved in paying part of the rent? If so additional laws and paperwork to the city my apply.
(Not legal advice)
Click to expand...
It is 60 days. It's not one of the classic rent controlled cities. But everything in California is de facto rent controlled via the laws we have been talking about here. The tenant is on no sort of subsidy program.
 
Ghery said:
The one jury I served on was for non-payment of rent. It was in San Jose. However, it was in the early 1990s and I know the law has changed since then. But, in case you were wondering, we found for the landlord (plaintiff) in total and threw the bums out
Click to expand...
Do you know if the tenant, having lost the case, was held responsible for Court costs and Attorneys fees
 
pilotrick said:
For Santa Barbara I'd probably give Rosario Perry a call 310 394 9831. He is a lawyer that specializes in this.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the recommendation. Looked him up. Santa Monica is pretty far away. I'll find someone local if this gets to the Lawyer up stage.
 
luvflyin said:
Do you know if the tenant, having lost the case, was held responsible for Court costs and Attorneys fees
Click to expand...
We had to do alot of evictions on the apartments we had in TN. We generally did get court costs and attorney fees in judgement, but rarely were we able to collect any of it. Of course different state law applies and we were generally evicting for non-payment of rent as cause.

As a few have mentioned, perhaps a discussion with the tenant may yield a better outcome than having to go to court (which may be backed up anyway).
 
FORANE said:
We had to do alot of evictions on the apartments we had in TN. We generally did get court costs and attorney fees in judgement, but rarely were we able to collect any of it. Of course different state law applies and we were generally evicting for non-payment of rent as cause.

As a few have mentioned, perhaps a discussion with the tenant may yield a better outcome than having to go to court (which may be backed up anyway).
Click to expand...
We will notify the tenant first. If all goes well that will be the end of it. But we expect she will not accept having to move and attempt to use any loophole possible to avoid it. We are going to get completely educated on the Law about this before making first contact.
 
$300 with an attorney who is practicing landlord/tenant law in the community where your house is located is going to give you the answer what it would take to terminate the lease at this point.
 
weilke said:
$300 with an attorney who is practicing landlord/tenant law in the community where your house is located is going to give you the answer what it would take to terminate the lease at this point.
Click to expand...
That's next. I have a number to call to get referrals to Attorneys who specialize in the Landlord side of it. Going to call later this morning.
 
luvflyin said:
That's next. I have a number to call to get referrals to Attorneys who specialize in the Landlord side of it. Going to call later this morning.
Click to expand...

Try to get one local. Yes, it's a state law, but it's a big state and there may well be differences on how the courts handle this. Get a consultation and then approach the tenant from a position of knowledge. Even if you are month to month, it can sometimes make things smoother if you get an agreement and where the tenant gets some moving help in exchange for a firm leaving date.
 
Ghery said:
The one jury I served on was for non-payment of rent. It was in San Jose. However, it was in the early 1990s and I know the law has changed since then. But, in case you were wondering, we found for the landlord (plaintiff) in total and threw the bums out
Click to expand...

Oh, the court will find you in your favor but do you think that means the court removed the tenants that day? Nope, bunch of waiting periods and extensions and reminders and opportunities for the tenants to stay (to be evicted). Then did the court empty their wallet or their new 5-6 cars (mine you no equity it has a loan or lease)? Court does nothing but put cost you money and give you a worthless piece of paper.
 
luvflyin said:
Do you know if the tenant, having lost the case, was held responsible for Court costs and Attorneys fees
Click to expand...

Attorney fees, nope. But you’ll get the court filing fee, maybe.
 
weilke said:
$300 with an attorney who is practicing landlord/tenant law in the community where your house is located is going to give you the answer what it would take to terminate the lease at this point.
Click to expand...

Then 1-2k to evict them.
 
mandm said:
Then 1-2k to evict them.
Click to expand...
There's a reason why CA landlords screen tenants so thoroughly.

Between lost rent, fees (even without court), and possible damages one can easily wipe out 6-18 months of income. BTDT
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top