Landlord's duty to update contact information - CC § 1962(c) interpreted by the court

In DLI Properties v. Hill, (Los Angeles App. Dep't Super. Ct., Sept. 17, 2018, No. BV 032016, 2018 WL 6192245) the court addressed the recently added sub-division (c) to Civil Code Section 1962, which provides that the landlord is barred from evicting a tenant for non-payment of rent during the period such landlord failed to inform the tenant about a change in the contact information.

This may apply in a rent-controlled jurisdiction, such as San Francisco, where the local municipal ordinance also contains requirements for the owners to inform about the changes.

Book update - ver. 2.8

I had a chance to update the book to include latest changes across the topics (and as usual, weeding out any typos I could find). There is also a brand-new chapter added - eviction notices under 37.9(a)(9), for the sale following a condo-conversion.

The links to both the paper and e-book versions remain the same, just check on the version No. before downloading, it shall show «2.8»

If you happened to purchase versions 2.6 or 2.7 this year, let me know, I will be glad to supply you with the paper copy of 2.8, so you have this year's updates and the additional chapter.

Here are the links to the updated e-book and paper versions.

New legislation signed today: timing on eviction notices and responding to UD summons and deposition notices

Among 25 bills signed today, one drew my attention: extending time to respond to eviction notices and to unlawful detainer summons (AB 2343).

How Preemptive Is the Ellis Act?

On June 20, 2018, California Supreme Court denied review of Small Property Owners of San Francisco Institute v. City & County of San Francisco (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 77, thus affirming its holding, striking a 10-year ban on alterations of non-conforming units following the Ellis Act evictions.  The decision was reached on the preemption argument of the Ellis Act (Cal. Gov. Code § 7060 et seq.).  How often it is a winning argument, and how universally its preemption is applied? Let us take a look at a few recent decisions.

Constitutionality of the requirement for a life-time lease as condition for condo conversion was upheld

In July of last year, TIC co-owners of a multi-unit building in San Francisco sued against the ordinance provisions requiring a lifetime lease to be offered to those tenants who reside in the units subjected to a condominium conversion. Case 3:17-cv-03638, Pakdel et al v. City and County of San Francisco (2017 WL 6403074), filed before the Northern District of California federal district court.

The court granted City's motion to dismiss (Docket # 25, 11/20/2017). Of interest to other practitioners, in its relevant portion (page 10), the court found the requirement of offering a lifetime lease constitutional, as one passing the rational basis review standard. The requirement itself is found in Sec. 1396.4(g) of the San Francisco Subdivision Code.

The case is currently pending appeal, opening brief filed on April 28, 2018. Appeals' Case Number 17-17504.

Another attack on Rent Ordinance Registration Requirement--This Time In San Jose

I must start with repeating an old joke. As a train arrived to the station, a passenger asked a conductor: "will this train take me to the Main Street?"  "No," replied the conductor, "of course not, we don't even have the tracks laid in that direction." Another eager passenger standing behind the first one then asks, "would this train take me there?"

This anecdote came up when I've read the news yesterday, announcing that the San Jose landlords seek court's help in preventing the San Jose's rent ordinance new requirement for landlords to register with the board and provide specific information on each rent-controlled tenancy. We wish these landlords luck, wholeheartedly, and check on where all prior trains took landlords on this argument.

The "Educators" Ordinance Is Back

Today the court of appeals reversed in full its 2016 judgment, which up until today was holding the "educators" ordinance on hold. There is a hope that the certiorari review will follow, but, as of now, the ugly and self-contradicting piece is coming back on the books. And I mean it literally as well, I'll have to update the book again (only in this case, downgrade it back).

New 2018 edition of the "Eviction Notice In SF" is out

I could write my own introduction to this new edition, but I like this one instead:

"Having taken more than ordinary Pains in collecting the Materials which compose the following History, we could not be satisfied with our selves, if any Thing were wanting to it, which might render it entirely satisfactory to the Publick: It is for this Reason we have subjoined to the Work, a short Abstract of the Law now in Force [], and made Choice of some particular Cases, (the most curious we could meet with) which have been heretofore tried, by which it will appear what Actions have, and what have not been adjudged []." A General History of the Pyrates, 4th Ed., 1726.

Between the rock and the hard place—a peculiar position of a master tenant

When we talk about a landlord-tenant relationship, we often imply the simplest pairing: that there is a landlord and there is that landlord's tenant, a straightforward exchange of promises and obligations going both ways (that those promises and obligations can go a wrong way or even entirely sideways is covered elsewhere in this blog).  But what if a tenant has own tenants, who sublease a portion of that tenant's whole tenancy? In San Francisco, it puts that main or "master" tenant in a position coupled with unique and nondelegable obligations.