Tenant Relief Act of 2020 - Forms

The Tenant Relief Act of 2020 has passed into law, and its full text is available here. It is rather a lengthy document, because it amends and adds quite a few statutes. A myriad of articles is written on this new law, and I am only adding mine to cover two practical areas of the subject: the forms and the quirky part in the due-date language, regarding the landlord's obligation to give notice.

Bay Area courts re-opening

This week, with the "Stage 2" lessening, finally came the tide of the courts reopening.

[Update May 29] But not the federal bankruptcy courts - - just announced to remain close to public through September (link)

Alameda court is now accepting almost all civil filings, makes hearing reservations, and offers hearings via phone and video remote access: Rule 1.8a (URL upd. 06/26) and Rule 3.30 (URL upd. 06/26) (May 7, 2020, version). Appeals and unlawful detainers remain on hold. Alameda court adopted "Blue Jeans (URL upd. 06/26)" technology for video appearances.
[Update May 20, 2020] - now says the court mostly (yet remotely) re-opens (link).

Contra Costa starts conducting remote hearings on May 18, as its May 5 (URL upd. 06/26) press-release states.
On May 13, the updated order (URL upd. 06/26) was issued, it looks like the court reopened on May 26 for physical access to the hearings (essential parties only, no records' department, and wear a mask of course). But there is no mentioning of remote hearings in the order.

Santa Clara court in today's order promised to reopen Law & Motion on May 19 and Appellate division on May 22 (May 8, 2020, order (URL upd. 06/26)).

Also today, San Mateo published its reopening order, it has several dates there for different purposes, but the general note is that it is reopening during the next 2 weeks for remote hearings. Entered on May 18, an updated order hints at June 12 as the reopening date, with the unlawful detainers pushed further down, at least to June 22 for the earliest trial date.

San Francisco court was silent this week, no new orders since April 30, but the e-filing does go through, as it was going before. Even better, limited UD cases are now also included in the e-filing system. Main operations are still expected to reopen after June 1, with the housing court kicking in after June 22nd.
[May 27 update] - the court opens up mostly (and mostly for remotely handled hearings) on June 1 (link (URL upd. 06/26)). The emergency is however continued through June 19 (order).

Marin county court also remains closed until May 29 based on its own April 30 order, no word on a sooner reopening there yet. May 26 order confirms the date and provides some more detail, all matters to proceed remotely from June 1 on. Marin court adopted Zoom for video appearances, and those appearances are free of charge.

The above news are welcomed, I was wondering why not to keep the remote hearings and e-filing going, which are mostly available with the help of the CourtCall and e-filing providers (although not each court fully accepts e-files yet). Coming into the court in person is still a risky proposition, but remotely it could be all done, the technology is there. Keeping the courts open is important, and it can be done without physical contact for a large chunk of operations.

But please remain careful and avoid coming to courts in person. Why I am glad the courts are reopening for remote hearings, I don't understand why the lessening is made under the banner of an improving virus situation. Look at the graphs (URL upd. 06/26), published by the state (update.covid19.ca.gov). If these were the graphs of some stock, I would say the trends of both the cases and the deaths are still creeping up, maybe slower, but not giving up yet. And while the number of cases' growth is not just due to the spread, but also because of the increased testing, the deaths are only increasing with the virus spread, and they are not declining. We went into the quarantine when there were recorded 3-4-9 deaths per day. We now have the latest spikes and valleys between 45-98 and 39-95 runs, I mean, over 10 times more deaths now from when the complete shutdown was ordered. Remote court operations are great, but when we need to be physically there, remember that there is no vaccine yet, so the risk of infection remains the same, hanging solely on the chance that each court visitor (and each co-commuter on the way to the court and back) had a mask or stayed home.
[update May 27]: we do now have "lows" in 20-19 region, and lower heights too, so the overall "curve" looks flat or even declining a bit, in approximation, but in no way ceasing or falling (i.e., after several days of declining, today's number of deaths was 70).

Intermediate Length Occupancy Ordinance passed

On May 5, 2020, the Board of Supervisors accepted in first reading the fifth version of the new "Intermediate Length Occupancy" regulation (link).

The ordinance amends S.F. Planning Code "to create the Intermediate Length Occupancy residential use characteristic," and implements the consequent protections and enforcement in the Rent Ordinance

Compliance with the statewide rent control requirements

The set of statutes defining the California statewide rent- and eviction-control were enacted back in September 2019 (the AB 1482 bill).  For the most part, it is a set of prohibitions, regulating how the rent can be raised or the tenancy terminated, in effect since January 1, 2020.  But the statutes also require of the landlords to include new language in their leases, and these requirements kick in on July 1, 2020. This article is written to help you not to overlook them.

California joins Oregon in approving statewide rent control

This was expected to pass for a few months, and just happened now.  The bill is expected to be signed in to law in a matter of days. Even municipalities with already existing local rent- and eviction-control ordinances may see a significant impact, because the statewide law will incompass buildings previously excluded through the year of completion (in San Francisco, it raises the cut-off from 1978 to 2004, a 15-year mark). As to the areas previously excluded, those where rents used to increase by large margins will be the first to feel the difference.

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

Among 25 bills signed today (URL upd. 06/26), 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.

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.

Bending Laws of Physics - A New Opportunity For Lawyers in Richmond

Lawyers are so generally expected to be masters at bending laws, there are folklore quotes about it in pretty much every language. In Russian, the saying goes as "The Law is like an axle--it goes where you turn it." In other words, fatta la legge trovato l'inganno. But the newly enacted Rent Ordinance in the City of Richmond, California, raised the expectations of legal process to a new, previously unattended height--to bend the laws of physics. This must be the highest bar a practitioner will ever meet.

This is not say that time-bending is impossible (URL upd. 06/26). Other non-laywering professions post victorious news about conquering what was previously unthinkable, almost daily. Just yesterday, a gravitational wave from 2 billion years was detected, and the BBC today reported on a first-ever chemical surgery on an embryo, correcting its DNA. And now, thanks to the legislators in Richmond, we can boast of something too.

Owner move-in regulation expanded and tightened

On July 18, 2017, the new proposed regulations (URL upd. 06/26) for the owner- and relative-move-in evictions passed in their final version, and yesterday the mayor has signed it into law. This legislation will significantly change the already heavily burdensome restrictions under the San Francisco Rent Ordinance, S.F. Admin. Code, Section 37.9(a)(8). It will become effective on January 1. Let us peek into what the legislators packed for landlords' Christmas sock.

New rules on restricting access to unlawful detainer records

Unlawful detainer records used to be "masked" from public access for the first 60 days and then, if no defendant settled or got dismissed in the interim and the case was still going on, the record would become publicly available. Case's records were opening up by default—a stipulation or a court order was required for the records to become hidden again. Now the order of things is refersed—it remains masked by default, and only upon a certain condition opens to public. Assembly Bill No. 2819, amending CCP § 1161.2 and establishing CCP § 1167.1, effective January 1, 2017.

New rest period policies in California

On December 22, 2016, California Supreme Court in Augustus v. ABM Security Services (Case S224853)  has reversed the prior decision made by the appellate court [233 Cal.App.4th 1065 (2014) as modified 1/29/15], and pretty much established new rules applicable to the rest period policies.

"Educators" ban on evictions is gone, no longer

[02-14-2018: Court of appeals reversed the judgment];
[Cal. Sup. Ct. denied review on April 25, 2018; Rent Ordinance reinstated back the "educators" ordinance's language on May 15, 2018, see the press release here].

On September 28, 2016, the San Francisco court adjudged the writ of mandate granted (URL upd. 06/26) on August 31, invalidating the infamous ordinance of last year, which was injecting a new type of a protected tenant, the "educators." That the new limitation was overbroad and unnecessary wide, both as to covering categories of tenants, and in including previously unheard-of amount of types of evictions (even the temporary move-out for repairs)—all that I have already had an opportunity to cover in my earlier post. Thus, the Court's decision, invalidating the ordinance, was not a surprise to me.

What is surprising is how the Court arrived to invalidating this ordinance. This path seems to me worth our attention, to make a mental note in case of a similar argument in the future.

10-year ban on residential mergers following non-fault eviction is confirmed as invalid by the appellate court

On September 19, 2016, San Francisco homeowners got confirmed in their relief, when the appellate court affirmed our county court's decision to strike a 10-year ban on residential mergers, following a non-fault eviction. The decision became final on October 24 (3 Cal.App 5th 463).  And yes, we are now in the fifth series of appellate decisions, since July 1, 2016.

Rent Control News

Despite the studies hinting to the contrary (URL upd. 06/26), rent-control regulations continue to spread in the Bay Area. San Mateo, Mountain View, and Richmond are slated to vote on the rent control measures (example articles covering it are here and here). This post covers the ones currently pending and a few hoping to join the movement; take notice, if you have property interests in the areas affected.

Disability As Criminal Defense

This post covers how some well known concepts of criminal defense in California can be made in the context of a disabled defendant. There is nothing new in the rules, yet the recent case, People v. Gana, provides some more detail and guidelines on application.

Eviction Notice book - new edition is out

I can finally announce that the new edition (better to say, "addition"), of my eviction notice book is finally out and available on Amazon (print and e-book (URL upd. 06/26) versions). Since the 1st version came out in April 2015, all later iterations were improvements, corrections, and updates of the material outlined there, the "for-fault" evictions and the generally relevant information (exceptions, common elements, and other useful observations of general type).

This issue is different. It adds 22 pages of new material. Half of it covers topics common for all non-fault evictions, and there rest is dedicated to the first two "non-fault" just causes: owner move-in and relative move-in (37.9(a)(8)) evictions.