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.

Rescind, Surrender, And Cancel. Courts' Handling Of Leases.

I recently had to ask a clerk of the San Francisco Superior Court to enter a default judgment "for possession only" in an eviction case. The procedure does not require many steps to comply with, but this time I talked the details over with the clerk, and left very glad that I did, because I accidentally discovered that the SF Court follows an ancient tradition of physically canceling an original instrument, the lease agreement.

When You Hear "S.O.S.," Listen Between The Lines. Landlords See More of The "Season of Sharing."

An eviction for "nonpayment of rent" used to be considered as a more predictable, straightforward kind of an unlawful detainer action, especially when compared against evictions for more sophisticated causes, like nuisance or breach of an obligation other than a payment of rent. But, since the only constant we can rely on is the change [Heraclitus], the change is here and the easiness is no more. "'Tis the Season" say some of the tenants, who fell behind in paying rent, and they don't mean Christmas. They cry "S.O.S.," aka "Season of Sharing," and want landlords to accept their offer without reading the small print. But let us take a closer look.

Paying Rent: Toward the Past and Back For The Future

There is almost nothing to discuss on the rent's timing, or when does a rent payment become due. And everybody knows what to do when the rent is past-due. Yet, there are a few more possible timing problems relevant to the rent obligations: retroactive application of rents, retroactive change of terms, or charging the already left tenants for a loss of future rent. While these problems were litigated over, the answers are not always straight-forward:

Monthly Rent: When Is It Due And When Is It Late?

The most typical arrangement for the monthly rent payments is to be due on the 1st day of the month. This is probably how 99% of all landlord-tenant relationships operate. But is it required to be due on the first? Or, at least, is it so implied? And next question we might ask, once the due date is defined, when does the rent becomes late? This post will provide you with some hints on the subject.

Moving-in the Subtenants: Sensitive Time Limits under the Rules 6.15A and 6.15B

The San Francisco Rent Board's Rules 6.15A and 6.15B look alike in many aspects, yet they provide for different time limits. These differences should not be overlooked.

In Leasing an "In-Law" Apartment Don't Be "In Pari Delicto" - Beware of an Exception for Legal Enforcement of Illegal Contracts

Leasing an "unwarranted" unit contains inherent risks: recent court cases often treat such lease agreements as illegal contracts, a finding leading to a set of scary, but possible discussions, ranging from such lease being simply unenforceable to a claim for restitution of back rents. A question then naturally arises, what can be done with an illegal contract, and are there any exceptions or conditions for its enforcement. The basic rule is that the contracting parties are both "in pari delicto" and neither can enforce the contract or recover therefrom. There is, however, an exception developed in California, which still lets one side to such allegedly illegal contract to recover from the other. An exception itself is not new, but its application to "illegal" leases developed more recently.

Update 03-07-14: San Francisco pilot program for legalizing in-law apartments got approved at the Planning Commission level.
Update 04-07-14: Board of Supervisors approves the pilot program
Update 02-21-16: Decision in Chen v Kraft invalidated a lease with an unlawful object, under CC § 1598.

A lost fight over the lost script for LOST series - an Idea is as free as the air

On April 4, 2013, Second Appellate District issued an opinion in Spinner v. American Broadcasting Companies, Inc., Case No. B239229, coming out, of course, from Los Angeles Superior Court. This is a case regarding a fight over the rights to LOST television series. In its "Facts" section, the court described the inception of the series in great detail, which in itself is an interesting story.

Interest on Security Deposits: State view vs. San Francisco

California's general rule is that the landlord is not required to pay interest on the tenant's security deposit. The return of a residential security deposit is covered by the Cal. Civ. Code, Section 1950.5, and, as the case Korens v. R. W. Zukin Corp., 212 Cal. App. 3d 1054 (1989) indicated, "[a]lthough the subject of security deposits given in connection with the rental of residential properties has been extensively regulated by the legislature, Cal. Civ. Code § 1950.5, no provision of state law imposes the additional requirement that interest be paid on security deposits by landlords."

Burning Man Law

This month, Stuart Banner's book came out, covering courts' treatment of baseball, exempting it from the antitrust law. Reading an article about this book, I sought of another cultural phenomena, the Burning Man festival, and decided to take a look, what impact the festival makes on shaping courts' decisions, what constitutes the Burning Man law. I found six cases, which contributed to a variety of rules.

Vasquez v. Greene Motors - detailed decision re: enforceability of an adhesion contract and its arbirtration clause

On March 27, 2013,  1st Appellate District handed down a decision in Vasquez v. Greene Motors, Case No. A134829. There, Vasquez, a buyer of a used car, was challenging the car's purchase agreement, printed out on a standard form ("553-CA-ARB"), particularly its arbitration clause, arguing that the clause may not be enforced, because it is unconscionable, procedurally and substantially, and is overall one-sided and unfair. This decision contains a few thoughts worth to notice.