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.

waste of time as sanctionable conduct

In preparation to my second visit to London with our Bar's Litigation Section (called "A Legal Week In London," highly recommended), I was sharing my experiences from my first trip in 2015 with colleagues, and the discussion quickly centered on what differences I had then observed between how the courts operate there and here.  My observations are from the ground up: I appear regularly in law & motion and trial settings, and so can only compare from a view of a field practitioner. I make this comment because our visiting group in London included all kinds of members, from transactional attorneys, to appellate practitioners, to in-house counsel, and even judges and one appellate judge. So, what may have appeared noticeable in differences for them, might not strike me a worthy of note at all.

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.

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.

Hayes v Kardosh - Rule 12.20 explained and limited

In April an appellate decision came down in Hayes v. Kardosh (as modified) (URL upd. 06/26), containing a detailed discussion about the extent of Rule 12.20 limitations in changing the terms of a tenancy, explaining its meaning within the San Francisco Rent Ordinance and particularly applying it to the Rules 6.15 (URL upd. 05/26) regarding prohibition on subletting. It is too bad the decision is not certified for publication, but its reasoning still worth reading.

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.

Waiver Defense Becomes Available To Landlords

Interpreting a lease agreement under the latest court decisions will be much different from the rules accepted among practitioners even a year ago. It seems the changes are now coming down almost every week, and the latest one is a rare specimen: Chen v. Kraft (2016) 243 Cal.App.4th Supp. 13 (URL upd. 06/26). It holds, among other findings, that a landlord may not waive a prohibition against illegal use of the property, even if a landlord were to enter into a written agreement expressly permitting such use.

Of What Materials May Court Take Judicial Notice?

Request for judicial notice is a widely deployed vehicle for bringing court's attention to certain materials and records. In California, it is regulated by the California Evidence Code ("CEC"), Sections 450-460. It generally defines what requires judicial notice be mandatorily taken of (CEC 451), and what may be judicially noticed at court's discretion (CEC 452, 452.5). The rule is also stated for the contrary: what is not authorized by law, may not be judicially noticed (CEC 450). If the court declines to take judicial notice, the court shall let the parties know about its decision a.s.a.p., and indicate the denial on the record (CEC 456). However, such denial is never final and can be later reversed (CEC 458).

As comprehensive as the judicial notice statutes are written, they can't physically encompass every possible kind of matter litigants may request the court to take judicial notice of. It thus brings the question, what kind of non-obvious materials were previously judicially noticed? This post is a short review of items I was able to identify.

2015 Roundup In CA/SF Real Property Law

2015 was an eventful year, if measured in the scope of the real property legal changes. No stone left unturned. I got to witness it from the front seat myself: for this was the year when I decided to publish my book on the San Francisco eviction notices. It got published in April 2015, and I thought to be done with it for awhile. Little did I know, the changes would demand me to issue seven revisions during next five months, after which a big slew of changes came at once with the Ordinance 171-15, making me to rewrite almost the whole book anew! Version 2.0 went out in December (and yes, with some of the even more recent changes mentioned here, version 2.1 is already in the making).  But enough about me, let's look back and observe, what an enormous year 2015 was for the legal landscape in CA/SF real estate:

Demurrer By A Motion To Quash Is No More--Delta Motion Is Held Wrong Practice

For many years, there was a peculiar decision in Delta Imps. v. Mun. Ct. (1983) 146 Cal.App.3d 1033, holding that the only way a complaint in unlawful detainer can be challenged on legal grounds was for a tenant to bring a motion to quash, not a demurrer. Many voiced their disagreement with this case during its 32-year legacy, and it seems that the last nail has arrived this week, the decision in Borsuk v. App. Div. of the Sup. Ct. (2015) 242 Cal. App. 4th 607.

New Meet & Confer Rules For California Demurrer and some motions - CCP 430.41, 435.5, 439

[Update - - my short 2015 post about demurrers' new meet & confer rule needs to be updated, now to include other motions, also requiring meet & confer step effective January 1, 2018.
CCP § 435.5 covers motions to strike, and CCP § 439 judgments on the pleadings, both with the exceptions similar to ones previously secured for demurrers under 430.41 (unlawful detainer, incarcerated moving party) and adds two more exceptions (anti-SLAPP motions and a motion brought less than 30 days before trial).]

Ellis Act Victory for SPOSFI -- Ordinance 68-15 Is Stricken

Another great victory for the Small Property Owners of San Francisco Institute and Zacks & Freedman (URL upd. 06/26): Rent Ordinance No. 68-15 is stricken and found as "unreasonable" as its predecessor, Ordinance No. 54-14. Look at the case's online record here, (URL upd. 06/26) to see the October 2, 2015, order.

Fresh Amendment to Ellis Act Relocation Payments Ordinance

The San Francisco Rent Board has recently amended Section 37.9A of the San Francisco Administrative Code, capping the amount of proposed relocation payments at $50,000 (URL upd. 05/26). This is still an about three times larger amount than what is currently allowed, but at least there is now a limit.

Direct Deposits And Other Electronic Means Affecting Landlord and Tenant Duties

An important new case came down last December, Kruger v. Reyes, 232 Cal.App.4th Supp. 10, 181 Cal. Rptr. 3d 521 (2014), covering several rules: timely service of the notice for non-payment rent, proper calculations in that notice of the rent due and the time when it is due. None of those concepts are new, but the case contains rare findings due to its fact pattern, including the issue of tenants paying rent by depositing funds directly to the landlord's account.

Friday after Thanksgiving--Not a Business Day

The fact that the day following the Thanksgiving Day is not a business day is not obvious. After all, most retail outlets on that day are gladly open for business--even earlier than usual--to keep up with the Black Friday sale spirit. Government Code 6700 does not mention it. However, it is a holiday, as established by these statutes:

E-filing works in SF Superior Court

Since I wrote about the e-filing coming to San Francisco last October, many changes were proposed, and some were even made, and the system started working on a wide variety of cases on July 14 (URL upd. 06/26). Yesterday, I tried it for myself and today my first ever state-court filing went live! You may want to give it a try, the water looks safe!

[UPDATE 11-6-14] E-filing becomes mandatory across the board in civil cases in this court, with very few exceptions, effective December 8, 2014. Three more vendors (URL upd. 06/26) were approved on November 5 in addition to the previously sole vendor, File & Serve Xpress.

Employer's Bond To Appeal Labor Commissioner's Decisions - Mandatory or Not?

Not everyone works a 4-hour workweek, but all those who work some finite periods of time may wonder, when does the time worked starts counting toward the overtime. In California, a straightforward response would be, after 8 hours per day or after 40 hours per week. But not everything is straightforward, and the overtime may come sooner just as well as it may come later in the workday or workweek. In other words, "it depends."

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.

Access to UK Caselaw And Beyond

If you need to look up a case decided in United Kingdom, try this free database. While there, look at the right column, entitled "World Law Resources," it has links to a collection of world jurisdictions.

Legal Paper Size is ... Illegal. Foolscap!

Today, for the first time, my complaint was not accepted for filing because some of the pages were presented on legal size paper. The lease was printed on an old "long" form, requiring the legal size, and, while I used to have those exhibits successfully filed before, my luck ended today. The reason is not even a law, but the technology: I was told that the scanning company complains about the legal size, so all non-letter sized papers are now prohibited, in order not to upset the scanners. There you have it, the paper size called "legal" is not legal after all. I made a new copy of the long pages, reducing them to 8.5" x 11," and the filing went through, but, while I waited in line, I tried to look the subject up, and here are my findings.