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.

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.

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:

Passing On Eviction Protections 2.0

On September 22, 2015, the Board of Supervisors passed a set of proposed amendments to the Rent Ordinance. The did it in first reading, and for the most parts of the proposal voted for it 11 to none. This amendment must be a no brainer then, if it met such support, yet the joyous media coverage avoids to talk details. Let's give it a try here.
[Update 11-21-15] - the amendments became effective on November 9, 2015. The Rent Board's published version of the Rent Ordinance now reflects the changes; the multilingual form now required to be attached to the eviction notice is published here.
[Update 12-5-15] - 3 amended and 1 new Rule in 6.xx series became adopted, effective December 4.

New practice of S.F. tax assessor requesting extensive info

A new practice of assessing the property tax gains speed in San Francisco. No longer it is enough to report your sale's price to establish the new value. Instead, new owners now receive a letter like this from the San Francisco Tax Assessor Office. It asks the new buyer about a lot of additional information, even some that buyer may not even know, such as future rent values. What a buyer to do?

Joint Liability of Tenants

It is not uncommon to encounter a situation when two or more original tenants under a single lease agreement would act differently, and then expect different treatment by the landlord. A non-defaulting co-tenant might want to disassociate from a defaulting one. And, sometimes, a defaulting tenant would like to take all the liability on his or her own, in an effort to save other co-tenants from being held liable alongside with the defaulter. The outcome for such intentions may be decided based on the text of the lease.

A Lose-Lose Scenario: Changes In Rent Ordinance Regarding Ellis Act Treatment Appear To Be Counterproductive

Update 10-21-14: Federal District Court finds this ordinance unconstitutional, see judge Breyer's opinion as published on PACER (scribd copy), case No. 14-cv-03352-CRB.

A significant change in the treatment of the Ellis Act went into effect in San Francisco on June 1, 2014 (Ordinance No.54-14). It is no longer enough to just look up the current amount for the fixed relocation assistance payment. To calculate what is due to tenants vacating under the Ellis Act one now has to employ a formula to select the greater from the two options: either the fixed amount, or "an amount equal to the difference between the unit's rental rate at the time the landlord files the notice of intent to withdraw rental units with the Board, and the market rental rate for a comparable unit in San Francisco as determined by the Controller's Office, multiplied to cover a two-year period, and divided equally by the number of tenants in the unit." Section 37.9A(e)(3)(E)(ii). The funny part is in the math: lesser entitled tenants stand a higher chance to recover large payments.

Similarities Between Landlord-Tenant and Employer-Employee Relationships

Since I primarily practice litigation in these two fields, real property and labor law, it has caught my eye that the rights and obligations of the parties in rental and employment contexts have many similarities. To see just a few, consider the holdings I highlighted in this post.

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.

Mandatory Health Exchange Notice - Where A California Employer Can Look For Help

It is a sad coincidence that the deadline of one event (federal budget) matched with the date when another event started rolling out (Health Care Reform). It is even sadder if the two events are related and the impasse on one may get the other stuck in its opening gates. It is for politicians to wrestle in search of a compromise; meanwhile, the law's one of the initial stages came into force, people are enrolling, and the California Employer is now mandated* to give employees a certain notice about health exchange. Where can one look for tips and hints, or, better, for suggestions on the notice's form? I have assembled here what I was able to find so far: