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.

Statewide rent control is coming to California. Like now.

[2019-09-11 UPDATE] it has passed the Senate today.

This is just in. The bill passed the Assembly and is expected to pass the Senate as well:
https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/05/29/california-rent-cap-bill/amp/

Current version of the bill is here.
Related to is Assembly bill on "just cause" eviction control is moving along as well, progress is reported here.

All of the above is despite last Fall's failure to win voters' consent to similar measures at the poll, the "Proposition 10."

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.

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. 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 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.

Hayes v Kardosh - Rule 12.20 explained and limited

In April an appellate decision came down in Hayes v. Kardosh, 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 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.

"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 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.

San Francisco Response To More Housing Demand--Less Supply

It may take several years, perhaps decades, before we will witness the end of the ongoing social experiment in San Francisco, where the options for housing development decrease, demand increases, and the legislature tries to hold the pressure by imposing more and more rules, simultaneously trying to prevent the natural flow and exchange of tenants, and talking about the desire for more affordable housing. This is a categorical conflict of contrasting goals, too few dare to acknowledge.

A few of recently published articles illustrate the issue.

Security Deposit - Held In Trust Or Not?

It is an understandable to assume that, when you entrust someone with your money, to hold and use only under certain conditions, and to return the money back to you when/if those conditions don't apply, the money are held by someone in trust for you (Dillon v. Cross (1907) 5 Cal.App. 766; Spencer v. Duncan (1895) 107 Cal. 423), or as a bailee (Niiya v. Goto (1960, Cal App 2d Dist) 181 Cal. App. 2d 682; CC § 1814).

Not so with the security deposits. The court in Korens v. R. W. Zukin Corp. (1989) 212 Cal.App.3d 1054, ruled that the money held by the landlords as security deposits create a debtor-creditor relationship, but are not held in trust, citing in support CC § 1950.5(d). (Id. at 1058-1059). Is the Korens Rule absolute? As it is with many legal concepts,  the answer is "it depends."

Stealthy Amendment to The Rent Ordinance

Some amendments pass while being widely covered in the news, but not this one. It was not even announced in the "What's New" section of the Rent Board. And yet it did pass and will become effective in a couple of weeks, Ordinance 0017-16.
[Update 3-22-16] - The new form is now available for download and the news announcement is published]

This ordinance is a very short piece, but the changes it enacts should not be overlooked; indeed, that is the very danger of unknown changes in legislature, since ignorantia juris non excusat,* an ancient maxim apparently known since Aristotle. If you are like me, and had no idea about the changes coming, you might be interested in this summary below:

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. 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.