Tenancy Quotes

“Code of Civil Procedure §1161(2) prevents the landlord from claiming rent due more than a year before the service of the 3-day notice. See Fifth & Broadway Partnership v Kimny, Inc. (1980) 102 CA3d 195, 202. An argument could also be made on the ground of laches that it is inequitable for a landlord to wait a full year before demanding overdue rent. That argument was successfully made in Maxwell v Simons (Civ Ct 1973) 353 NYS2d 589, which held that it was unconscionable for a landlord to permit the tenant to fall more than 3 months behind in rent before bringing an unlawful detainer action based on the total arrearage. New York law required the tenant to pay the arrearage within 5 days or return possession. The court held that the landlord could base his eviction action only on the last 3 months' nonpayment of rent and would have to recover the balance in an ordinary action for rent. See also Marriott v Shaw (Civ Ct 1991) 574 NYS2d 477 and Dedvukaj v Mandonado (Civ Ct 1982) 453 NYS2d 965. In California, this reasoning, along with the cases cited above on "equitable" defenses, might be used to attack a 3-day notice to pay or quit demanding more than three months' back rent.”
― Myron Moskovitz, California Eviction Defense Manual

“Civil Code §1947.3 provides that a landlord or landlord's agent must allow a tenant to pay rent and the security deposit by at least one form of payment that is neither cash nor electronic funds transfer, unless the tenant has previously attempted to pay with a check drawn on insufficient funds or stopped payment, in which case the landlord may demand cash for up to the next three months. Any waiver of the tenant's rights under this section is void.”
― Myron Moskovitz, California Eviction Defense Manual

“It is long settled in California that a landlord who resorts to self-help [such as removing a tenant's personal belongings and changing the locks, even though the tenant is still in legal possession of the property] instead of invoking the unlawful detainer procedure commits a forcible entry and detainer, and is liable for actual and, sometimes, punitive damages (see Jordan v Talbot (1961) 55 C2d 597), regardless of any lease provision giving the landlord the right to reenter on default (55 C2d at 604) or any lien the landlord may wish to exercise (55 C2d at 609).”
― Myron Moskovitz, California Eviction Defense Manual

“After signing a new lease agreement, tenants should be counseled to file [with the county Recorder's Office] a request for notice under CC §2924b. By recording their lease interest and thereby securing their right to be notified of defaults [on the property they lease], tenants position themselves to avoid the unfortunate surprise of discovering only after the property is lost through foreclosure that, despite paying their rent each month, they face possible termination of their tenancy.”
― Andrew E. Westley, Matthew Bender® Practice Guide: California Landlord-Tenant Litigation

“Unlawful self-help by a landlord or owner is a crime in some circumstances. See Pen C §§418, 602.5. Penal Code §602.5 also provides that any person, other than specified public officers and employees, who enters a residence without the owner's consent while a resident or other person authorized to be in the dwelling is present, is guilty of aggravated trespass. Aggravated trespass is punishable by imprisonment in a county jail for up to a year, or by a fine up to $1000, or both.”
― Myron Moskovitz, California Eviction Defense Manual

“Subletting may create a different problem for the tenant who sublets. Under some [rent control] ordinances, a tenant who sublets for a fixed term (e.g., a 3-month vacation) may not be able to evict the subtenant at the end of the subletting. This situation would arise if only persons with a specified record interest in the property have a right to evict for owner occupancy. The tenant (the seblessor) would not be able to evict the subtenant to reoccupy the premises, because the seblessor is defined as a "landlord" in the ordinance but not as an "owner." (If there is no other cause to evict, the owner-landlord could not evict the subtenant unless he or she planned to occupy the unit.)
Counsel representing a subtenant should review the local ordinance to ascertain whether it defines a tenant as the "landlord" of the subtenant or if the definition of "tenant" includes any "subtenant." If so, the subtenant would have all the rights of a tenant under the ordinance. At least one ordinance specifically addresses this problem by providing that any landlord (not just an owner) may evict to recover possession for his or her own occupancy "as a principal residence" if the landlord previously occupied the unit and reserved the right to recover possession under the rental agreement. See Berkeley Mun[icipal] C[ode] §§13.76.040, 13.76.130. See also SF Rent Bd Rules & Regs §6.15C(1), discussed in §17.5. (In San Francisco, a well-informed tenant who is subletting will expressly reserve continued exclusive "possession" of some limited space so that the tenant can immediately enter on returning to the premises. Then, if necessary, and with proper compliance with the regulations, the tenant can evict the subtenant without cause.)
It is unclear whether the Berkeley ordinance prohibits a landlord from evicting an unapproved subtenant and recovering possession, especially in light of the Costa-Hawkins Act (see §§17.1A–17.1G). If the landlord may not, then apparently the tenant who sublets may not object to further subletting by the subtenant. Such further subletting might, however, bar the tenant's right to recover possession. Berkeley Mun C §13.76.130 specifies that the right to recover occupancy must be in "an existing rental agreement with the current tenants." (Emphasis added.)
A tenant who takes in a roommate by subletting must be distinguished from one who takes in a roommate with the landlord's consent, i.e., a cotenant. The roommate becomes a tenant of the landlord rather than a subtenant of the original tenant. In this situation, the original tenant has no right to evict the roommate. Only the landlord may evict and must have just cause [as defined by the ordinance] to do so if the roommate is found to be a tenant under the local eviction control ordinance.”
― Myron Moskovitz, California Eviction Defense Manual

“Some rent control ordinances permit a landlord to evict a tenant in order to rehabilitate a unit. [....] Such evictions are usually conditioned on the landlord's obtaining all necessary permits before the eviction. Some ordinances require that the tenant be given (1) the right to occupy any vacant unit that the same landlord owns within the city, (2) the right to reoccupy the vacated unit on the completion of the rehabilitation work, or (3) a payment to defray the costs of relocation. [....]
A landlord who refuses to allow the tenant to reoccupy the vacated unit is subject to liability under the governing ordinance.”
― Myron Moskovitz

“Moderate dirt or spotting on a carpet or drapes, even if you can't get the stains out, is probably just ordinary wear and tear if the tenant has occupied the unit for a number of years. On the other hand, you would be justified in deducting from the security deposit for large rips or indelible stains [or cigarette burns] in a carpet. The basic approach to take is to determine whether the tenant has damaged or substantially shortened the life of something that does wear out. If the answer is yes, you may charge the tenant the prorated cost of the item, taking into account how old it was, how long it might have lasted otherwise, and the cost of replacement.”
― David Wayne Brown, The California Landlord's Lawbook: Rights & Responsibilities

“The landlord, however, may not use the security to repair or improve conditions that existed before the tenancy began or that are the cumulative effect of ordinary wear and tear occurring during any one or more tenancies. CC §1950.5(e).”
― Myron Moskovitz, California Eviction Defense Manual

“Another area of tenant-landlord disputes over the return of deposits has to do with damages to the premises. Some landlords try to charge tenants for everything from a worn spot on a hall rug to faded paint to missing lightbulbs. The tenant is not responsible for any damage or wear and tear done to the premises by an earlier tenant. (CC §1950.5(e).)”
― Janet Portman, California Tenants' Rights

“[In] NIVO 1, LLC v. Antunez, 217 Cal.App.4th Supp. 1 (2013) The Appellate Division of the Los Angeles Superior Court held that a tenant may not be evicted for failure to buy renter's insurance even if the lease requires purchasing insurance.”
― Madeline Howard, California Eviction Defense: Protecting Low-Income Tenants 2014