Open house schedule

[Nyakuro]

my landlord is looking to sell the house we rent and I am perfectly happy to cooperate as much as I can in the process.

However, we have cats who get pretty nervous with strangers. So I don't want the realtor to come when we are not present.

I live in California and my question is;
1) can I refuse a lockbox?
2) can I refuse an open house schedule when we are not present?

I just don't want strangers here when we are not present.

 

[Gail in Georgia]

A landlord must give you a minimum 24-hour written notice before showing the house you occupy. In California, when a real estate agent shows the property, your landlord must provide a 24-hour notice, but it can be verbal rather than written. She must, however, give you previous written notice that the property is for sale and that real estate agents will show it over the next 120 days. Any notice of a showing, whether verbal or in writing, must include showing dates and times.

So...to answer your questions..

"1) can I refuse a lockbox?"
No

"2) can I refuse an open house schedule when we are not present?"
No

Again, the entire emphasis is on letting the tenant know in advance that there will be a showing of the property. That way you can make plans on confining pets that would be uncomfortable around strangers.


Sometimes an open house is the least "painful" method for tenants (i.e., having potential buyers walk through for a couple of hours as opposed to a dribble of buyers over days or weeks).

Gail

 

[adjusterjack]

I live in California and my question is;
1) can I refuse a lockbox?
2) can I refuse an open house schedule when we are not present?

I just don't want strangers here when we are not present.

This is one of the rare occasions that I have to disagree with Gail.

There is a significant security risk of allowing a lockbox. It would not be unreasonable to refuse one unless you are able to have somebody present in the house at all times.

And you certainly have the right to not have strangers in your home when you aren't there.

As for open house, as long as you are presented with advance notice, just make sure you be there during the entire period. They are generally held on weekends anyway so that shouldn't be a problem. You may be asked to leave the premises while prospective buyers are looking over the house. You are free to refuse to leave. And, personally, I would dog the footsteps of anybody wandering through the house to make sure they don't have sticky fingers.

Here's the CA "entry" statute:

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=CIV&sectionNum=1954.

Print it out. Read it. Keep it. Hold the property owner to the letter of the law and respond to any non-compliance in writing.

You might also be interested in learning about the implied covenant of quiet enjoyment - addressed by CA Civil Code Section 1927:

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=CIV&sectionNum=1927.

Should the landlord give you a hard time there is CA case law to back you up:

Case Law on the Implied Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment
Petroleum Collections Inc. v. Swords, 48 Cal.App.3d 841 (1975) and Guntert v. City of Stockton, 55 Cal.App.3d 131 (1976) both stood for the rule that unless otherwise stated, this covenant is impliedly found in ALL leasing agreements. Pierce v. Nash, 126 Cal.App.2d 606 (1954) held that minor inconveniences and annoyances are not actionable breaches of the implied covenant of quiet enjoyment. To be actionable, the landlord's act or omission must substantially interfere with a tenant's right to use and enjoy the premises for the purposes contemplated by the tenancy.

Remedy for a Breach of the Implied Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment
An interference by the landlord, or by someone claiming under the landlord "by which the tenant is deprived of the beneficial enjoyment of the premises amounts to a constructive eviction if the tenant so elects and surrenders possession, and the tenant will not be liable for rentals for the portion of the term following his eviction." Kulawitz v. Pacific etc. Paper Co. 25 Cal.2d 664 (1944).

 

[Zigner]

This is one of the rare occasions that I have to disagree with Gail.

There is a significant security risk of allowing a lockbox. It would not be unreasonable to refuse one unless you are able to have somebody present in the house at all times.

And you certainly have the right to not have strangers in your home when you aren't there.

As for open house, as long as you are presented with advance notice, just make sure you be there during the entire period. They are generally held on weekends anyway so that shouldn't be a problem. You may be asked to leave the premises while prospective buyers are looking over the house. You are free to refuse to leave. And, personally, I would dog the footsteps of anybody wandering through the house to make sure they don't have sticky fingers.

Here's the CA "entry" statute:

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=CIV&sectionNum=1954.

Print it out. Read it. Keep it. Hold the property owner to the letter of the law and respond to any non-compliance in writing.

You might also be interested in learning about the implied covenant of quiet enjoyment - addressed by CA Civil Code Section 1927:

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=CIV&sectionNum=1927.

Should the landlord give you a hard time there is CA case law to back you up:

Case Law on the Implied Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment
Petroleum Collections Inc. v. Swords, 48 Cal.App.3d 841 (1975) and Guntert v. City of Stockton, 55 Cal.App.3d 131 (1976) both stood for the rule that unless otherwise stated, this covenant is impliedly found in ALL leasing agreements. Pierce v. Nash, 126 Cal.App.2d 606 (1954) held that minor inconveniences and annoyances are not actionable breaches of the implied covenant of quiet enjoyment. To be actionable, the landlord's act or omission must substantially interfere with a tenant's right to use and enjoy the premises for the purposes contemplated by the tenancy.

Remedy for a Breach of the Implied Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment
An interference by the landlord, or by someone claiming under the landlord "by which the tenant is deprived of the beneficial enjoyment of the premises amounts to a constructive eviction if the tenant so elects and surrenders possession, and the tenant will not be liable for rentals for the portion of the term following his eviction." Kulawitz v. Pacific etc. Paper Co. 25 Cal.2d 664 (1944).

A reasonable number of showings incident to the sale of the property does not, and will not, constitute a breach of any covenant of quiet enjoyment.

 

[Gail in Georgia]

This case may also help the OP in regards to open house sessions in his/her state:

http://realtytimes.com/consumeradvice/rentaladvice1/item/26282-20131001-california-court-allows-weekend-open-houses-for-tenant-occupied-properties

Gail

 

[justalayman]

No, a tenant in California does not have the right to not have strangers in their home when they aren't there if the strangers are there at the behest of the landlord. No a tenant cannot refuse to allow a lockbox on the home.

California prohibits a landlord from abusing their right of entry but it will take more than a couple showings to be considered abuse. The law specifically provides for showings of the home.

Refusal to allow entry would actually be a violation of
The law and could subject the op to an eviction action.

 

[LdiJ]

No, a tenant in California does not have the right to not have strangers in their home when they aren't there if the strangers are there at the behest of the landlord. No a tenant cannot refuse to allow a lockbox on the home.

California prohibits a landlord from abusing their right of entry but it will take more than a couple showings to be considered abuse. The law specifically provides for showings of the home.

Refusal to allow entry would actually be a violation of
The law and could subject the op to an eviction action.

Refusal of a lockbox is not a refusal of showings. Refusal of a lockbox simply stops a realtor from entering whenever the heck they want to enter.

 

[justalayman]

Refusal of a lockbox is not a refusal of showings. Refusal of a lockbox simply stops a realtor from entering whenever the heck they want to enter.

Those were two separate issues and and no, a tenant cannot prevent a landlord from putting a lockbox on the landlords property.

and it is Realtor, with a capital R if you are speaking of a Realtor. Otherwise it's a real estate agent or realty agent or something similar. .