Eviction Law

[sdaugh7261]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?
California

My friend in CA is being evicted by her landlady after her husband battered her. Charges were filed against the husband and he has been removed from the residence. Can her landlady evict her, I think they can not as she is a victim of a crime. At the same time tho I think they can evict him for committing a crime, but she is being hit in the cross fire, they gave her a 60day eviction notice.

I think she should counter sue for discrimination.

 

[Zigner]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?
California

My friend in CA is being evicted by her landlady after her husband battered her. Charges were filed against the husband and he has been removed from the residence. Can her landlady evict her, I think they can not as she is a victim of a crime. At the same time tho I think they can evict him for committing a crime, but she is being hit in the cross fire, they gave her a 60day eviction notice.

I think she should counter sue for discrimination.

A 60 day notice is not an eviction. It is simply a termination of tenancy.

 

[Willlyjo]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?
California

My friend in CA is being evicted by her landlady after her husband battered her. Charges were filed against the husband and he has been removed from the residence. Can her landlady evict her, I think they can not as she is a victim of a crime. At the same time tho I think they can evict him for committing a crime, but she is being hit in the cross fire, they gave her a 60day eviction notice.

I think she should counter sue for discrimination.

Most LL/Tenant contracts allow the LL to give a 60 day notice to a tenant to move. Just as a tenant can move so can a LL end a business relationship via the 60 day notice.

Your friend's only recource is to continue paying the rent on time and once it is refused and eviction papers are served, contest it. Or find another place to rent during the 60 day period she has to move out.

 

[Zigner]

Most LL/Tenant contracts allow the LL to give a 60 day notice to a tenant to move.

30 days is the norm...but in CA, if a tenant has been a tenant for more than a year, then BY LAW, they get 60 days.

 

[Willlyjo]

30 days is the norm...but in CA, if a tenant has been a tenant for more than a year, then BY LAW, they get 60 days.

Correct! I just assumed since the LL gave a 60 day notice, that was the case!

 

[sandyclaus]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?
California

My friend in CA is being evicted by her landlady after her husband battered her. Charges were filed against the husband and he has been removed from the residence. Can her landlady evict her, I think they can not as she is a victim of a crime. At the same time tho I think they can evict him for committing a crime, but she is being hit in the cross fire, they gave her a 60day eviction notice.

I think she should counter sue for discrimination.

Sorry guys, but there is an actual law that protects the battered wife here.

A new state law, California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1161.3, prohibits terminating the tenancy of a victim of domestic violence, if the domestic violence has been documented in a police report within the last 180 days or has resulted in a restraining order. "Domestic violence" covered by this statute includes stalking.

As long as your friend meets the requirements (a police report filed in the last 180 days or a restraining order issued against her husband), the LL CANNOT terminate her tenancy. This also applies if her husband was a tenant on the lease. The law does allow the landlord to evict if she voluntarily allows the husband into her unit or if the husband is a genuine danger to the other tenants. However, if she continues to pay her rent, doesn't give permission to the husband to return, and otherwise complies with the rental agreement, the landlord cannot terminate her tenancy.

 

[Zigner]

Sorry guys, but there is an actual law that protects the battered wife here.

A new state law, California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1161.3, prohibits terminating the tenancy of a victim of domestic violence, if the domestic violence has been documented in a police report within the last 180 days or has resulted in a restraining order. "Domestic violence" covered by this statute includes stalking.

As long as your friend meets the requirements (a police report filed in the last 180 days or a restraining order issued against her husband), the LL CANNOT terminate her tenancy. This also applies if her husband was a tenant on the lease. The law does allow the landlord to evict if she voluntarily allows the husband into her unit or if the husband is a genuine danger to the other tenants. However, if she continues to pay her rent, doesn't give permission to the husband to return, and otherwise complies with the rental agreement, the landlord cannot terminate her tenancy.

Thanks for that correction - that was in the back of my mind.

The only caveat I see to this is the words "based on" - if the LL can prove that the termination of tenancy was NOT "based on" the act of violence, then it appears that the LL can, in fact, terminate the tenancy.

 

[sandyclaus]

Thanks for that correction - that was in the back of my mind.

The only caveat I see to this is the words "based on" - if the LL can prove that the termination of tenancy was NOT "based on" the act of violence, then it appears that the LL can, in fact, terminate the tenancy.

Yes, indeed. That's a significant loophole the LL can use, since CA does not require a LL to provide a reason to terminate a month-to-month tenancy.

However, the timing is mighty suspicious, and if the tenant was paid current on rent and wasn't in violation of their rental agreement in any other manner, it might not be so hard to prove that this was LLs intent (if it got that far).

I also have to ask - we are assuming that the tenant is a month-to-month tenant. Maybe she is under a current lease? Or perhaps she lives in a rent-controlled community? If either if these things applies, then giving her the 60-day notice when the LL did brings up all sorts of red flags.

 

[Zigner]

Yes, indeed. That's a significant loophole the LL can use, since CA does not require a LL to provide a reason to terminate a month-to-month tenancy.

However, the timing is mighty suspicious, and if the tenant was paid current on rent and wasn't in violation of their rental agreement in any other manner, it might not be so hard to prove that this was LLs intent (if it got that far).

I also have to ask - we are assuming that the tenant is a month-to-month tenant. Maybe she is under a current lease? Or perhaps she lives in a rent-controlled community? If either if these things applies, then giving her the 60-day notice when the LL did brings up all sorts of red flags.

No arguments here...

 

[Willlyjo]

Yes, indeed. That's a significant loophole the LL can use, since CA does not require a LL to provide a reason to terminate a month-to-month tenancy.

However, the timing is mighty suspicious, and if the tenant was paid current on rent and wasn't in violation of their rental agreement in any other manner, it might not be so hard to prove that this was LLs intent (if it got that far).

I also have to ask - we are assuming that the tenant is a month-to-month tenant. Maybe she is under a current lease? Or perhaps she lives in a rent-controlled community? If either if these things applies, then giving her the 60-day notice when the LL did brings up all sorts of red flags.

I'm sure if it were true that the tenant in this case lived in a rent controlled community and/or she had a lease, the OP would have told us about it.

The truth is that even if a LL gives a 30/60 day notice to a tenant and the tenant continues to pay rent on time but yet, gets an eviction filed against them, more often than not, the judge requires a good reason to evict them. So irregardless of other circumstances in favor of the tenant (as sandyclaus pointed out), it still wouldn't be cut in stone that the LL would be successful in evicting a tenant (in California) unless for a good reason.

 

[Zigner]

The truth is that even if a LL gives a 30/60 day notice to a tenant and the tenant continues to pay rent on time but yet, gets an eviction filed against them, more often than not, the judge requires a good reason to evict them. So irregardless of other circumstances in favor of the tenant (as sandyclaus pointed out), it still wouldn't be cut in stone that the LL would be successful in evicting a tenant (in California) unless for a good reason.

"Good reason" would be failure to vacate after a valid notice to terminate tenancy has been given and the tenant hasn't left in the appropriate time.

 

[Willlyjo]

"Good reason" would be failure to vacate after a valid notice to terminate tenancy has been given and the tenant hasn't left in the appropriate time.

Apparently not always so. I've seen it happen several times (3 with people I've helped with paperwork responding to evictions)! Some judges don't understand (and I believe rightfully so) that the LL wants someone to leave only to rent their property to someone else. Such tenants have paid their rent ontime and were good tenants but yet given notices to terminate their residencies, which they've contested based on financial hardship. The judge wouldn't allow the LL to evict them.

You've really have no experience with which to roll your eyes, Zig!