Metalworks business a violation of Housing Codes?

[defuturo]

What is the name of your state? CALIFORNIA

Is it legal for a master tenant to run a metalworks business out of the basement of a house in which he also rents residential bedrooms to subtenants?

The industrial activities continuously disturb the subtenants (sawing, welding, grinding, banging) until almost midnight on most days. Arc welding fumes pervade the house at various times and he stores various hazardous and flammable substances in the basement as well.

Obviously, the covenant of quiet enjoyment has been violated, but what implications does this have for the implied warranty of habitability?

Can either subtenant seek a retroactive rent abatement order to be reimbursed for the decreased value of the rental property over the course of time these activities have been going on, or is future withholding of rent payments the only way to go?

If so, what kind of evidence or proof of the conditions would be necessary to make the case?

Would it be necessary to bring in a city building inspector to verify the existence of the metalworks activities and to document any fire/safety violations stemming therefrom?

Would pictures of the master tenant in action be useful?

Thank you.


The name of my state is: CALIFORNIA

 

[Hot Topic]

How long has the master tenant run his business out of the house?

 

[treese]

Didn't you already start a thread on this subject?



You have a month to month lease and it was suggested that you give notice and move.

 

[defuturo]

not sure...

How long has the master tenant run his business out of the house?

Not sure.

I moved here in July 2005 and it has gotten progressively worse since. Apparently business is picking up. My financial and school situation has prevented me from moving, but I have taken steps to minimize the effects... I leave the house when I need to study. I have tried to insulate between the joists in the basement and have put foam strips around the doors. I rent 2 rooms, with the original idea being that I would use the smaller as my office/study and the other as my bedroom, but the bedroom is directly above his workshop and is completely intolerable. I have, for about the past 9 months, only used it for storage and have moved my bed into my study just so I could sleep. I have even gone so far as to completely plug and seal off the two heater vents in these two rooms because the main heat ductwork cuts directly through the workshop as well and acts like an amplifier (think chainsaw in a sewer culvert). So yes, I also have no heat in my bedroom, but it's San Francisco, not Minneapolis and I made that choice myeslf (but under duress, mind you).

Are you thinking that since I have continued to live here for a year with these conditions that I have constructively waived my right to raise the complaint?

I posted this message on Craigslist here in San Francisco and received this as one of the replies:

"its against the law to run a business out of your house period. there are only seven businesses grandfathered in in 1970...i would call the fire dept since im sure there are chemicals and flammables stored downstairs...."

I assume this person is local and has knowledge about local codes and ordinances. The master tenant's business certainly is NOT one of the 7 referenced above. At most, he has been running it out of here for a few years. I know he had a full time infotech job as late as 2001.

and another CL reply:

"after 10pm, it is illegal to make loud noises. You could call the cops at that point."

This one was from an ex-property manager in the area.

So, one says fire dept, the other says cops... either way, this would provide some level of documentation of the situation, right?

 

[defuturo]

Didn't you already start a thread on this subject?



You have a month to month lease and it was suggested that you give notice and move.

Yes, I did, but the deeper I get into my property law text, the more insufficient that answer seems, so I posted it again hoping to get some better information.

Is that OK with you?

 

[demartian]

Master Tenant

OK, I am thinking here, if you do something to possibly get the Master Tenant evicted, wouldn't that possibly cause the sub-tenants to have to go as well?

 

[defuturo]

OK, I am thinking here, if you do something to possibly get the Master Tenant evicted, wouldn't that possibly cause the sub-tenants to have to go as well?

Yes, I believe that is the case.


I don't necessarily want him evicted, but I would like to pursue a retroactive rent abatement for the decreased value of my rental if that is possible.

I don't know that the actual landlord would necessarily need to be involved for me to pursue a claim against my effective "landlord," the master tenant.

 

[defuturo]

Indicative of lack of knowledge on the topic...

Didn't you already start a thread on this subject?

You have a month to month lease and it was suggested that you give notice and move.

Yeah, and the responses I got were CRAP. Thanks for nothing.

Your response is indicative of your lack of knowledge on the matter, which I have learned is exemplary of most responses on this forum. If I didn't have a generally optimistic outlook on human nature, I'd have to conclude that some people on here purposely try to mislead those who post sincere requests for advice. Hmmm.

Just to update this thread...

The last rent I paid was in September and I haven't paid a dime since. I'm moving out, of my own volition, in mid-December after finals. I will have saved over $2200 in the process.

Here's how...

Since the master tenant is running an illegal industrial business out of a residentially-zoned rental property, in violation of the covenant of quiet enjoyment and the implied warranty of habitability, and since he does not want to a.) stop running his business, and b.) get evicted himself, or c.) get sued by me, he has not been able to even attempt to evict me.

His eviction attempt would lead to me asserting the above defenses. In response, the court would send out the building inspectors who would discover the illegal business and several safety and building code violations. In turn they would send a notice to abate the violations to the actual property owner who would, at minimum, require the master tenant to stop his business activities on the property, or at worst, evict him (and both subtenants as well).

In addition, the implied warranty of habitability is retroactive, meaning that I could affirmatively sue him (or file a counter-claim in the eviction proceeding) for the decreased value of my rental all the way back to the time I moved in... and contrary to what some of you may try to assert, the implied warranty of habitability is NON-WAIVABLE, meaning that just because I stayed and suffered his noise and fumes for over a year, I didn't consent or waive my rights. If I sued or counter-claimed, it is possible that I could be awarded up to 50% of my monthly rental cost for each month I've lived here under the violative conditions. That comes out to more than $6500. He doesn't want to risk that.

After my informing him of the legal nature of the situation, he has appropriately decided to "let it ride" instead of trying to evict me knowing that I will be gone by the end of the year.

So point being, as mentioned in the beginning of this post, if I would have listened to the "sagelike" advice I received on this board, I wouldn't have that extra TWO GRAND in my pocket. Like I said, thanks for nothing.

This just goes to prove that, in the end, you really do have to do it yourself if you want it done right. But, with that said...There are a few people on here who actually try to help others. I like to think of myself as one of them.

So, anyone with legitimate legal concerns who wants REAL ADVICE on the matter is invited to PM me. I will try to give you actual and substantial direction instead of the crap you will get on here otherwise.

Peace.

 

[BL]

So point being, as mentioned in the beginning of this post, if I would have listened to the "sagelike" advice I received on this board, I wouldn't have that extra TWO GRAND in my pocket. Like I said, thanks for nothing.

And if you took the time to read the Impotant notice at the bottom of the page , you would see this :

FreeAdvice Forums are intended to enable consumers to benefit from the experience of other consumers who have faced similar legal issues. FreeAdvice does NOT vouch for or warrant the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any posting or the qualifications of any person responding. Use of the Forums is subject to our Terms and Conditions which prohibit advertisements, solicitations or other commercial messages, or false, defamatory, abusive, vulgar, or harassing messages, and subject violators to a fee for each improper posting. All postings reflect the views of the author but become the property of FreeAdvice. Information on FreeAdvice or a Forum should not be relied upon and is not a substitute for advice from an attorney licensed in your jurisdiction who you have retained to represent you.

 

[defuturo]

and your point is?

And if you took the time to read the Impotant notice at the bottom of the page , you would see this :

FreeAdvice Forums are intended to enable consumers to benefit from the experience of other consumers who have faced similar legal issues. FreeAdvice does NOT vouch for or warrant the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any posting or the qualifications of any person responding. Use of the Forums is subject to our Terms and Conditions which prohibit advertisements, solicitations or other commercial messages, or false, defamatory, abusive, vulgar, or harassing messages, and subject violators to a fee for each improper posting. All postings reflect the views of the author but become the property of FreeAdvice. Information on FreeAdvice or a Forum should not be relied upon and is not a substitute for advice from an attorney licensed in your jurisdiction who you have retained to represent you.

I have read it, thank you, several times. I'm a law student, remember.

DID YOU HAVE A POINT THAT REFERENCING THE DISCLAIMER WAS SUPPOSED TO MAKE?

 

[BL]

I have read it, thank you, several times. I'm a law student, remember.

DID YOU HAVE A POINT THAT REFERENCING THE DISCLAIMER WAS SUPPOSED TO MAKE?

Yes , I had to point it out. If you've read it so many times , you shouldn't be arguing about the advice you were given on this site .

As they say , garbage in - garbage out . Take what you can use and go from there .

No need to say to the site , thanks for nothing . You paid nothing .

 

[defuturo]

So many posts, nothing to say...

Yes , I had to point it out. If you've read it so many times , you shouldn't be arguing about the advice you were given on this site .

As they say , garbage in - garbage out . Take what you can use and go from there .

No need to say to the site , thanks for nothing . You paid nothing .

6900 posts and you've yet to say anything of value.

Here's some free advice for YOU...

1. Learn how to punctuate properly.

There's no space between a punctuation mark and the preceding word.

So, what's with al l t h e e x t r a s p a c e s ?

2. Learn how to spell "lebanese" or please tell me you did that on purpose.

3. There's no "arguing" to it. The so-called "advice" I was provided (and much of that I've seen given to others, is total crap or speculation, given by people who have no basis of knowledge in the subject matter area they feign to be "experts" in.

I will concede that you are correct about one point... garbage in, garbage out... But it's not advice seekers' questions which are part of that loop, but the garbage responses they receive in reply.

And regardless of the disclaimer (which as you should know, being a legal scholar after all, serves only to limit the website owners' liability, not a license for people to spout crap and call it knowledge), people should take some level of responsibility for the "advice" they give others. That guy's words of witlessness would have cost me over two grand if I had taken his advice, stopped my search and gave up. How can someone presume to offer legal advice when they have no real understanding of the applicable law?

The quality of responses and information available on this site would improve a thousand-fold if people, like my prior respondent and others like youself, would 1.) only respond when they have something relevant and legally and factually accurate to add to the conversation, and 2.) exercise some personal restraint when they either have nothing to say that is relevant or legally and factually accurate, or are engaging in what's known as "meta-communication," i.e., commenting, not on the legal topic at hand, but on the rhetorical interplay of the respondents, a.k.a., dicta, irrelevant drivel, extraneous garbage, superfluous rhetoric, flaming, etc... such as this very response, but since you dragged me into the fray, I'll play my part.

Point being, if you (the collective "you," not "you" personally, unless it applies of course) don't know the law, you shouldn't be trying to give legal advice. And if you do give legal advice that turns out to be WRONG then an advice seeker has every right to complain about a respondent's lack of knowledge on the matter (even if they can't hold them legally liable for their mis-information); if for no other reason than to let other people on the site know that any advice they receive from this particular person is suspect to say the least. Call it a "community service" if you like.

So, you see, I wasn't "saying to the site" thanks for nothing. I was saying it directly to my respondent, "Treese," I believe it was, for the crap advice he or she offered as a sage-like nugget of wisdom, when in fact it was only a nugget from one's nether regions masquerading as such.

I look forward to you reply.

 

[BL]

again:

Information on FreeAdvice or a Forum should not be relied upon and is not a substitute for advice from an attorney licensed in your jurisdiction

Since you believe the info. you obtain here is garbage , you're free to move on .

As for the rest of your babbling about me , I'd suggest getting your head out of your books once in a while and deal with reality .

My subscription to this thread is over .

Oh by the way , you have provided NO proof or documentations against your LL .

You just quit paying rent , rent that you are saving .

Would it be necessary to bring in a city building inspector to verify the existence of the metalworks activities and to document any fire/safety violations stemming therefrom?

That would be wise .