tommiller1
Member
I read this scenario in a publication for landlords describing a situation where a tenant could stay in an apartment forever without paying rent.
A Section 8 tenant is supposed to pay $200 a month as their portion of the rent for a 2-bedroom apartment in the city of Los Angeles. The tenant is four months behind, but they can’t be served with a 3-day notice until the amount of arrearage exceeds $2,544 (the FMV for a 2-bedroom apartment). At $200 a month, it would take 13 months to exceed that amount. However, there is another California law that states you can’t bring forth an eviction for rent that is owed for more than one year. Based on these two laws, a 3-day notice can never be served.
Can this really be true? Or are the relevant laws being misapplied? Or is this one of those things that’s technically true, but not in the real world because a tenant’s Section 8 portion would never be as low as $200 a month?
A Section 8 tenant is supposed to pay $200 a month as their portion of the rent for a 2-bedroom apartment in the city of Los Angeles. The tenant is four months behind, but they can’t be served with a 3-day notice until the amount of arrearage exceeds $2,544 (the FMV for a 2-bedroom apartment). At $200 a month, it would take 13 months to exceed that amount. However, there is another California law that states you can’t bring forth an eviction for rent that is owed for more than one year. Based on these two laws, a 3-day notice can never be served.
Can this really be true? Or are the relevant laws being misapplied? Or is this one of those things that’s technically true, but not in the real world because a tenant’s Section 8 portion would never be as low as $200 a month?