AB 1482 - Removal from the rental market

[therealjohnsquad]

After issuing a No Fault - Just Cause Eviction under AB 1482 in California, with the reason of "Withdrawal of the rental property from the rental market", how long must the property be off the rental market before it can be sold or rented out again? FYI, the is a single-family residence.

 

[adjusterjack]

how long must the property be off the rental market before it can be sold or rented out again?

You can sell it right away.

But you can never re-rent it as long as you own it.

I'm serious. Read the statute.

Civil Code 19476.2 (b) For purposes of this section, “just cause” includes either of the following:
(2) No-fault just cause, which includes any of the following:
(B) Withdrawal of the residential real property from the rental market.

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=CIV&sectionNum=1946.2.

There's nothing in there that adds "for a while" or "for a time" or "for _______."

And I have found no case decisions addressing the interpretation.

Hypothetically, if one were to use that section as a ploy to get rid of a tenant, and turn around and re-rent it at some future date, one risks a very costly lawsuit.

California passed that law to protect tenants from abusive landlords, not to give landlords a loophole.

Are you a landlord or a tenant?


PS: I'm not a lawyer. I was a landlord (not in CA) for decades and know how to read landlord-tenant statutes.

 

[therealjohnsquad]

You can sell it right away.

But you can never re-rent it as long as you own it.

I'm serious. Read the statute.

Civil Code 19476.2 (b) For purposes of this section, “just cause” includes either of the following:
(2) No-fault just cause, which includes any of the following:
(B) Withdrawal of the residential real property from the rental market.

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=CIV&sectionNum=1946.2.

There's nothing in there that adds "for a while" or "for a time" or "for _______."

And I have found no case decisions addressing the interpretation.

Hypothetically, if one were to use that section as a ploy to get rid of a tenant, and turn around and re-rent it at some future date, one risks a very costly lawsuit.

California passed that law to protect tenants from abusive landlords, not to give landlords a loophole.

Are you a landlord or a tenant?


PS: I'm not a lawyer. I was a landlord (not in CA) for decades and know how to read landlord-tenant statutes.

I am a tenant. And I was wondering about selling it as well since the the FAQ for Cal RHA says that selling the property is not a valid reason for no fault just cause eviction. Although I suspect she is renting it out, specifically to a friend.

 

[adjusterjack]

I was wondering about selling it as well since the the FAQ for Cal RHA says that selling the property is not a valid reason for no fault just cause eviction.

Provide a link to what you read. Reading FAQs and summaries are NOT the statutes. It doesn't make sense that selling the property is not a valid reason because selling it removes it from the rental market. Assumimg, of course, that the property actually did get sold.

Although I suspect she is renting it out, specifically to a friend.

Suspect? Or can prove? Two different things.

Did you receive a written notice of termination of tenancy? Quote it word for word.

And did you get your relocation expense or rent waiver?

 

[quincy]

I am a tenant. And I was wondering about selling it as well since the the FAQ for Cal RHA says that selling the property is not a valid reason for no fault just cause eviction. Although I suspect she is renting it out, specifically to a friend.

Is the rental an owner-occupied house?

 

[Taxing Matters]

PS: I'm not a lawyer. I was a landlord (not in CA) for decades and know how to read landlord-tenant statutes.

You should be take care to note that each state's leglislature employs its own terms of art and that how state courts interpret their state's statute differs from state to state. So I suggest you not assume that what the courts of your state would do would necessarily apply in other states.

With that said, just going by the language of the statute I disagree that the statute implies that the owner would NEVER be allowed to rent it again. The statute says no such thing. It simply says if owner is removing it from the rental market that allows for early termination of the lease. But if the owner, years later, had a different situation and needed to relet the place, I think even California's notoriously tenant friendly state courts would balk at applying it in the manner you are. If the withdrawal from the market was genuine at the time and not a sham (e.g. to get around a regular lease termination or an offer to buy out the remaining lease term), then under a literal reading of the statute the withdrawl was done. It just wasn't forever. There is no termporal element expressly stated in the statute. It would be up to the courts to impose one. What temporal element the CA state courts might impose is right now anyone's guess. A very short withdrawal is likely to be viewed with at least great skepticism. But a withdrawl for decades would be another matter. Under that latter situation, it's hard to say that the owner's intention to withdraw the property from the market was not genuine at the time the owner terminates the rental. It wouldn't do the tenant or the owner any good to say it has to be forever. It would, however, crimp a market for rentals that in some CA areas is rather dire.

 

[therealjohnsquad]

Provide a link to what you read. Reading FAQs and summaries are NOT the statutes. It doesn't make sense that selling the property is not a valid reason because selling it removes it from the rental market. Assumimg, of course, that the property actually did get sold.



Suspect? Or can prove? Two different things.

Did you receive a written notice of termination of tenancy? Quote it word for word.

And did you get your relocation expense or rent waiver?

Here is the FAQ from CalRHA on AB 1492. https://cal-rha.org/advocacy/ab-1482/ No I did not receive rent waiver or moving expenses, as I rent a single-family house and it is exempt.

 

[therealjohnsquad]

Is the rental an owner-occupied house?

No it is not.

 

[adjusterjack]

I rent a single-family house and it is exempt.

Then it's exempt from the entire AB 1482 and it appears that the owner did nothing wrong by booting you as long as you got the required notice, unless you had a lease for a specific duration and there was time left on it. Did you have such a lease or were you month to month when your tenancy was terminated?