Attorney served me with a 60-day notice...but I AM STILL ON MY LEASE!

[harrison987]

Hi!

I am currently renting a condo in California, and on a 2-year lease (not a standard 1 year). My lease ends in June 2015, and then switches to the standard month to month. I have all the correct legal paperwork to prove this. The rental agreement was done through a Property Management company who works for the owner. However, I received THREE letters yesterday from an attorney, giving me 60 days notice to leave, claiming it is their legal right, as I am "MONTH TO MONTH".

Clearly their information is wrong, as I am NOT month to month.

The Property Management Company has NO CLUE what this is about, and the letter came from an attorney, NOT the Property Management company, NOR the owner.

I suspect the owner sold the unit to an attorney, and this guy has some strange idea that I am month to month (which I am not)

I was served publically a few minutes ago by someone who works for the attorney, and he said that because I have been here longer than a year, it is their legal right. I said that what they are doing is illegal, as my lease is TWO YEARS, not one year. He said I was wrong...that the 2 year lease does not matter...and once I am here longer than a year (lease or not), they can give me a 60-day notice

I am in the right here, correct?

Thanks,

 

[FlyingRon]

Provided you actually have a lease that has a definite two year term, they are wrong. They can only terminate a periodic (i.e., month to month) tenancy. The rule is that if you were there for more than a year, that notice goes up from 30 to 60 days, but it doesn't mean that they can cancel a non-periodic tenancy with that notice.

I'd send them a copy of the lease and a note that you do have a lease of definite term. If they try to evict you, you certainly should easily be able to show the court that you hold a non-periodic lease.

 

[Zigner]

If they try to evict you, you certainly should easily be able to show the court that you hold a non-periodic lease.

I also suspect that, if served with an actual lawsuit, whether or not it's in the lease, the OP would likely be able to recover attorney's fees due to the abuse of process.