CA Landlord Month-to-month termination

[TGLL]

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

I'm a landlord in CA and have decided to sell my home. The home is currently rented on a month-to-month agreement that rolled over from a 6 month lease. The current tenants have been in the home for 2 years.

The home is on the market but it's been difficult to show while occupied. I'd like to issue a termination of the month-to-month agreement.

I read in the CA Civil Code that 60 day notice is required since my tenants have been there for over 1 year.

However in the rental agreement which was signed, it states that either party can terminate the contract with 1 month notice.

So my question is, does the rental contract supersede the CA civil code in this case, such that I could issue a 30 day notice instead of 60, or do I need to allow the full 60?

In a similar question, the lease agreement states that if the tenants default on payment I would give a 14 day notice. However CA law only requires a 3 day notice in this case. Can I issue a 3 day pay or quit notice even though the rental agreement says 14 days?

 

[sandyclaus]

CA is very specifically on the legal requirements to terminate a tenancy. You are required to provide the 60-day notice for termination since your tenants have occupied for over a year.

As for the nonpayment question, the law requires AT LEAST 3 days' notice to Pay or Quit the tenancy. You most certainly could give the 3, or you could be nice and extend that to the 14-day notice specified in the expired lease, but the legal requirement is based upon 3 days' notice. Remember that this is for a Pay or Quit, meaning that if the tenants pay the unpaid rent balance in full, then the tenancy is restored. You cannot use that notice to terminate the tenancy unless they fail to comply with paying the unpaid rent balance within the 3 days. You would still have to go with a 60-day termination to completely terminate the tenancy.

 

[Maijagj]

Thanks for this interesting thread!

I hope you can help me with another related question. Does CA civil code supersede rental contracts? We signed a rental contract for a vacation home that states the owner has 30 days from the last date of occupancy to return our security deposit. But CA Civ. Code 1950.5 states that they have three weeks to return the deposit and/or provide an itemized statement listing any amounts they have withheld.

Is this contract legal/valid if it violates CA civil code? And more importantly, can we request an immediate refund of the security deposit since the three weeks have passed (even if the 30 days has not)?

Many thanks for any advice given!