Improper Rental Increase

[Proserpina]

All you have to do is see that I'm being singled out with an extra 25.00 rental increase to know that it strongly resembles a retaliatory action because I refused to pay the excessive late charges. You seem like you are too much of a rocket scientist, because your equations (opinions) do not compute, Proserpina! I can read good enough to take care of myself. I need not look any further than what I found in the Ca. Civil Code and what I found with the cases I cited previously. Let's see how it developes, shall we? As I said, I'll post an update when I get a response from the landlord.

Nellie.

Let me put it in plain English.

You must meet the criteria set out in order to convince the court that you have a true retaliation claim.

Let's take it bit by bit, okay?

Retaliatory actions and eviction

A landlord may try to evict a tenant because the tenant has exercised a legal right (for example, using the repair and deduct remedy, (see Having Repairs Made) or has complained about a problem in the rental unit. Or, the landlord may raise the tenant's rent or otherwise seek to punish the tenant for complaining or lawfully exercising a tenant right.

Well, that one doesn't apply. You paid rent late, he's wanting a further guarantee that if he does get shafted again at least he might be up a couple of hundred dollars.

In either situation, the landlord's action is said to be retaliatory because the landlord is punishing the tenant for the tenant's exercise of a legal right. The law offers tenants protection from retaliatory eviction and other retaliatory acts.338

This doesn't apply, either.

The law infers (assumes) that the landlord has a retaliatory motive if the landlord seeks to evict the tenant (or takes other retaliatory action) within six months after the tenant has exercised any of the following tenant rights:339

And this one is the crux. Let's read further.

Using the repair and deduct remedy, or telling the landlord that the tenant will use the repair and deduct remedy.

Not the case here.

Complaining about the condition of the rental unit to the landlord, or to an appropriate public agency after giving the landlord notice.

Or here.

Filing a lawsuit or beginning arbitration based on the condition of the rental unit.

Or here.

Causing an appropriate public agency to inspect the rental unit or to issue a citation to the landlord.

Which of these do you think is present in your situation?

Which protected activity is present?

 

[Nellibelle]

Nellie.

Let me put it in plain English.

You must meet the criteria set out in order to convince the court that you have a true retaliation claim.

Let's take it bit by bit, okay?


Well, that one doesn't apply. You paid rent late, he's wanting a further guarantee that if he does get shafted again at least he might be up a couple of hundred dollars.



This doesn't apply, either.



And this one is the crux. Let's read further.



Not the case here.



Or here.


Or here.



Which of these do you think is present in your situation?

Which protected activity is present?

Oh my! My dear Proserpina--please understand that you are completely misunderstanding what you've read! For instance, my issues ARE because I've exercised my right NOT to pay the excessive late fee pursuant to the cases I've cited earlier in this thread. I've verbally refused and now I will document in my certified letter to the LL that I intend not to pay the ourageous late fee pursuant to the cases I've cited! I will also state I WILL PAY the increase in rent until I litigate and get it back if I prevail in such litigation. So, yes, I do meet the criteria for bringing a case for retaliation!

Also, I've done research where I read an article about Robert Griswold, a property manager certified by the Institute of Real Estate Management and Author of "Property Management for Dummies", who said in the article, "...Another way to look at the situation is whether you were the only one to get a rent increase and if you were paying significantly more than other tenants with similar rental units." Pretty much exactly my issue, concerning Mr. Griswold's explanation of what constitutes retaliation.

So, again, your lack of understanding what I've posted and what you've read, is why we've exchanged more responses than necessary! But, it is a good thing because now you understand, don't you?

 

[TigerD]

Oh my! My dear Proserpina--please understand that you are completely misunderstanding what you've read! For instance, my issues ARE because I've exercised my right NOT to pay the excessive late fee pursuant to the cases I've cited earlier in this thread. I've verbally refused and now I will document in my certified letter to the LL that I intend not to pay the ourageous late fee pursuant to the cases I've cited! I will also state I WILL PAY the increase in rent until I litigate and get it back if I prevail in such litigation. So, yes, I do meet the criteria for bringing a case for retaliation!

Also, I've done research where I read an article about Robert Griswold, a property manager certified by the Institute of Real Estate Management and Author of "Property Management for Dummies", who said in the article, "...Another way to look at the situation is whether you were the only one to get a rent increase and if you were paying significantly more than other tenants with similar rental units." Pretty much exactly my issue, concerning Mr. Griswold's explanation of what constitutes retaliation.

So, again, your lack of understanding what I've posted and what you've read, is why we've exchanged more responses than necessary! But, it is a good thing because now you understand, don't you?

Please, for the love of humanity, don't breed.

DC

 

[Proserpina]

Please, for the love of humanity, don't breed.

DC

Aw come on now, DC. It's been some time since we had a real troll. It doesn't matter what the statute says, you see. It doesn't matter that CA law will only shield her if the alleged retaliation is in response to the state's very narrow list of protected acts.

Alas, for Nellie, the landlord raising her rent ... oh never mind. It's not like she's not trolling us. Heck, if I didn't know any better I might consider the possibility that Nellie lives in Whittier.

I predict the OG Effect will arrive before long.



But wait! I have an idea!

What if Nellie scans her "winning" documents (with personal information redacted, naturally) so she can then gloat in a most sporting, righteous and gracious manner?

She'd have no problem doing that, right?

Oh Goody!

 

[Mystic001]

Oh my! My dear Proserpina--please understand that you are completely misunderstanding what you've read! For instance, my issues ARE because I've exercised my right NOT to pay the excessive late fee pursuant to the cases I've cited earlier in this thread. I've verbally refused and now I will document in my certified letter to the LL that I intend not to pay the ourageous late fee pursuant to the cases I've cited! I will also state I WILL PAY the increase in rent until I litigate and get it back if I prevail in such litigation. So, yes, I do meet the criteria for bringing a case for retaliation!

Also, I've done research where I read an article about Robert Griswold, a property manager certified by the Institute of Real Estate Management and Author of "Property Management for Dummies", who said in the article, "...Another way to look at the situation is whether you were the only one to get a rent increase and if you were paying significantly more than other tenants with similar rental units." Pretty much exactly my issue, concerning Mr. Griswold's explanation of what constitutes retaliation.

So, again, your lack of understanding what I've posted and what you've read, is why we've exchanged more responses than necessary! But, it is a good thing because now you understand, don't you?

Unintentional hilarity like this is why I come here!

I don't think it's a TROLL. I think it's FOR REALZ.

 

[Just Blue]

Oh my! My dear Proserpina--please understand that you are completely misunderstanding what you've read! For instance, my issues ARE because I've exercised my right NOT to pay the excessive late fee pursuant to the cases I've cited earlier in this thread. I've verbally refused and now I will document in my certified letter to the LL that I intend not to pay the ourageous late fee pursuant to the cases I've cited! I will also state I WILL PAY the increase in rent until I litigate and get it back if I prevail in such litigation. So, yes, I do meet the criteria for bringing a case for retaliation!

Also, I've done research where I read an article about Robert Griswold, a property manager certified by the Institute of Real Estate Management and Author of "Property Management for Dummies", who said in the article, "...Another way to look at the situation is whether you were the only one to get a rent increase and if you were paying significantly more than other tenants with similar rental units." Pretty much exactly my issue, concerning Mr. Griswold's explanation of what constitutes retaliation.

So, again, your lack of understanding what I've posted and what you've read, is why we've exchanged more responses than necessary! But, it is a good thing because now you understand, don't you?

I think the one that does not understand it you! Perhaps you could consult with an attorney to clarify this situation for you. Good Day.

 

[Silverplum]

Please, for the love of humanity, don't breed.

DC

Not that I disagree in this instance (or in most), but I would love to see The Rulebook on this type of comment. If one person types it, it's funny/great/like-like-like. If another types it, it's horrid/mean/pile it on/hate.

 

[TigerD]

Not that I disagree in this instance (or in most), but I would love to see The Rulebook on this type of comment. If one person types it, it's funny/great/like-like-like. If another types it, it's horrid/mean/pile it on/hate.

True. I suspect in this case it is more of an example of exacerbated frustration combined with sound advice that given the OP's problem with a simple rent situation entering into the rough-and-tumble field of dog breeding for fun and profit could prove most hazardous. But we won't know until the poster returns to comment. ... wait.. yeah, I like that explanation. I'm going with that.

It may depend on the level of ambiguity in the comment.

DC

 

[Proserpina]

Irony is ironic

 

[os478]

Since I've been reading this thread, I have to ask about the $50 late fee:

I do believe courts would deem that a $50 late fee would be excessive for $100.

However, if the landlord refused the payment for the (rent amount - $100), a late fee could be imposed and it would proper. Are these statements correct? Anyway, even if a late fee was deemed excessive, I don't think the OP would be given anything for damages.

I agree with the normal posters on retaliation, in that, even if it were retaliatory to OP not paying the late fee, there is nothing the OP can do about it because it isn't listed as one of the protections from retaliation.


Then again, I could be wrong as I'm still quite new to this.

 

[Proserpina]

Let's take a look (once more, with feeling)

The statute provides:

The law infers (assumes) that the landlord has a retaliatory motive if the landlord seeks to evict the tenant (or takes other retaliatory action) within six months after the tenant has exercised any of the following tenant rights:339

Using the repair and deduct remedy, or telling the landlord that the tenant will use the repair and deduct remedy.
Complaining about the condition of the rental unit to the landlord, or to an appropriate public agency after giving the landlord notice.
Filing a lawsuit or beginning arbitration based on the condition of the rental unit.
Causing an appropriate public agency to inspect the rental unit or to issue a citation to the landlord.

None of these elements are present in Nellie's case.

And then we have this:

In order for the tenant to defend against eviction on the basis of retaliation, the tenant must prove that he or she exercised one or more of these rights within the six-month period, that the tenant's rent is current, and that the tenant has not used the defense of retaliation more than once in the past 12 months

Which rights did Nellie attempt to exercise?

So, pushing that aside for a second, EVERYBODY had a rent increase. The landlord is not obliged to treat every tenant the same way, as long as he's not discriminating based upon a protected characteristic.

When the landlord gets on the stand, we might expect this:

Nellie: He raised my rent illegally. He only raised it because I didn't want to pay the late fee

Judge: Your turn, Mr Landlord

Landlord: I raised her rent because she was late.

Judge: Nellie? What say you? Were you late?

Nellie: Well yes, but.... oh and also other folks had rent increases smaller than mine

Judge: Mr Landlord?

Landlord: I exercised my right to raise the rent, and the law does not require me to raise it the same amount as the other tenants

Judge; What we have then is a tenant who was late paying her rent. Being late is not a protected characteristic and I find that the landlord followed the law to the letter. Judgment for Landlord.

Landlord: Thank you Your Honor.

I'm not entirely sure I can dumb it down any further.

 

[LdiJ]

This may seem silly...however I suspect that the reason why the landlord gave the OP a higher increase than anyone else is because the landlord really hopes that the OP will NOT renew...

Seriously, unless we are talking about some rent controlled situation a passive/aggressive way for a landlord to get rid of someone they don't want to keep renting to would be to raise the rent at lease renewal to something higher than fair market value.

 

[os478]

Proserpina,

I do agree with you on the rent being raised and tried to state that, but I may have done so poorly. Also, wasn't the tenant month to month, so it wouldn't matter anyway

My question was more pointed toward the late fee. Here are a few scenarios I was wondering:

1.) Tenant paysr rent minus $100. Tenant pays the $100 a month later, accounting for all rent. Would a $50 late fee seem excessive? - My thought would be yes (50% increase in amount of money due in a month).

2.) Tenant attempts to pay rent minus $100. Landlord rejects full amount. Tenant pays the rent late. Would a $50 late fee seem excessive? - My thought would be that it is not excessive.

I will note that I have no legal background, so it's still quite possible that I'm wrong, but reading this forum has helped me out quite a bit .

 

[Proserpina]

Proserpina,

I do agree with you on the rent being raised and tried to state that, but I may have done so poorly. Also, wasn't the tenant month to month, so it wouldn't matter anyway

My question was more pointed toward the late fee. Here are a few scenarios I was wondering:

1.) Tenant paysr rent minus $100. Tenant pays the $100 a month later, accounting for all rent. Would a $50 late fee seem excessive? - My thought would be yes (50% increase in amount of money due in a month).

2.) Tenant attempts to pay rent minus $100. Landlord rejects full amount. Tenant pays the rent late. Would a $50 late fee seem excessive? - My thought would be that it is not excessive.

I will note that I have no legal background, so it's still quite possible that I'm wrong, but reading this forum has helped me out quite a bit .

The late fee is really secondary, and the landlord has done quite a bit of CYA here

There was an increase in rent for every tenant. Okay, good so far.

Landlord had no obligation to treat every tenant the same way, provided Nellie wasn't singled out solely because she is a member of a protected class. Okay, good.

Nellie was late with the rent, and being late isn't a protected act.

What it boils down to is that the landlord wants her out, and she basically gave him a perfectly legal reason to do so.

 

[Nellibelle]

The late fee is really secondary, and the landlord has done quite a bit of CYA here

There was an increase in rent for every tenant. Okay, good so far.

Landlord had no obligation to treat every tenant the same way, provided Nellie wasn't singled out solely because she is a member of a protected class. Okay, good.

Nellie was late with the rent, and being late isn't a protected act.

What it boils down to is that the landlord wants her out, and she basically gave him a perfectly legal reason to do so.

I do not know how I can make it any clearer! But, here goes again!

"There was a rent increase for every tenant."
True, but my increase was 25.00 more!

"Nellie was late with the rent and being late isn't a protected act."
True, but the protected act I've been speaking about is that case law infers that paying a 50.00 late fee for being 100.00 late on rent is excessive! As such, I've now informed the LL that I will not pay such fee pursuant to the cases I've cited earlier in this thread! Read them!

Courts have already decided (in California) that an excessive late fee amounts to a penalty. Being late 100.00 on rent does not cause the owner of the property any major damages that would allow such a high late fee! This is the premise in which I am disputing the rental increase that is above the other tenants with a similar size apartment!

In the certified letter to the LL, I've asked her to be reasonable and that I would continue to pay the rent at the higher amount if she didn't want to try to resolve this matter, but that I would have to address it in court.

I should hear back in a few days to see what her response will be. Ideally, the LL will allow my rent to be the same as the other tenants like it has been for the last 5 years. I don't believe the LL wants me out as you surmise! She has had trouble getting tenants from time to time and would not want to lose one who has only been late on rent twice in a 5 year period.