landlord/tenant

[shaka1011]

I live in San Francisco, California. A friend of the family has a large flat that he rents out. The current tenant's lease expired in November and they have not renewed. He just sent the current tenant an eviction notice so our family can lease the flat. The current tenant says that he cannot evict him for no reason. The current tenant also just moved someone in that was not on the original lease. Is there anything our friend can do?

 

[mary hartman]

YUP.....pray the new roomate doesnt sue your friend over this.....

The tenant had no right to move someone into the apartment, without the landlords approval. And since he was severely LAZY in not renewing the lease, he becomes a month to month tenant and the landlord only as to give him a 30 day notice, which would mean if he gave it to day , that he has to vacate the apartment by April 30th, or the next day the landlord can start legal eviction against BOTH of them in court!

Your friend might have a little talk with the roomate, and see what gives, the roomate could be an innocent victm of the tenant and maybe your friend could ease the situation by helping the roomate with some money to move....(under the table)

After all its the tenant you want to evict, and without the roomate it would be a lot easier.


[Edited by mary hartman on 03-23-2001 at 01:25 AM]

 

[LL]

"Mary Hartman" (aka djdj, aka dj1) doesn't know what he is talking about, as usual.

Go check with someone who knows about SF Rent control law.

 

[shaka1011]

ok. I got some advice on the Live Legal Chat line. Advisor tells me that landlord has right to evict upon expiration of Lease. Does anyone know what site I can find documentation?

 

[LL]

Man,

you really don't know how to get advice.

You'll take advice from the likes of dj, and you'll take advice from some "advisor" on the internet, and you'll probably take advice from a TV soap opera if it is free.

Well, your "advisor" on Live Legal Chat line who tells you that landlord has right to evict upon expiration of Lease doesn't know any more than dj, who is mentally ill.

San Francisco Rent Control Law has a "just cause eviction" provision, but your "Live Legal Chat line" isn't afraid to give you any old advice without knowing anything about what they're talking about. Thats why they run the chat line: They can't get clients any other way.

For the love of Willie Brown, my friend, call up that fancy City Hall of yours and ask to speak to someone at the Rent Control Board (or whatever they call it up there).



[Edited by LL on 03-23-2001 at 10:28 PM]

 

[shaka1011]

LL,

It's woman! And no I wouldn't take advice from a TV Soap Opera!! Thank you very much! I like your sense of humor! However, I will do exactly that. I will call SF Rent Control Board myself. But please humor me, if one of your tenants' lease expired, and you wanted to evict, the fact that their lease expired really isn't enough to evict?

 

[HomeGuru]

Let me help clear things up. L has a right to evict based on 2 issues:
1) m/m lease, so with 30 days notice.
2) violation of lease agreement, so with 30 days notice do to just cause.

 

[LL]

The form of salutation that I used was meant to be generic. DJ (aka Mary Hartman and other aliases) would say that it is equally applicable to cats.

No, aside from what I would do myself, if

a) a tenants' lease in California expired, and
b) you wanted to evict and you didn't,

then there is now a new "lease" called a rental agreement which is
a) month-to-month as to its term and
b) the same as the original lease as to all conditions except for the term.

and the fact that their lease had expired in the past really isn't enough to evict immediatly, in fact it no longer has any relevance. When there are no other conditions present, then month-to-month tenants are entitled to 30 days notice before the new rental agreement can be terminated.

But this problem is subject to the SF Rent Control law, so that all of the above discussion is wasted.

 

[LL]

By the way, Home Guru, I don't want to offend you, but your statement that L can evict based on:
"1) m/m lease, so with 30 days notice."
is wrong in San Francisco.

In fact, that's exactly the issue that is being discussed here: That San Francisco Rent Control law has a "just cause eviction" provision. It doesn't mean that (as you indicated as issue #2) that you can evict for just cause, although I guess that you can. It means that without a "just cause" you CANNOT evict, including the use of issue #1: m/m lease, so with 30 days notice.

That's right, even with 30 days notice and a m/m tenancy, you cannot evict without a just cause, and I understand that the rules about just causes are pretty tight.

 

[HomeGuru]

LL, thanks for your explanation. I believe we are saying the exact same thing using differing terms.
I have evicted tenants for just cause in San Francisco which tenancy was governed by said rent control.

The bottomline is that the writer asked in the post, and my response is that L can in fact evict and the tenant is wrong.

 

[LL]

Yes, Home Guru, but I have two questions:

1. You can't evict (in SF) without just cause, can you?

2. Does tenant's action in bringing in a roommate fall under a just cause under SF Rent Control?

Does this depend on what is written in the original lease, which became a month-to-month agreement? Does the lease have to specify who is allowed to occupy the apartment, or at least how many people are allowed to occupy? Otherwise, what would be the lease violation making the tenant wrong?

What the writer asked about in the original post was the current tenant's claim: He (the tenant) says that he (the landlord) cannot evict him (the tenant) for no reason. Seems to me that under the just cause eviction provision, that then tenant is right, except for taking the roommate issue into account.



[Edited by LL on 03-24-2001 at 11:12 AM]

 

[shaka1011]

Well, I guess I can't contact the Rent Control Board until Monday morning. But for the sake of discussion.....

The flat was leased to two (2) people - husband/wife. This was actually indicated on the lease and signed. The wife has since moved out.

And, am I dense or what? Are you guys (generic!?) saying that in San Francisco, you cannot evict just because the lease expired? If that's the case, what's the point of signing a lease?


[Edited by shaka1011 on 03-24-2001 at 05:16 PM]

 

[mary hartman]

shaka:

Here in New York City we have rent stabilization laws, which mean once you sign a lease you are Guarenteed a Renewal, unless you refuse to sign one, or the landlord can evict only for a violation of the lease, the landlord can try and not renew a lease if he wants it for his own PERMENANT residence, he would have to have no other place to live for 3 years...or the tenant he evicted can sue him for all the increased rent the tenant paid out PLUS get the old apartment back at the old rental, EVEN if he rennovated it.

I ve seen it happen the landord evict a tenant fix it up like $25,000 in improvements....then rent it out only to be caught. He had to pay the tenant $8,000 plus had to rent the apartment back to him for $450 a month NOT the $1200 he was getting on the open market....

serves the landlord right for lying!

 

[shaka1011]

mary hartman,

That law of yours reaffirm's my question - what's the point of signing a lease? If a landlord takes on a tenant under that law, he is more or less giving up his rights for as long as the tenant wants to keep the apartment? And at the same rent? Forever?????? I can't wait to hear what the SF Rent Control Board tells me. I find it hard to believe that a tenant can move someone in who is not on the original lease, which by the way is expired, and the landlord has no recourse.

 

[mary hartman]

NO its not the same rent the rent goes up each yer this year its 4% for 1yr lease and 6% for 2 yr.

You have to understand something...rent control/stabilization is a trade off....you get lower rent AND much lower real estate taxes so its a wash.

No body pays full taxes on property if they have controls..

Thats why its so hard to rent in NY or SF people stay in the same apartment for 30 40 50 years.

The landlord makes a guarenteed profit, so it depends on how you look at it. NOW it looks bad when you can charge double or triple what a controlled tenant pays, but when times are tough, these people will always pay their rent, lower rent and no legal costs...

like i said its a trade off...