Sonoma County Bankruptcy Lawyer Blog

Here's a Q&A from Avvo, in which I lay out the possible ways a landlord can evict in those circumstances. I think in this case the lease will not explicitly talk about repayment of damage from emergency personnel and she would have a good defense if the landlord tried to evict.

The damage was caused when paramedics had to break in to deal with a medical emer-gency I had more than a year ago. I've told the landlord I can't pay the amount in full at one time, but am willing to make payments of $20 per month. Alternatively, I've told the landlord he can deduct the full amount from my security deposit, and I will pay $20 per month to bring the deposit back to its original amount. I cannot afford any more per month at present due to unemployment. Can the landlord legally evict me under these circumstances?

Continue reading "Santa Rosa (CA) attorney: Can landlord evict for damage to door caused by paramedics?" »

The New York Times reported earlier this month that actress Faye Dunaway has joined the masses in housing court over a hot dispute with her landlord over whether she's vacated and the condition of her rented home.

Dunaway has a rent-controlled $1,000 per month apartment and the dispute seems to be over whether she actually lives there or in California. Under New York's rent control law, a tenant doesnt get the controlled rent if she doesn't live in the city.

The actress also claimed the apartment is unibhabitable - hard to believe the rich and famous put up with conditions like that, but that's NYC, I guess.

Ms. Dunaway said she had finally given up the apartment in May because it was in such bad condition. She said her landlord "refused to paint the house, and bugs were everywhere."

Continue reading "Celebrity evictions: Faye Dunaway in fight with her NY landlord" »

A Santa Rosa attorney explains a dramatic change on the horizon

Tenants are second-class citizens. If a homeowner misses a mortgage payment, she can make the payment up the next month. Even if foreclosure proceedings are started, the homeowner may be able to cure the default. A new bill looks like it will pass the California Assembly and drastically remake evictions in California.

In California a tenant who is late on the rent is served with a three-day eviction notice - pay the rent within three days or you'll be sued for unlawful detainer. The landlord doesn't have to accept any rent payments after the expiration of the notice. If the landlord wants a tenant out, he can use even a tiny underpayment as grounds for eviction.

AB 265 is a bill making its way through the Legislature that would give tenants a "right of redemption" -- in other words, additional time to pay the rent after expiration of the three-day notice. According to the legislative analysis, the tenant would have to pay the landlord's costs in filing the UD action, as well as the rent.

Continue reading "California tenants may get a 'right of redemption'" »

It was a clear case of retaliatory eviction. After making repeated complaints to the CRIC House 'steering committee' about overrunning septic systems close to the watershed, neglectful treatment of animals, harassment of adults and children, my client was served with an eviction notice.

After she reported conditions to the Sonoma County code enforcement department - in fact, the day after - she was served with another eviction notice, and when that expired, she was served with an unlawful detainer lawsuit.

Under Civil Code 1942.5, if the landlord retaliates against a tenant because s/he has exercised rights or complained to a government agency, the landlord is blocked from taking any eviction actions for six months of:

Continue reading "Santa Rosa attorneys win payment for commune tenant after raising retaliatory eviction defense" »

SANTA ROSA, CA -- For decades tenants have had a "cause of action" against landlords for retaliatory eviction. That right has effectively been curtailed since 2007, when California courts "upended decades of precedent to erect a new, judicially-created barrier to lawsuits over illegal eviction activity," Dean Preston, executive director of Tenants Together writes on Beyond Chron.

To turn back the clock on this unfair restriction on tenant lawsuits, Assemblyman Mike Feuer (LA) has introduced AB 934 -- which would remove retaliatory eviction from the "litigation privileve." Click here for a PDF of the legislation.

A powerful landlord lobby, which now includes banks who have foreclosed - often improperly - on homeowners - is opposed to the bill, so this is the time to call your representatives in the Assembly and voice your support for the bill.

In response to legitimate concerns that the bill would expose landlords to liability for defamation based on their pleadings, the bill contains a free-speech exception. Landlords could assert the litigation privilege against defamation claims but not block retaliation claims.

Check out this page to find your assemblyperson and voice your support for AB914

One Tuesday at the Sonoma Superior Court's unlawful detainer calendar in Santa Rosa, I spoke briefly with a couple who were contesting their eviction based on their medical marijuana cards. Their argument was that they couldn't be evicted for having (growing) drugs on the premises because of California's med-mar cards.

Based on the current state of California law, that's pretty much a fantasy. The San Diego Union-Tribune ran a lengthy piece on the question on the question and concluded that unlike Arizona's new law, California law does not give tenants a clear right to smoke and grow in a rental unit.

The Arizona law states:

No school or landlord may refuse to enroll or lease to and may not otherwise penalize a person solely for his status as a cardholder, unless failing to do so would cause the school or landlord to lose a monetary or licensing related benefit under federal law or regulations.

Since Prop 19 failed -- and its dubious that even Prop. 9 would have allowed tenants to grow pot with impunity, as I wrote here - tenants are not in a great position to make that claim.
Perhaps tenants could challenge a drug-use eviction as discriminatory, but it would be an "uphill battle," says Alex Kreit, a law professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law.

Continue reading "Legal perspectives on Santa Rosa renters' medical marijuana rights" »

The San Jose Mercury News reports that Hall of Famer and ex-Oakland A Ricky Henderson is playing hardball with a former tenant over a $1,500 security deposit.

Henderson took time out from spring training to make an appearance in Alameda Superior Court to defend withholding $550 from tenant Timothy Ault because, although Henderson approved Ault's breaking the lease, Henderson had to find a new tenant.

Henderson, who according to www.baseball-reference.com made at least $44.5 million in his professional baseball career, told Rasch that he decided to keep a $300 pet security deposit Ault paid and $250 of a $1,550 security deposit because his management company never had a chance to check the apartment for damage between the time Ault left and a new tenant moved in.

How petty is this for a millionaire baseball player? Even if the tenant wins his whole $2550, what difference does that make to Henderson?

This is the story of tenants winning big -- and the Court of Appeals upholding that victory last month -- against an amazing scumbag -- Oakland landlord Richard Thomas, who besides intentionally withholding security deposits from hundreds of tenants engaged in super-aggressive legal tactics to stop tenants from suing him. He would countersue for an amount over the small claims limit, forcing tenants to drop their security deposit claims because they couldn't afford lawyers to represent them in civil court. Indeed, he has been deemed a "vexatious litigant." And he has sued virtually every attorney he's ever had.

Back in 2008, the Eviction Defense Center filed a class action suit against Thomas for 200 tenants and won more than $180,000 in damages and $5.5 million in punitive damages. The punitives were knocked down to $1 million, although Thomas was also looking at several hundred thousand dollars in attorneys fees.

He did what he usually does and appealed the case to the Court of Appeals. The Court upheld the verdict, punitive and attorneys fees amounts.

Now he's promising to appeal to the California Supreme Court, which, although the Court will likely decline to hear the case, will further delay justice.

Continue reading "Court of Appeals upholds class-action verdict against Oakland slumlord who ripped off hundreds of tenants" »

SANTA ROSA - The credit bureau Experian is now including positive rental payment data on consumers' credit reports. And later this year, they'll include negative data, as well. The credit bureau hails this as a great benefit to consumers, who will be able to build up their credit ratings merely by paying their rent, as the LA Times reports.

It's "one more thing that lenders, landlords, insurance agents and even employers can learn about you," said Bill Hardekopf, chief executive of LowCards.com, a credit card comparison website.

Hardekopf added, "This could be great news for renters who dream of owning their own home."

Is it really? I think that really depends on the economy. For the vast majority of renters who routinely pay the rent on time, sure, it could really help build up the credit rating -- especially if you're renting after foreclosure or bankruptcy. But if people continue to have trouble making ends meet, late rent payments on your credit report could be as bad as an eviction.

Santa Rosa-based attorney Jim Sansone notes that come January a new law will require additional notices to tenants in foreclosed homes. Under new Code of Civil Procedure 1161c, notices must state, among other things:

"You may have the right to stay in your home for 90 days or longer, regardless of any deadlines stated on any attached papers. In some cases and in some cities with a "just cause for eviction law," you may not have to move at all. But you must take the proper legal steps in order to protect your rights."

More importantly, San Francisco-based Tenants Together reported in October the new law protects foreclosed tenants from negative credit reporting just because a case was filed against them. Now, eviction cases are not reported, unless the foreclosing plaintiff actually prevails at trial.

Continue reading "New law offers protections for California tenants in foreclosed homes" »

A few days ago, I covered the basic eviction notices. What's more interesting is the defenses that can be raised on the different notices. Consider:

• Three-day notice to pay rent or quit. The primary defense to this notice is habitability. Every residential rental comes with an implied warranty of habitability. If the unit is uninhabitable (Civil Code 1941 details several factors that are clear proof of uninhabitabilty but the list is not exhaustive), then the duty to pay rent disappears.

  The question with habitability defenses is that even when the tenant prevails, the judge will determine how much rent is still owing. If it's more than $0, the tenant will have to pay the reduced rent. If she can't, the landlord will still win. The habitability defense is the right to pay rent.

• 30/60/90 notice to vacate. These notices don't give a reason for the eviction. They just tell you it's time to go. The only defense to these kinds of notices is that the eviction is retaliatory. That generally means there was a government inspection and the landlord was ordered to make some repair. Rather than making the repair, the landlord evicts you. That's retaliatory.

• No-recourse evictions. It's unusual to see notices where the landlord tells someone to get out in three days because their violation is so incurable. The defense is simply that the landlord cannot prove such extreme behavior. For instance, it's very difficult for a landlord to prove someone is dealing drugs, short of hiring an undercover PI.
  

This is an experiment. Most tenants can't afford to pay hourly for representation. Lawyers can't afford to be obligated to do full representation with no guarantee of payment. There are a few UD cases I'll take because attorneys fees may be available and the tenant qualifies for low-income assistance, but for the most part tenants, like any other clients, have to pay the bills.

So here's an alternative approach, which keeps in line with how Legal Aid works. We start with a $99 special - A hard-hitting package of information that explains the unlawful detainer process in Sonoma County and other non-rent-control areas, the various legal maneuvers available to you and how to conduct discovery PLUS a 40-minute initial consultation.

After that, we'll handle your tenant matter on a limited-scope basis, in which you represent yourself in the matter, but we handle document preparation and appear in court on a "special appearance" basis. If the matter gets to the trial date, we'll "substitute" in to handle the trial.

You pay a flat-fee for services as-you-go, so you know what things cost, and if you ever feel like you can't afford to go forward with representation, you can carry the matter forward on your own.

I'll post more about this soon

I have met several clients recently from Santa Rosa, to Sebastopol and Monte Rio, even calls from San Francisco who really have no idea of how the eviction process works in places like Sonoma County. San Francisco, Alameda and a few other locations in the Bay Area are different. Rent control and strict local rules controlling landlord-tenant law apply. In the rest of the state. So here's a basic guide to eviction procedures for landlords and tenants.

Notice - There are several kinds of notice depending on circumstances, but notice needs to be legally sufficient. That means that a letter saying "I'm giving you 30 days notice" is not sufficient. It needs to be clear and unambiguous. The most common types of notice:

• Three-day notice to pay rent or quit. Notice the choice: "pay rent" or "quit." Landlords trying to get the rent money need to offer that choice. And here's something to be on the alert for. Partial payment of the rent, even $1, probably satisfies the notice unless it explicitly included nonwaiver language: "acceptance of partial payment does not constitute waiver of the notice."

  
  

• 30-day or 60-day notice. In non-rent control counties, landlords can simply decide to have a tenant move on for no stated reason. If the tenant has been there less than a year, a 30-day notice is all that's needed; if more than a year, 60 days are required.
• 90-day notice for tenants in foreclosed, non-owner occupied homes. Under state law, tenants renting homes that have been sold at foreclosure sale are entitled to 60-day notice, regardless of their time in the home. Under the federal Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act, tenants get 90 days or the remaining time on the lease.
• 3-day notice to cure covenants or quit/3-day notice to quit. Finally, if the tenant has broken the rules of the lease agreement, the landlord can either give them three days to address the problem, or if the breach cannot be "cured," simply given them three days to leave.

All of these notice terms can be altered by contract. In the next day or two, I'll look at the defenses that are available when different notices are used.

Continue reading "Sonoma County eviction, part 1: Notices." »

From the New York Daily News:

Rosemary Shelton, 49, says she and her children are in a homeless shelter after Samantha Zangrillo (in photo), a Long Island nail salon owner, allowed raw sewage to seep into their two-bedroom Springfield Gardens flat.

Shelton's lawyer Alexander Urbelis says the two-story home also mysteriously caught fire days before an August court hearing.

No criminal charges have been filed.

Urbelis mocked Zangrillo's claim that she doesn't have the money to repair the two-family home's boiler or pay the electric bill.

He said Zangrillo's online Web profile suggests otherwise.

"Despite her repeated claims of abject poverty, on one such profile, respondent has listed her interests as partying and shopping," Urbelis writes in court papers.

It's well known that Los Angeles has been cracking down on its dispensaries for a while now. Recently the city took a new tack - threatening landlords with legal action for renting to illegal dispensaries.

Now a L.A. Superior Court judge has issued an injunction blocking the city from taking threatened legal action including daily fines, jail time and loss of the occupancy permit, the L.A. Times reports.

Continue reading "Landlords of Illegal pot dispensary tenants protected, CA judge says" »