How to Help Victims of the California Fires

Click on link here and if you can't afford to give money or food, give blood. Blood donations are down and are accepted by the American  Red Cross and Blood Centers of the Pacific.

Vote "Yes" on Proposition 10!

I enjoy reading posts from other tenant's rights attorneys, one of them being Crow & Rose. Today, they posted their thoughts about Prop 10 and I completely agree. Please click on the link below to learn more about the ballet measure and why you should vote "YES" on Prop 10.

Proposition 10 is about Local Control, Nothing Else

Palo Alto passes 'emergency' law to help renters

Reposting this article about an emergency ordinance passed by the Palo Alto City Council to protect tenants. Please click here to see full report.

How Do YOU Spell Relief?

Following is a Press Release issued by Kamala Harris, U.S. Senator for California:

"Amid Rising Costs of Housing, Harris Introduces Bill to Provide Rent Relief

WASHINGTON, D.C. - With the cost of housing continuing to rise in California and across the country, U.S. Senator Kamala D. Harris today introduced legislation to provide rent relief for working families struggling to pay their bills. The Rent Relief Act would create a new, refundable tax credit to put more money in the pockets of families at a time when renters’ wages have remained stagnant and housing costs have increased rapidly. Harris was joined in the introduction by Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), and Maggie Hassan (D-NH).

“America’s affordable housing crisis has left too many families behind who struggle each month to keep a roof over their head,” said Senator Harris. “This bill will ensure no family is priced out of the basic security of a place to live. Bolstering the economic security of working families would strengthen our country and increase opportunity.”

“This bill would help more than 140,000 low-income Connecticut families struggling to pay rent each month, providing them much needed relief and flexibility to spend on other vital needs like health care and putting the American Dream within closer reach,” said Senator Blumenthal. “For far too many in Connecticut and across the country, rising rents and flat paychecks prevent them from enjoying the basic, fundamental human right to affordable housing.”

“As far too many families scramble to afford the cost of living, we must keep working to find solutions to our affordable housing crisis,” said Senator Hassan. “I’ve heard from businesses across our state that one of their most pressing challenges is a shortage of affordable housing for their prospective employees. This common-sense bill would create a refundable tax credit to help bring relief to families who struggle to afford their rent and expand economic opportunity for hard-working Granite Staters and Americans.”

“The lack of affordable housing is a national emergency,” said Matthew Desmond, Author of “Evicted: Poverty and Profit in the American City. “Senator Harris is bringing heightened awareness to a crisis that’s been ignored for far too long. The Rent Relief Act reflects a strong commitment to ensuring that all Americans have access to a safe and affordable home.”

A report by the National Low Income Housing Coalition illustrates that there is a shortage of 7.4 million affordable rental units for America’s 11.4 million extremely low-income families. According to California’s Department of Housing and Community Development, nearly 1/3 of California renters (3 million California households) are rent burdened, and California has the third highest rents in the country. More than 1.5 million households are severely rent burdened and more Americans than ever are renters. The share of US households that were renters climbed to 35 percent in 2012, up from 31 percent in 2004.

Under Harris’ Rent Relief Act, the refundable tax credit will be available to individuals who live in rental housing and pay more than 30% of their gross income for the taxable year on their rent including utilities. Eligible individuals would qualify for the tax benefit by determining the total amount spent yearly on rent, taking into account the family’s annual income, and a rate of the federal government’s established fair market rent controls.

Individuals who live in government-subsidized rental housing could claim the value of one month’s rent as a refundable tax credit. Subsidized rent is normally capped at 30% of a person’s income, making them eligible for the tax benefit for rent-burdened residents. The Rent Relief Act would give much-needed relief to lower income residents.

The Rent Relief Act is supported by: the National Low Income Housing Coalition, National Alliance to End Homelessness, Fair Housing of California, and the National Housing Law Project

"I applaud Senator Harris for her leadership in introducing this innovative, bold proposal, which would help struggling families who today face impossible choices between paying rent and meeting their other basic needs, including putting groceries on the table and taking care of their health,” said Diane Yentel, President and CEO of the National Low Income Housing Coalition. “A new tax credit for renters - like the one proposed by Senator Harris - could transform lives, providing millions of the lowest income people with the breadth of opportunities that start with an affordable home - opportunities to climb the economic ladder, improve their health, and allow children to do better in school."

“Home is not just where we keep a roof over our heads — it’s where we raise families, become part of a community, and create a lifetime of memories,” said Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti. “It’s also where we want to stay, and Senator Harris’ legislation would help protect millions of families from losing their homes, by expanding benefits and opportunities for people who pay rent every month.”

“Nearly every Oakland resident who pays rent will save money under this law,” said Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf. “At a time when our city is fighting the displacement of long-time residents, The Rent Relief Act of 2018 will help working class families, artists, senior-aged tenants, and anyone else who struggles to make the rent each month. I’m proud to partner with Sen. Harris to fight California’s cost of living crisis and deliver more affordable housing to all Oaklanders.”

“Thank you to Senator Harris for acting with urgency, thoughtfulness and creativity to help address the housing crisis that is impacting cities throughout California,” said Sacramento Mayor Darrell Steinberg. “This bill would be an important tool to provide real relief for millions of people struggling through no fault of their own.”

“Mayors across the country should applaud Senator Harris’ proactive leadership in addressing the housing crisis impacting millions of renters,” said San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo. “With the billions in tax subsidies allotted to billionaires through last year’s tax changes, this legislation provides a refreshing contrast for working families who struggle daily.”

“In Stockton, one in two residents will pay over 30% of their income to housing,” said Stockton Mayor Michael Tubbs. “We have seen some of the highest rent increases in the nation, making even finding a place to live a major challenge. It will take solutions from both State and Federal officials, as well as creative improvements locally, to help solve this housing crisis. I am incredibly thankful that Senator Harris is helping to lead the way with the Rent Relief Act.”

For a full list of supportive statements, click here.

Text of the legislation can be found here.

A fact sheet on the bill can be found here.

Bubble, Bubble, I Smell Trouble!

A young professional leased a house with two other professionals. After living together for well over a year, their relationship soured. One of the roommates drank to excess and an argument ensued resulting in a firearm being brandished against the young man. These three young men were all privileged; they came from wealthy homes, attended the best schools and were employed in professional jobs.

The next day, the young man packed up his belongings, rented a truck, and moved home. But, then his troubles with the property management company began.

The lease had two onerous clauses:

1)  A joint and several liability clause; and  

2)  A clause stating that the Lessee consisted of all three tenants.

Here’s how the lease read:

"Lessee acknowledges that this Agreement is between Lessor and each Lessee executing this Agreement jointly and severally, whether or not in actual possession of the Premises. In the event of default by any one, each and every remaining Lessee shall be responsible for full payment of rent and all other provisions of this Agreement."

"The parties to this Agreement are Property Owner, (hereinafter called "Lessor"), and Tenant 1, Tenant 2, and Tenant 3 (hereinafter called "Lessee")."

The lease was for one year and then reverted to a month-to-month term. The young man submitted a 30-day written notice to the Property Manager. But, they would only accept his lease termination after a “Roommate Change Addendum” was signed by all three roommates and, in that addendum, they required the young man to “relinquish” all rights to his security deposit. They further argued that unless and until the Addendum was signed, that they would hold all three men responsible for the rent and any charges and they did not conduct a property inspection after the young man moved out.

The existing roommates refused to sign the Addendum and argued that the young man was responsible for 1/3rd of all charges (rent, utilities, etc.) until they found a new roommate.

The young man’s problems were further compounded by confusion over what he actually paid as a security deposit and what rights his existing roommates had to his deposit. He was able to secure agreement to the actual deposit amount and he argued that his roommates rights to the deposit were controlled by state law (Cal. Civ. Code § 1950.5).

He also argued that a roommate not in possession of the property cannot be held liable in perpetuity for rent. See Schmitt v. Felix, 157 Cal.App.2d 642, 648. 

“Once a cotenant in a month to month tenancy gives notice to the landlord of his termination of the tenancy, he cannot be held liable for his cotenant's remaining in possession. Upon receipt of such notice the landlord is put to the choice of either accepting the cotenant as his tenant alone, or of terminating the tenancy. “[Emphasis added.]

The resolution cost the young man his security deposit less a small refund owed to him and attorneys’ fees.

Relationships between people are not predictable.  And, roommate disputes are common.

• It is always advisable to retain a lawyer to review the lease agreement and, if possible, to negotiate the clauses before signing;

• It is highly advisable to have a written roommate agreement outlining the rent share and share of housing expenses, overnight guests, cleaning responsibilities, and more before moving in together; and

• To always conduct financial transactions with a written paper trail. While Venmo is convenient, be sure that the transactions are clear and never, ever combine a security deposit transaction with a rent payment.

See Sidebar to this Blog concerning Security Deposits and Roommate Agreements.

Ninth Circuit Upholds San Francisco Landlord Buyout Ordinance as Constitutional

See the full article here: https://www.courthousenews.com/ninth-circuit-finds-san-francisco-landlord-buyout-law-constitutional/

San Francisco, Berkeley, and now Oakland each maintain a public database of buyout offers by zip code. While San Francisco's database of buyout offers can be found via the link below, visit the rent board offices to obtain listings of buyout offers in Berkeley and Oakland. Since the City of Oakland just enacted their BuyOut ordinance, the data will probably be fairly "thin" until later this year.

Buyout Offers in San Francisco: https://data.sfgov.org/Housing-and-Buildings/Buyout-agreements/wmam-7g8d/data

Oakland City Council Passes Tenant Move-Out Ordinance!

The following is from a press release issued by the City Attorney's office in Oakland:

"On April 17, the Oakland City Council adopted an ordinance sponsored by City Attorney Barbara J. Parker, City Council President Pro Tempore Abel Guillén and Councilmember Dan Kalb to protect tenants when landlords initiate move out negotiations."

"The Council adopted the Tenant Move Out Ordinance (TMOO). . .The ordinance, which will take effect May 1, 2018, improves the fairness and transparency of move out negotiations and agreements. The ordinance requires that property owners advise tenants in writing of their rights when the owner seeks to negotiate a move out. The ordinance grants tenants the right to reconsider and rescind move out agreements in specified circumstances and clarifies that the City's minimum relocation payment amounts apply to move out agreements."

"As Oakland's housing crisis continues and grows, the City is receiving reports that low-income tenants have signed exploitative move out agreements. Some of these agreements fail to cover even the relocation costs; other agreements require that tenants give up their legal rights or options to return to the unit. Tenants who inadvertently waive these rights face the nearly impossible task of finding affordable housing at a comparable rent, because state law allows property owners to rent vacant units at market rates, which in many cases are astronomical."

"As Oakland struggles with a historic housing crisis, some unscrupulous landlords are using deceptive or coercive tactics to get rid of tenants. This new law will require that landlords advise tenants of their rights so they are in a position to advocate for their rights; and the law will help the City identify bad actors who are attempting to force tenants out of their homes under false pretenses."

"The ordinance requires that landlords give tenants information including the following in writing:

•  A statement that the tenant has the right to refuse to enter into a move out agreement, and the property owner cannot retaliate against them for this decision

•  A statement that the tenant may choose to consult with an attorney before entering into a move out agreement or move out negotiations

•  A statement that the tenant may rescind the move out agreement for up to 25 days (if the tenant has not already moved out)

•  A description of the tenant's eligibility for relocation payments

• Information about when tenants have rights to return to their homes under state and local law, as well as a statement that waiver of rights to return may increase the value of move out agreements, and

• A statement that property owners who fail to comply with the ordinance may be subject to more significant penalties if the tenant is elderly, disabled or catastrophically ill, and a space for tenants to indicate whether they fall within any of these categories as defined in the ordinance."

"Under the new law, property owners also are responsible for submitting notifications of their intent to enter into move out negotiations - as well as copies of any fully-executed move out agreements - to the City's Rent Adjustment Program."

"Additionally, owners must give tenants a copy of the agreement in the language in which it was negotiated or in English, Spanish or Chinese, depending upon the language(s) in which the tenant is proficient. According to data from the 2000 census, more than 26% of Oakland residents speak either Spanish or Chinese at home."

"The ordinance also requires that property owners state under penalty of perjury whether or not they have recently communicated to the tenants that they intend to recover the unit under Oakland's Just Cause Ordinance and on what grounds. Responses to this question will aid the City in identifying property owners who may be coercing tenants to accept move out agreements through misrepresentation or intimidation."

"The ordinance does not apply to move out agreements that are negotiated or agreed to during the course of an unlawful detainer (eviction) proceeding."

".In Oakland’s high rental market, some tenants have been pressured into bad move-out deals by landlords who want to jack the rent up sky high,” Councilmember Kalb said. 'The Tenant Move Out Ordinance increases transparency and fairness around move-out negotiations between tenants and landlords and will aid the City’s regulatory efforts accordingly.'"

Raising the Rent - Capital Improvements in Oakland's Rent Controlled Units

I am a tenant, just like you. In 2016, my landlord served each tenant in my building with a notice of inspection related to an appraisal. Usually, an appraisal signals either a property sale or an appraisal to secure a loan for a property improvement. Subsequent to the actual appraisal, we received a notice that the exterior of the building would be repainted. Since the exterior paint was a very unattractive pink, the new Malibu beige and contrasting brown trim was welcome from an aesthetic perspective. But, then, I wondered would there also a petition from the landlord to the rent board to pass along the capital improvement costs to the tenants. Indeed, was painting the building exterior a "benefit" to the tenants or to the landlord (e.g. increases the marketability of the building)? 

We waited and heard nothing. But today, each tenant listed on each lease for every unit in our building received a notice from the rent board by mail concerning our landlord's petition to pass the capital improvement costs along to the tenants. There is a two-year time period dating from the date of the capital improvement in which a landlord can petition the board to pass along the improvement costs as a rent increase to the tenants.

See: http://www2.oaklandnet.com/oakca1/groups/ceda/documents/agenda/oak063313.pdf

A tenant or a landlord can download (click here) an Excel file that the landlord is required to use in calculating the rent increase based on capital improvements.

In Oakland, only 70% of the capital improvement costs for the ENTIRE building can be passed on to the tenants. So, for instance, if the capital improvement cost was $10,000, only $7,000 can be passed along to the tenants. To this $7,000, there is an "amortization interest" that is added which is currently about 3.8%. The amortization period is different for different capital improvements. In our case, exterior building paint is amortized over 5 years. Thus, when I entered the numbers, the monthly rent increase per unit spread out over 5 years (or 60 months) was $15.40 per unit. Of course, this amount is on top of annual rent increases (if any) and/or banked rent increases.

Our landlord's petition was filed in mid-January 2018 and received on April 21, 2018, a testament to how backlogged the Oakland Rent Adjustment Board really is. The hearing on the petition is scheduled for July 2018. My landlord has been fair to me, thus far. And, I hope that this will continue but I wondered why, when I saw him in February 2018, he asked me how I liked the new colors to the building exterior. Whether the building is pink or a more fashionable Malibu beige, there are no direct benefits to me (at least how I see it.)  I am more concerned about the safe functioning of the gas furnace, the plumbing leaks, and the recent burglary of my neighbor's apartment when she was (thankfully) away.

Oakland's New BuyOut Agreement Ordinance Still in the Works

Since reporting the initial recommendation to implement an addition to the Rent Adjustment Ordinance on February 20, 2018 concerning regulating buyout agreements in Oakland, the City has proposed a second revision to the proposed buyout ordinance which is still under review by the City Council.

You can download the Supplemental version (e.g. second revision) from the City Council website via the following link:

https://oakland.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3300957&GUID=55AF2B27-C5B8-4AA7-82AD-7677366A7657&Options=&Search=

Oakland Joins Berkeley and San Francisco in Regulating Tenant Buy-Out Agreements

An excerpt of an "East Bay Times" report published on 2/15/18 and written by Al Tayadon, describes a new "Move-Out Ordinance" that is supposed to go into effect on May 1, 2018 and was approved by the Oakland City Council on 2/6/18.  The Ordinance was co-sponsored by city councilman Dan Kalb and Abel Guillen and the City Attorney's office.

"A new ordinance requires Oakland landlords to tell tenants their rights before paying or giving them other compensation to move out.

The ordinance, approved by the City Council on Feb. 6, aims to regulate so-called 'move out' agreements that are often done to circumvent state and local legal requirements and restrictions. It requires landlords to submit the agreements to the city’s rent adjustment program.

'Oakland’s rising rents have exacerbated tensions between property owners and tenants residing in units that are rent-controlled or covered by Oakland’s just cause for eviction ordinance,” a report by the city attorney’s office says. 'By emptying their units, property owners can attempt to increase their return on their investment by selling the property or re-renting the units at a higher rate. Property owners who seek to expedite this process may enter into move-out agreements with tenants who are not aware of the full extent of their legal rights under state and local law.'

The ordinance is supposed to go into effect May 1, though city administrators may extend the date if the city’s forms will not be available by then. The ordinance does not apply to existing move-out agreements.

Councilman Dan Kalb, who co-sponsored the legislation with Councilman Abel Guillen and the city attorney’s office, said giving tenants a list of their rights and allowing them to back out of the agreements within 30 days 'evens the playing field.'"

To read the entire news article, click here.

To read a copy of the ordinance and the supplement to the ordinance, see the report and supplemental report from the City Attorney's office via the following link.

San Francisco Fines Landlord $2 Million For Renting Out Dwellings to Low-Income Veterans that Violated Zoning Codes

The City of San Francisco recently settled a lawsuit against landlord Judy Wu concerning substandard housing units that she had leased to low income tenants, many of whom are U.S. military veterans. 

City officials previously described the balance of providing housing to low-income tenants with the necessity of providing habitable housing that met City building codes as a "conundrum."

Oakland's Neighborhood Law Corps and City Attorney Sue Fruitvale Landlord for Violating the Tenant Protection Ordinance.

While this press release is dated Jan. 23, 2017, it is still topical and evidence of the good work done by the Neighborhood Law Corps. Below is a full copy of the press release.

OAKLAND, CA – Oakland City Attorney Barbara J. Parker has secured an injunction against the owners of a Fruitvale area apartment building where for years tenants have complained that they had no heat, no working smoke detectors, bedbug and cockroach infestations, faulty electrical wiring and other habitability problems, including a fire in July 2016 that caused extensive damage to several units.

The injunction issued by the Court on January 19 is the result of a lawsuit that the City Attorney’s new Community Lawyering and Civil Rights Enforcement Unit filed in 2016 in collaboration with the Office’s Neighborhood Law Corps unit. The lawsuit against the owners and operators of the 30-unit apartment building at 1620 Fruitvale Avenue (Alameda County Superior Court Case No. RG16829447) is the latest in a series of actions the City Attorney has filed to enforce Oakland’s 2014 Tenant Protection Ordinance.

“Oakland’s ongoing housing crisis is forcing so many families to survive in their cars, on the streets, in our parks, or in unsafe, substandard buildings,” City Attorney Parker said. “It is critical that the City hold accountable landlords who violate tenants’ rights and turn a blind eye to inhumane conditions that persist at their properties. Every Oakland family has the right to habitable, dignified and safe housing.”

After buying the Fruitvale Avenue property in 2007, the owners have consistently failed to address tenants’ complaints about illegal and inhumane conditions.

The City’s lawsuit includes a declaration from a family that slept in a closet and on their kitchen floor for nearly a year and a half to avoid being bitten by bedbugs. Alameda County Vector Control confirmed pest infestations at the property on numerous occasions, and City of Oakland Code Enforcement cited the owners multiple times over the past few years for sewage backup and other plumbing problems, a lack of working heat and smoke detectors, holes in the walls, broken or missing windows, failure to provide functioning locks and the accumulation of raw sewage under the building, among other issues. The owners failed to remedy the problems.

In August 2016, Code Enforcement again cited the owners after a fire damaged the building and forced tenants to vacate several apartments. A tenant who was at home with her 8-year-old daughter when the fire occurred said she did not hear a fire alarm and did not know what was happening until she saw smoke and flames coming out of the walls of her bathroom. Luckily, she and her daughter were able to escape the building unharmed, and no other tenants were injured. To date, the owners have not fully restored the damaged units.

Alameda County Superior Court Judge Winifred Smith’s final ruling on January 19 enjoins the owners from continuing to operate the building in violation of Oakland’s Tenant Protection Ordinance and state and local public nuisance laws.

The owners have approximately forty days to address the health, safety and habitability issues at the building. If they fail to do so, they will face contempt of court charges and sanctions.

In March 2016, the nonprofit Centro Legal de la Raza filed a lawsuit against the same owners for similar violations at the property (Alameda County Superior Court Case No. RG16806249). Centro Legal also assisted the City Attorney’s Office with declarations and other aspects of its case.

Landlord Harassment and Rent Boards - What's a Tenant to Do?

There is a property in the Fruitvale district of Oakland where tenants have been forced into signing new and materially different lease agreements, services previously provided have been removed, and tenants have received over 30 notices posted on their front doors since Fall 2017. In fact, these tenants have experienced over four water-shuts, wiring for their existing telephone services was dismantled, there is a new no pets policy, and their children  have been mandated to play in a nearby park. A vacant apartment was converted to a “luxury condominium” and advertised for $2,995 rent versus the $900 to $1,400 rent currently collected on existing units.

Certainly, the tenants can petition the Oakland Rent Adjustment Board for a reduction in housing services provided that the petition is timely made (OMC 8.22.090(3)). Quoting from a hearing decision on an actual petition (Case No. T16-006),

“The preferred method of evaluating decreased housing services is consideration of all services provided by an owner and then determining the percentage by which total services provided by the owner have decreased because of the lost housing services. Based on the totality of the circumstances and considering the total bundle of housing services, the value of the decreased housing services is” then calculated by the rent board.

So, for instance, if your apartment had no running water for 24-hours, the rent board could calculate a dollar value to the loss of water in comparison to your total rent as a reduction in housing services. See OMC 8.22.090(3).

But what about waking up to a new notice posted on your front door every few days? This landlord behavior could fall squarely into the enumerated types of “illegal” landlord behavior defined in the Oakland tenant protection ordinance (TPO) (OMC 8.22.640).

In November 2014, Oakland enacted the Tenant Protection Ordinance (O.M.C. 8.22.600) and, more recently, Berkeley followed suit.  Emeryville also enacted new tenant protections against landlord harassment. The question is, “How much do these new ordinances actually protect the tenant?”

Implied into every landlord-tenant lease agreement (if not expressly stated), is a warranty of quiet enjoyment of the property. What does that mean?

First, the warranty is described by state statute, Cal. Civ. Code section 1927, as follows:

“An agreement to let upon hire binds the letter to secure to the hirer the quiet possession of the thing hired during the term of the hiring, against all persons lawfully claiming the same.”

In plain language, this means that if there is a lease agreement, the landlord agrees that the tenant will “quietly possess” the property for the length of the lease. Having a notice posted by the landlord on one’s front door repeatedly and over a short period of time is interference with the tenant’s right to quiet possession of the property.

The remedies available to tenants in Oakland (OMC 8.22.670) for landlord harassment are as follows:

“An aggrieved Tenant may bring a civil action for injunctive relief or damages, or both, . . . [OR]

The City Attorney may enforce the TPO through civil action for injunctive relief or damages, or both, for when the party against whom enforcement is sought has a pattern and practice of violating the TPO. The City Attorney may also request that an administrative citation or civil penalty be issued by the City. The City Attorney has the sole discretion to determine the cases appropriate for enforcement by the City Attorney's Office.”

The operative language is “civil action.” Does a petition to the rent board constitute a “civil action” or do these words really mean a “initiating a lawsuit in the superior court of California?”

Language from a Rent Adjustment Program (RAP) hearing decision (T16-0655) concerning a landlord’s alleged breach of the warranty of quiet enjoyment and harassment, the board held that:

“. . .the RAP is an administrative agency whose power is limited to enforce the provisions of the Rent Adjustment Ordinance. In the case of Larson v. City and County of San Francisco (2011) 192 Cal.App. 4th 12633, the court examined the authority of the San Francisco rent board. The court held that the jurisdiction of administrative agencies is limited to those claims that are quantifiable in nature. The court specifically held that the loss of quiet enjoyment is not such a claim. Larson at p. 1281. Neither are claims of harassment.”

“The Residential Rent and Relocation Board have also stated that the RAP does not have jurisdiction over any such claims. See the Housing, Residential Rent and Relocation Board Decision in Aswad v. Fields, T03-0377. The tenant’s claims for decreased housing services as they relate to the covenant of quiet enjoyment and harassment are not claims that can be made under the Rent Adjustment Ordinance. While these acts may well constitute civil wrongs, these claims must be made in a court of competent jurisdiction. Then tenant’s claims as they relate to the covenant of quiet enjoyment and harassment are dismissed.”

Thus, while Oakland tenants can allege violation of the TPO in a petition to the rent board, the board will dismiss their allegation as being outside the control of the rent board. Still, if the tenant alleges a violation of the TPO, this makes the allegation part of public record and puts the landlord on notice to “back off.” But, the petition must be made in conjunction with something that the rent board does have control over such as an illegal rent increase or a reduction in housing services.

The Oakland rent board is currently flooded with tenant petitions. In fact, petitions made in November 2017 are now being processed by the board. It’s estimated that once a petition is processed, a hearing won’t be scheduled until 6-months later. Once a hearing has been conducted, a hearing decision won't be available until two months after the hearing.  And, to have a hearing, the tenant must be in possession of the property or the rent board will dismiss the petition. Faced with constant harassment, many tenants will give up and find new homes.

For tenants facing similar issues as certain Fruitvale tenants, acting together as a tenant union provides some balance of power against the landlord.  Tenants can also raise their issues by with meeting with their City Council representatives if not bringing the issues to the attention of the City Attorney.  City officials are inundated with city issues --persistence here is key.

Finally, there’s a little known requirement in the TPO.  Not only must the landlord provide a RAP notice to the tenant at the beginning of the tenancy, but a TPO notice must be placed in the common area of the rental building (like a laundry room) or this is a violation of the ordinance. See OMC 8.22.640(E)(2) and this violation can be alleged in a petition to the rent board. 

“If Rental Units subject to this ordinance are located in a building with an interior common area that all of the building's Tenants have access to, the Owner must post a notice in at least one (1) such common area in the building via a form prescribed by the City staff.”

Tenants can attend clinics at the rent board conducted by Centro Legal de la Raza, 250 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, 6th Floor (Housing Assistance Center) Oakland, CA 94612 (510) 437-1554. Centro Legal Clinic hours: Mondays & Wednesdays from 9:30am to 1:30pm. Other tenant organizations such as Just Cause can be consulted for assistance.

Majestic Marine Mammals

Having just participated in a three-hour whale watching tour off the coast of Monterey lead by a marine biologist, I am captivated by the magical grace of gray and humpback whales.

Closer to home, you can participate in, learn about, volunteer and/or donate to The Marine Mammal Center in Marin County.  Baby seal season is coming soon and the MMC is seeking volunteers to help care for the pups. To find out more, click here!

Think that Renters in Emeryville have No Protections? Think Wrong!

Last year, in April 2017, the City of Emeryville enacted a new just cause and anti-harassment ordinance into law. Why?

"Because a majority of City residents are renters, and in light of the current housing affordability concerns that pervade the Bay Area, the City has explored ways to regulate the relations between certain residential landlords and residential tenants to increase certainty and fairness within the residential rental market."

There are 10 just cause "at fault" reasons for eviction and 4 "no-fault" eviction causes.

Landlords can evict a covered tenant in Emeryville for one of the following just causes:

• Failure to Pay Rent
• Breach of the Lease Agreement
• Tenant has Used the Unit for an Illegal Purpose (distribution of drugs or ammunition)
• Violation of Applicable Health and Safety Codes
• Failure to Allow Landlord Access (Cal. Civ. Code sec. 1954(
• Tenant Rejected Written Lease Extension (must be materially the same as original lease)
• Tenant Violated Occupancy Restriction
• Landlord has Returned from Sabbatical to Occupy Unit
• Landlord has Returned from Deployment
• Landlord Condominium Conversion.

No-fault reasons to evict a tenant in Emeryville include:

• Landlord Will Remove Unit from Market (Ellis Act eviction)
• Landlord Will Move into Unit (Owner Move-In)
• Unit is Temporarily Unfit for Human Habitation
• Unit will be Substantially Renovated.

In some no-fault cases, the Tenant is entitled to relocation assistance which is described in the ordinance.

Moreover, the Landlord must provide Notice of a Tenants rights under this new ordinance:

• When entering a lease agreement
• When renewing a lease agreement
• With a notice to terminate tenancy
• And at other times pending the amendment of the municipal ordinance.

The required Notice is set out in the municipal ordinance and there are civil remedies available to tenants should the landlord be in breach of the municipal requirements.

Finally, Emeryville has taken a chapter from Oakland in enacting a tenant harassment ordinance which is designed to prevent landlords with bad faith and ulterior motive from "encouraging" a tenant to relocate.

Clearly, municipalities are beginning to take control of the landlord-tenant landscape and provide additional protections to tenants because, under state law, there are far fewer protections for tenants. 

For more about the ordinance, click here.

City of Oakland Passes New Uniform Tenant Relocation Allowance which Includes Relocation Payments for Owner Move-In Evictions

The following is an excerpt from an article published by the East Bay Times on 1/24/18 entitled, "Oakland landlords will have to pay thousands to tenants if they evict tenants to move back in.'

“A new Oakland ordinance requires relocation payments of thousands of dollars to renters evicted by landlords who are moving back to their properties.

Passed by the City Council on Jan. 16, the Uniform Relocation Ordinance creates a schedule of relocation payments that will increase every year based on Consumer Price Index fluctuations

The first schedule would require landlords to pay $9,875 to those evicted from three or more bedroom units, $8,000 to renters evicted from two-bedroom units and $6,500 to people evicted from studios or one-bedroom units. Households with low-income, elderly or disabled people or those with minor children would be entitled to an additional payment of $2,500 per unit.

'With uniform relocation, we have an opportunity here to take care of the poor among us who are forced out of their homes and forced to live on the streets,' Oakland Warehouse Coalition’s Jonah Strauss said at the council meeting.

The ordinance would expand on another approved by the council last year, which created the same uniform schedule of relocation payments for landlords who evict tenants under the state’s Ellis Act. The Ellis Act allows landlords to evict tenants if they take their property off the rental market.

The final version of the ordinance passed Jan. 16 contained some amendments to what was originally proposed. One amendment allows landlords to pay the relocation payments in phases: the first third of the payment would be paid to the tenant upon eviction, another third would be paid after a year and the last third would be paid after two years.

Another amendment would allow landlords to avoid the relocation payments if there is an agreement before the renter moves in that the landlord would be moving back at a specific time.”

For more about the actual ordinance, see the 1/5/18 revised proposal which was voted on by the City Council on 1/16/18.  The new legislation adds Article VII, The Uniform Tenant Relocation Allowance, to the municipal ordinance along with Article VIII, Relocation Payments for Owner or Relative Move-Ins, to Chapter 8.22 of the Oakland Municipal Code (O.M.C.)

Finally, landlords must comply with Oakland's Certification Requirements concerning No-Fault evictions.  No-Fault evictions include Owner move-in evictions, evictions for substantial repairs, and Ellis Act evictions.  See No-Fault Eviction Forms under the section entitled "Laws" on the Oakland Rent Adjustment website.

The Oakland municipal code works in conjunction with Oakland regulations. The current version of the municipal code and regulations is available here. However, please be aware that with the rapid changes in the municipal code since the Ghostship fire, the publications of the law may not keep pace with these revisions or formal enactments of law.

My Landlord Withheld My ENTIRE Security Deposit - What Rights do I Have?

Landlords withholding a tenant's entire security deposit are common practice. Thus, before you move, request a move-out inspection within two weeks of your move so that the landlord can identify - and in writing - repair issues that may cause deductions from your deposit so that you can address these issues. Your right to this inspection can be found in Cal. Civ. Code section 1950.5.

Be sure to leave your rental residence in broom-clean condition with the appliances clean and the bathroom sparkling. Dust the blinds, wash the mirrors, and clean dirty windows. Take photographs of each room and of any damages that might cause deductions from your security deposit.

Your landlord has 21 days after you move out to return your deposit either in full or with itemized deductions. If your landlord failed to return your deposit or withheld unreasonably large amounts, you can challenge these deductions in small claims court. It takes up to 6-months to get a hearing but both you and the landlord have to present your case to the judge - you are both on equal footing and neither person can have a lawyer present.

Before you take your landlord to court, you must send your landlord a letter demanding the full (or partial) return of your security deposit. And, if you feel that the deductions were unreasonable, back up your feelings with evidence. For instance, if there is a small spot on a hardwood floor that your landlord considered "damaged," get counter-estimates to repair the damage. 

Your landlord can deduct monies from your security deposit based on estimates and not actual invoices. Within 14-days after receiving the itemized deductions from your landlord, you can ask the landlord to provide actual invoices (versus estimates) and the landlord has 14-days to comply. See Cal. Civ. Code section 1950.5(g)(5).

If you receive an order (e.g. a judgment) from small claims court in your favor, collecting on the judgment may be an issue. If a landlord feels that they can "fly in the face of the law" and boldly "take" your security deposit without justification, they may also avoid paying the judgment. While the judgment may affect their credit rating, it may be only a small "ding" and outweighed by their property assets. Thus, the best solution is to come to an agreement about your security deposit with your landlord before you move and, if you think that your landlord will "take" your deposit without justification, begin to build your small claims case before you move. There are legal methods available for collecting on a judgment such as a property lien but, hopefully, you won't need to employ them.

Finally, under state law, the landlord does not have to pay you interest on your security deposit. Certain cities, like Berkeley, require interest payment but not so in Oakland and other municipalities.

Lobby with your City Councilperson, State Assembly Member, and State Senators to try to get the laws changed to insulate tenants from unreasonable security deposit deductions. In 2013, Tenants Together estimated that landlords held up to $5 Billion in tenant security deposits. That's a whole lot of money held without a mechanism to protect the tenant consumer from unscrupulous landlords. That is also not to say that there are honest landlords who, in good faith, return security deposits to their renters. But, to those that fail to abide by the law, our state should legislate better protective measures.

Client Testimonial

"Karyn was our attorney in an affirmative lawsuit against our landlord for forcible eviction and severe habitability issues. We were faced with sewer leaks, mold, rodent infestation, and water intrusion. Through sheer persistence and creative lawyering, Karyn was able to settle our case within 6-months of filing our complaint in civil court. Our lawyer was diligent and detail-minded. We highly recommend Karyn for your landlord tenant issues." - A.C. and J.H., Contra Costa County (2018)

Tenants Together and Tenants Rights Attorneys Advise Attending State Assembly Hearings on Jan. 11, 2018 to Defeat Costa Hawkins

Normally, I would not post an advisory from a competitive law firm but to this post from Crow & Rose, I say "Hear, hear!"  Below is an excerpt from their post.

"I whole-heartedly support the efforts to repeal Costa Hawkins by tenant organizations like Tenants Together, the San Francisco Tenants Union, the San Francisco Anti-Displacement Coalition, the Housing Rights Committee of San Francisco and all the other hard working individuals and organizations supporting this worthy goal...

"For those of you who can, I urge you to go to Sacramento on January 11, 2018 to attend the first Assembly Housing and Community Development Committee hearing and to loudly support Costa Hawkins repeal—to vociferously support the right of local government to enact rent control."

"The California Legislature enacted the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act in 1995 with the passage of AB 1164 (Hawkins) and its predecessor, SB 1257 (Costa) with support from one-percenters like the so-called Coalition for Fair Rental Policy, the California Building Industry Association, the California League of Savings Institutions, the California Land Title Association, the California Mortgage Bankers Association, and various property owners and apartment associations throughout California."

"The Costa Hawkins Rental Housing Act (CA Civil Code §§ 1954.50-1954.535) gutted rent control by prohibiting local jurisdictions from enacting rent control on any building with a certificate of occupancy issued after February 1, 1995. It banned any vacancy control–regulated rents for units despite vacancy (think Berkeley.) It also entirely exempted single-family dwellings from rent control."

For the full article, click here.