WAM - Westside Apartment Monthly
July 2001
CITY WATCH, by Wes Wellman, Action President
RENT BOARD STORIES, By James L. Jacobson
HERB'S BALTERDASH, By Herb BalterLEGAL FORUM, By Gordon Gitlen, Esq.
LEGAL COLUMN, By Rosario Perry SACRAMENTO UPDATE, by Carl Lambert, Esq.
CAPITOL HIGHLIGHTS, By Debra Carlton, CAA Legislative Division
WESTSIDE INSIDERWAM ARCHIVESADVERTISERS

ILLEGAL SUBLETTING
by Harold Griffin

$100/HR. MINIMUM WAGE?
by John Stossel

Search:
Look in:
Match:

ACTION
Go to the Action
Homepage

 




OUTRAGEOUS GOINGS ON AROUND TOWN
(page 2 of 2)

THE UN-LIVING WAGE ORDINANCE
On May 23, 2001 as we stated above, the City Council tentatively passed its Living Wage Ordinance (LWO). It requires, starting July 1, 2001 that companies grossing more than 5 million yearly, to pay their employees at least $10.50 an hour (unless the company has a union contract). The business must be within the beach area (west of Fourth Street). It is estimated that there will be 72 businesses and 2,400 workers covered by this new law. Of course there is an exemption / hardship clause in the law, which will be used to allow all restaurants to opt out of the coverage. This law is basically seen as a targeted attempt to bankrupt the beach hotels, all of whom SMRR hates. The final version of the bill should be passed within the month, and will include City employees.


RECENT STATE WIDE COURT DECISIONS
In Saelzler v. Advanced Group 400, the California Supreme Court ruled in a 4 to 3 decision in favor of the property owner on the issue of tort liability for 3rd party criminal acts committed on the owner's property. This case brings to a rest for the time being, the question of the owner's responsibility (i.e. does the owner have to pay an injured tenant or guest who gets attacked by a criminal while on the owner's property). In the past, victims of crime have sued the owner for lack of proper security measures, ranging from inadequate gates, locks, lighting, or absence of guards, video camera, and the like. The Supreme Court has held that for the victim to win against the owner, the victim must prove that the specific reason the victim was attacked, was directly caused by the inadequate security measure. Thus lack of lighting will not in itself impose liability, unless the victim can prove that but for the lack of proper lighting the crime would not have been committed. In Saelzler, the plaintiff attacked by 3 men while on the owner's property, but the court held that the plaintiff could not prove that but for the allegedly faulty locking gates and / or lack of security guards, she would not have been attacked. The Court stated that since the plaintiff did not know her assailant, could have been tenants at the property, and locking gates would not have stopped them from coming onto the property.

In Kolodge v. Boyd, the appellate court held that a party to a real estate sales transaction could be responsible to the lending bank, for negligent or intentional misrepresentation, if the Bank loses money on its loan after a non-judicial foreclosure sale. This is scary for many reasons, and sellers must be very careful not to get caught in the liability trap, when the buyer loses the property to the bank. In Kolodge, the lending broker was held liable for giving the bank false information about the appraised value of the apartment building. When the bank took the property back, it could only sell if for 60% of what it lent the buyer. The problem with this case is that it can be used to impose liability on the seller for anything that the seller tells the bank (or the bank's agents) either orally or in writing. Also beware as a seller of trying to help out the buyer by increasing the purchase price with cash back to the buyer at close of escrow. Any arrangement a seller enters into with the buyer without proper disclosure to the lender could subject the seller to liability to the bank for that secret conduct. As a seller, do not make any representations, to any party to the transaction. Be very careful not to respond to the lender or its agent's request for information without first speaking to an attorney.


RECENT RENT SURVEY FOR SANTA MONICA APARTMENT RENTALS
ACTION has just completed its rent survey based on statistics published by the Rent Control Board of Santa Monica. The statistics cover all market rate rentals from January 1, 2001 through May 31, 2001, for Rent Board areas A through G. There are approximately 850 filled vacancies reported in the raw data. The raw data is available to ACTION members through our office for cost of printing. Portions of the report can also be found in the Members Only section of our on - line newsletter. Call the ACTION office to get your copy of the current rent study. Don't rent your units without knowing what is happening in your neighborhood.

Life is over too quickly to worry about getting old.
WAM-- End of Article

>> Page 1 >> Page 2 >>

© 2001, Action Apartment Association, Inc.
Site designed by Norman Barron Design