WHAT IS WRONGFUL EVICTION?

Since the passage of rent control with the just cause eviction requirements,
there has been a proliferation of litigation centering around a property owner’s attempt to obtain possession of a rental unit. Iin Santa Monica, an owner can obtain possession from the tenant generally based upon a tenant’s violation of law and/or breach of contract. However, there is one exception to the basis for the eviction that does not depend upon a tenant’s actions. Specifically, when an owner desires to obtain a unit for owner occupancy purposes, a tenant can be served with a thirty day notice of termination of tenancy along with the payment of relocation assistance, and the tenant should vacate. Of course, an owner can also obtain possession if he/she chooses to go out of business.

The owner occupancy eviction process must comply with the Santa Monica Rent Control Board regulations, which set up “obstacles” for the landlord to “jump” in order to successfully obtain possession. Even if the property owner serves the tenant with the proper Thirty Day Notice, many tenants simply do not vacate and desire to have a Court determine whether the eviction is appropriate. At Trial, the landlord must prove compliance with all rules, regulations and laws. Assuming that the property owner does so, the tenant is then forced to vacate the subject property.

Of course, in some instances, the tenant voluntarily vacates after receipt of the Thirty Day Notice and, therefore, no Court action is required.

With this scenario in mind, there are many dissatisfied tenants who desire to obtain more than just relocation benefits. Lawsuits arising out of the tenant’s belief that the property owner did not comply with the rules and regulations following the surrender of the premises by the tenant are not unusual. Specifically, the tenant believes that the property owners designated representative did not occupy the premises within thirty days, did not stay in the premises for one year, or did not occupy the premises as the principle place of residence or ever move in. In these situations, the tenant seeks to be reinstated into the apartment and/or obtain monetary damages for the “wrongful eviction” plus penalties, costs and attorneys fees.

In reality, there is no cause of action for retaliatory eviction or wrongful eviction. The cause of action, if it exists, is properly designated as a violation of a statute that has various statute of limitations. A statute of limitation is a state law that requires a litigant to file a lawsuit within a specified period of time or the cause of action is “lost”. Generally, if the tenant is seeking a penalty, then the lawsuit must be filed within one year from the date of the occurrence. In many instances, however, the tenant does not file the lawsuit within one year but still seeks to obtain monetary penalties. Some tenants seek moving expenses, reinstatement of their tenancy and/or compensation for the difference they have paid to live elsewhere plus Court costs and attorney’s fees. Of course, the relocation assistance that was already paid was intended to cover some of these claimed expenses and if the tenant had a defense to the eviction, the tenant is obligated to litigate the defense at the time of the eviction action.

Another scenario that has occurred in the past is when the landlord properly files an Unlawful Detainer action, and wins the case. The tenant then vacates, although the tenant appeals the Judgment. The tenant should seek a stay of the eviction because of the appeal. If the tenant is successful in his appeal, the tenant then seeks reinstatement and/or monetary damages as a result of a “wrongful eviction”. In reality, the eviction itself was not wrongful because it was based on a Court Order that was valid, but subsequently reversed. The question of liability is a complicated answer depending on the facts of the case, the interpretation of law to be applied by the particular Trial Court, and whether the tenant has filed his/her action “timely”. Of course, in certain circumstances, the property owner can tender the defense to his insurance company and allow his insurance company to handle the matter through its attorneys. In other cases, if the tenant did not seek a stay from the Trial Court because of the pending appeal, he may have no relief ordered in the subsequent Lawsuit.

Property owners should be aware of this type of litigation. Have the utilities placed in the name of the occupant, use the telephone at the premises frequently, change the Department of Motor Vehicles records and, obviously, become a voter at the subject property. This “paper trail” will assist the defense of any action filed by the former tenant.

Additionally, the definition of principle place of residence is a nebulous term but seems to center primarily on one’s intent to permanently reside in the property. This intent can be demonstrated by numerous facts and circumstances, some of which are documented by the paper trail set forth above. However, the Rent Control Board Regulations require that you be physically present most, if not all the time and tenant attorneys use these regulations as persuasive, if not binding authority.

If you or, a friend of yours, are contemplating filing an action to cause a tenant to vacate the property, you should become aware of the requirements of the Santa Monica Rent Control Board. Please refer to Chapter 9 of the Santa Monica Rent Control Board Rules and Regulations for a complete list of all of the requirements and then seek legal counsel prior to taking any action. The Santa Monica Rent Control Board does not tell you everything that is required and quite often gives erroneous information for which they claim no responsibility. Seek legal advice early, which may save a lot of time and money down the line. The Rent Control Board does not provide forms for you to use.

The moral of the story is that if you owner occupy a controlled renal unit, you should “openly and notoriously” live there for at least a year. Bad facts make bad law.