HOW MANY VIOLATIONS DOES IT TAKE...?

A new client came into the office for an initial consultation to discuss proper management of an apartment building. During the course of the conversation, it came to my attention that many tenants in the property were violating various portions of the written rental agreements and also violating the Santa Monica Rent Control Law. Some tenants had pets, some had roommates, and some didn’t pay the rent on time. Others simply made noise, which disturbed other people in the building; commonly referred to as a nuisance.

I explained to our client that once you find out that there is a violation of the written rental agreement, you must stop collecting rent and serve notice. The notice is a precursor to an Unlawful Detainer lawsuit. If the tenant complies with the notice, there need be no further action taken. However, if the tenant continues to violate the notice, then further action may be warranted leading to an eviction of the offender(s). In this particular case, the tenant in apartment #1 had an unauthorized roommate, which violated the assignment/ subletting prohibition in the written rental agreement. The roommate brought in a dog, which violated the no pet provision, and the dog barked all night, disturbing other people in the building. Accordingly, we prepared a three-day notice to perform covenant or quit, which set forth each and every violation of the rental agreement and local law. At the time of trial, the court asked whether we need to prove all three violations in order to prevail or if prevailing on just one violation is sufficient to warrant an eviction of the tenant. The answer, of course, is that only one violation need be proven and as long as it is substantial in the eyes of the court, then it is the proper basis for an eviction proceeding.

With full recognition of the rights of all tenants to live peacefully and in quiet enjoyment of the premises, it is the property owner’s obligation to maintain peaceful premises. It is also helpful to have other tenants in the building testify as to the noise and inconvenience so that at trial it is not landlord vs. tenant, but tenant vs. tenant, and it makes the court’s determination easier for you to prevail in your Unlawful Detainer action.

In the case discussed above, the owner won. The Court ruled that the dog had been there a long time, and by accepting rent with knowledge of the presence of the dog, the owner waived his right to declare a breach of the agreement. However, the Court also ruled that the ongoing nuisance of the dog’s unabated barking was substantial and disturbed the other tenant’s who testified. Therefore, the tenant was evicted.