CURRENT LEGISLATIVE BILLS

At the last monthly ACTION meeting, we discussed some of the legislative bills that are currently on the floor in Sacramento, in particular those that compromise the current rights of property owners. A brief summary follows:

Assembly Bill 1256 (Koretz)
This bill seeks to amend the Costa-Hawkins vacancy decontrol law by repealing exemptions of single-family homes and condominiums, repealing vacancy decontrol, repealing rent increases for sublets when the original occupants leave and limiting new construction exemption to units that have a certificate of occupancy that is 25 years old or less. This law would significantly change the Costa-Hawkins vacancy decontrol law and return vacancy control back to Santa Monica. Obviously, this is not in our best interest and is a “giant step” in the wrong direction.

Assembly Bill 210 (Nation)
This bill provides that the drifting, wafting, or blowing of tobacco smoke into the interest of any other person is a nuisance. It prohibits the smoking of any tobacco-related products within any common area and in a common interest development as well as prohibiting the smoking of tobacco in common areas of multi-family residential housing. As an apartment owner, you will now be the smoking police in your own building if this law passes, although it could lead to the eviction of smoking tenants.

Assembly Bill 1384 (Maddox)
This bill provides that a landlord is not required to provide the option to request an initial inspection or the return of the security deposit when the landlord serves on the tenant a notice of unlawful detainer and it clarifies that pre move-out inspections definitely do not apply in a three day notice situation.

Senate Bill 90 (Torlakson)
This Bill requires landlords to include a receipt for any labor or material the landlord has paid for and deducted from the security deposit and provides that if the receipt lacks certain information than the landlord is required to provide it.

Senate Bill 345 (Kuehl)
This is Senator Kuehl’s annual landlord-tenant bill. It is major legislation that relates to rental agreements, evictions and terminations of rental agreements and tenants rights, which will be discussed at greater length, obviously not to our benefit.

Assembly Bill 647 (Nuñez)
This bill provides that in certain circumstances, a landlord may not collect or demand rent or issue notices for non-payment of rent when there are existing housing code violations. Of course, this bill also increases the amount of fines that a tenant could collect and permits the recovery of cost. It is intended to affect slumlords, but must be defined and limited further.

These are just a few of the bills under consideration in Sacramento and, there are many more. It is optimistic that many of these proposed bills will be amended on the legislative floor and drastically change from the initial introduction. We shall keep you advised as we learn more about the developments of each and every bill.

RECENT TRIAL CASES OF INTEREST

As you may know, recently, the California State Legislature now requires that in a three-day notice, you specify exactly where and how the rent must be paid within three days. In a recent case, the landlord’s notice specified this law office as the place for the deposit of the rents within the three-day period, Monday–Friday 9 a.m to 5 p.m. The tenant, however, at the unlawful detainer trial, contended that he left the check in the landlord’s box and therefore, complied within the three-day period. The landlord, however, indicated that there was no rent deposited in the box and that the box was not the designated spot for the deposit of rents, pursuant to the notice. While the trial court did not evict the tenant, this case is subject to an appeal for the interpretation of the requirement that the information must be in the notice. It does seem to follow that if the landlord is required to put the information in the notice, then the tenant is required to abide by that information. We are optimistic that there will be a successful hearing in several months to determine this very important issue on appeal once and for all other cases and the tenant will then be evicted.

Also, you must immediately act upon a noticed violation of a rental agreement by your tenant if you intend to prevail in court and stop collecting rent at the first sign of a violation. We recently prosecuted two cases on behalf of our clients wherein tenants brought in dogs, contrary to the rental agreement and without permission from the property owner. The property owner did not waive his rights, promptly served notice and when the tenant refused to relocate the pets, proceeded to court. The property owner was awarded restitution and possession of the premises as well as past rents. The tenants lost the rent-controlled apartment, which the tenants had for the last fifteen years. Apparently, the tenant’s priority was more in favor of keeping the dog, than the roof over the tenant’s head. Attorney fees and court costs were awarded, and the Sheriff evicted the tenant (and the dog).