California Passes New Law Further Restricting Access to Eviction Actions

On September 13, 2016, Governor Brown signed AB 2819, which further restricts access to documents filed in eviction cases. The stated intent of the law is to strike a just balance between ensuring open access to public records and protecting the credit and reputation of innocent tenants. The new law amends California Civil Code section 1161.2 and creates a new code section, Code of Civil Procedure 1167.1.

Effective January 1, 2017, access to eviction files will be limited to the following: (a) a party to the action, including a party’s attorney. (b) a person who provides the clerk with the names of at least one plaintiff and one defendant and the address of the premises, including the apartment or unit number, if any, (c)  a resident of the premises who provides the clerk with the name of one of the parties or the case number and shows proof of residency, (d) a person by order of the court, which may be granted ex parte, on a showing of good cause, (e) any person by order of the court if judgment is entered for the plaintiff after trial more than 60 days since the filing of the complaint, and (g) any other person 60 days after the complaint has been filed if the plaintiff prevails in the action within 60 days of the filing of the complaint. If a default or default judgment is set aside more than 60 days after the complaint has been filed, this section shall apply as if the complaint had been filed on the date the default or default judgment is set aside.

Like its predecessor law enacted in 1991, AB 2819 not only protects innocent tenants, it also protects guilty tenants who have breached their lease. Even guilty tenants are entitled to have their eviction case sealed for minimum of 60 days or until the court enters judgment in favor of the landlord, whichever is longer. If no judgment is entered, the case remains sealed forever.

For further information, please contact Ruzicka, Wallace & Coughlin, LLP at (949) 748-3600; website: www.rwclegal.com. 

The law firm of Ruzicka, Wallace & Coughlin, LLP represents landlords, property management companies, institutional and private lenders, employers and insurance companies throughout the State of California in real estate, business and employment litigation. The information provided herein is for general interest only and should not be relied upon or construed as legal advice. 

© 2016 Ruzicka, Wallace & Coughlin, LLP.

The City of Santa Rosa's Rent Control Ordinance Takes Effect On September 30, 2016

The City of Santa Rosa has enacted a residential rent stabilization ordinance the becomes effective on September 30, 2016.  The ordinance regulates both the amount of rent that a landlord may charge and the grounds for eviction of tenants. 

The ordinance does not apply to rental units that are single family dwellings, condominiums, duplexes, or triplexes (if the owner lives in one of the units of the triplex as the owner’s principal place of residence), rental units for which a Certificate of Occupancy was first issued after February 1995, and units that are exempt under any federal or state law. The ordinance also exempts, among other things, certain rental units subsidized or regulated by a government agency, but not tenants participating in the HUD Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program. The ordinance does not apply to commercial property. 

For rental units subject to the ordinance, a landlord is required to have just cause, as defined by the ordinance, to terminate a tenancy. The just cause grounds for termination of a tenancy include: (1) failure to pay rent, (2) habitual late payment of rent, (3) violation of the obligations of the tenancy, (4) nuisance, (5) refusal to renew a tenancy, (6) failure to provide access, (7) owner or relative move in, (8) demolition, (9) capital improvement plan, (10) compliance with a government order. The ordinance contains certain notice requirements in addition to state law requirements. Under certain circumstances, a landlord is required to pay a tenant a relocation fee.  Additionally, the ordinance requires landlords to provide tenants and prospective purchasers with certain disclosures and report certain in information to the City. In any action brought to recover possession of a rental unit, the landlord must plead and prove compliance with the ordinance. A landlord's failure to comply with the ordinance may be asserted as a defense to an eviction action.  

A copy of the City of Santa Rosa’s Rent Stabilization Ordinance is available from the City of Santa Rosa at http://www.ci.santa-rosa.ca.us/news/Pages/RentStabilizationOrdinance.aspx.

For further information, please contact Ruzicka, Wallace & Coughlin, LLP at (949) 748-3600; website: www.rwclegal.com. 

The law firm of Ruzicka, Wallace & Coughlin, LLP represents landlords, property management companies, institutional and private lenders, employers and insurance companies throughout the State of California in real estate, business and employment litigation. The information provided herein is for general interest only and should not be relied upon or construed as legal advice. 

The City of San Francisco Enacts New Eviction Notice Requirements

Effective November 9, 2015, the City of San Francisco Rent Ordinance was amended to require landlords to attach to every eviction notice a copy of the new Rent Board Form 1007 (Notice to Tenant Required by Rent Ordinance Section 37.9(c)). The form is required to state that "a tenant's failure to timely act in response to a notice to vacate may result in a lawsuit by the landlord to evict the tenant" and that advice regarding the notice to vacate is available from the Rent Board.

Also effective November 9, 2015, all notices to vacate under the following Rent Ordinance Sections must state in the notice to vacate the lawful rent for the unit at the time the notice to vacate is issued: 37.9(a)(8) (owner/relative move-in); 37.9(a)(9) (sale of condominium); 37.9(a)(10) (demolition/permanent removal of unit from housing use); 37.9(a)(11) (temporary eviction to perform capital improvements); and, 37.9(a)(14) (temporary eviction to perform lead remediation).

Effective March 19, 2016, the Rent Ordinance was amended again to require that Form 1007 also include information provided by the Mayor's Office of Housing and Community Development regarding eligibility for affordable housing programs.

Rent Board Form 1007 was updated on March 19, 2016 and is now a two-page form that includes the "Notice to Tenant" in six required languages. Page one includes the information in English, Spanish and Vietnamese. Page two includes the information in Chinese, Russian and Filipino.  The landlord must attach a copy of the form that is in the tenant's primary language to the eviction notice, except that if the tenant's primary language is not one of the six required languages, the landlord must attach page one of Form 1007 that contains the information in English. 

For further information, please contact Ruzicka, Wallace & Coughlin, LLP at (949) 748-3600; website: www.rwclegal.com. 

The law firm of Ruzicka, Wallace & Coughlin, LLP represents landlords, property management companies, institutional and private lenders, employers and insurance companies throughout the State of California in real estate, business and employment litigation. The information provided herein is for general interest only and should not be relied upon or construed as legal advice. 

© 2016 Ruzicka, Wallace & Coughlin, LLP.

Superior Court Strikes City of San Francisco Eviction Protections for School Employees and Families with Children During the School Year

Effective May 22, 2016, the City of San Francisco Board of Supervisors amended the City of San Francisco Rent Ordinance to prohibit certain no-fault evictions during the school year if a child under 18 or a person who works at a school in San Francisco resides in the rental unit, is a tenant in the unit or has a custodial or family relationship with a tenant in the unit, and the tenant has resided in the unit for 12 months or more.

These eviction protections applied to the following types of no-fault evictions where the effective date of the eviction notice falls during the school year: owner/relative move-in, condominium conversion, demolition/permanent removal of unit from housing use, temporary eviction to perform capital improvements, or substantial rehabilitation.

In a state court challenge in San Francisco Apartment Association et al v. City and County of San Francisco et al, San Francisco Superior Court Case No. CPF-16-515087, the court ruled on August 31, 2016 that “ordinance #160100 entitled ‘No-Fault Eviction Protections During School Year’ is invalid on its face, preempted by state law and unenforceable.” The court enjoined the City from enforcing the new amendment. 

For further information, please contact Ruzicka, Wallace & Coughlin, LLP at (949) 748-3600; website: www.rwclegal.com. 

The law firm of Ruzicka, Wallace & Coughlin, LLP represents landlords, property management companies, institutional and private lenders, employers and insurance companies throughout the State of California in real estate, business and employment litigation. The information provided herein is for general interest only and should not be relied upon or construed as legal advice. 

© 2016 Ruzicka, Wallace & Coughlin, LLP.

Tenant’s Limited Right to Post Political Signs

With the election season upon us, landlords should be aware of a California law granting residential tenants a limited right to display or post political signs.

Under Civil Code section 1940.4, tenants have a limited right to post or display political signs related to (1) an election or legislative vote, including an election of a candidate to public office, (2) the initiative, referendum or recall process, or (3) issues before a public commission, public board or elected body for a vote. [Civil Code § 1940.4(a)]

A tenant may display or post political signs in the window or on the door of premises leased by the tenant in a multifamily dwelling, or from the yard, window, door, balcony or outside wall of premises leased by the tenant in a single-family dwelling. [Civil Code § 1940.4(b)]

Landlords may prohibit a tenant from posting or displaying political signs when: (a) the political sign is more than six square feet in size; (b) the displaying or posting would violate local, state or federal law; or (c) the posting or displaying would violate a lawful provision in a common interest development governing a document. [Civil Code § 1940.4(c)]

Tenants must post and remove political signs in compliance with time limits set local governing ordinances and are solely responsible for any violations. [Civil Code § 1940.4(d)] If no local ordinance exists or if the ordinance does not contain time limits for posting or removing political signs on private property, the landlord may establish a reasonable time period. For this purpose, a reasonable time period shall begin at least 90 days prior to the date of the election or vote to which the sign relates and end at least 15 days following the election or vote date. [Civil Code § 1940.4(d)]

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any changes in tenancy terms made to implement Civil Code § 1940.4 and noticed pursuant to Civil Code § 827 (notice of change of terms of tenancy) are not be deemed to cause a diminution in housing services and may be enforced in accordance with Section 1161 of the Code of Civil Procedure (eviction proceedings). [Civil Code § 1940.4(e)]

For further information, please contact Ruzicka, Wallace & Coughlin, LLP at (949) 748-3600; website: www.rwclegal.com. 

The law firm of Ruzicka, Wallace & Coughlin, LLP represents landlords, property management companies, institutional and private lenders, employers and insurance companies throughout the State of California in real estate, business and employment litigation. The information provided herein is for general interest only and should not be relied upon or construed as legal advice. 

© 2016 Ruzicka, Wallace & Coughlin, LLP.

California Law Does Not Allow The Withholding Of Rent Due To Alleged Violations Of The Federal Americans With Disabilities Act

A California tenant is not permitted to withhold rent on the basis of alleged violations of the Americans With Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Title III of the ADA bans disability discrimination in places of public accommodation. It provides in part that “[n]o individual shall be discriminated against on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of any place of public accommodation by any person who owns, leases, or operates a place of public accommodation.” [42 U.S.C. § 12182] The ADA does not apply to privately owned houses, apartments, and condominiums. [Birke v Oakwood Worldwide (2009) 169 CA4th 1540, 1552] At most, the public accommodations accessibility requirements in Title III of the ADA [42 USC §12182(a)] may apply to privately owned facilities to the extent that areas of the facility are open to the public (not just renters), such as leasing offices, parking lots, and pathways from the public street to the public accommodations. [See, e.g., Nicholls v Holiday Panay Marina, LP (2009) 173 CA4th 966] However, the ADA does not provide tenants with a right to withhold rent based on alleged violations of the ADA.  Moreover, California's implied warranty of habitability has not been extended to alleged violations of the ADA. [See, Code Civ. Proc. § 1174.2]

For further information, please contact Ruzicka, Wallace & Coughlin, LLP at (949) 748-3600; website: www.rwclegal.com. 

The law firm of Ruzicka, Wallace & Coughlin, LLP represents landlords, property management companies, institutional and private lenders, employers and insurance companies throughout the State of California in real estate, business and employment litigation. The information provided herein is for general interest only and should not be relied upon or construed as legal advice. 

© 2016 Ruzicka, Wallace & Coughlin, LLP.

California Bill Seeking to Force Landlords To Accept Section 8 Vouchers Defeated

California Senate Bill 1053 (Leno) sought to require California landlords to accept HUD Section 8 Vouchers. The bill has been effectively defeated.  Under the Section 8 program, a portion of the tenant's rent is subsidized by the federal government. In order to participate in the program, the landlord is required to enter into a Housing Assistance Payment (HAP) contract with the local housing authority.  The landlord is also required to enter into a lease and Section 8 Addendum with the tenant. The Section 8 program creates additional administrative burdens on the landlord and affects the landlord's ability to increase the rent or terminate the tenancy.

For further information, please contact Ruzicka, Wallace & Coughlin, LLP at (949) 748-3600; website: www.rwclegal.com. 

The law firm of Ruzicka, Wallace & Coughlin, LLP represents landlords, property management companies, institutional and private lenders, employers and insurance companies throughout the State of California in real estate, business and employment litigation. The information provided herein is for general interest only and should not be relied upon or construed as legal advice.

© 2016 Ruzicka, Wallace & Coughlin, LLP.