CORRESPONDENCE - 85B - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

truthfully. The problem is compounded further when there are numerous tenants engaged in illicit activity because even though it is plain to any observer that there is an issue, the problematic tenants protect each other. Local law enforcement is often of little help. Even if the police do respond to calls, they often do not make arrests, or if they do, the offending tenant is released shortly thereafter. Most police departments also will not release police reports to landlords, even if the incident occurred on the landlord's property. In areas without just cause requirements, landlords have a tool to address these issues. Such problematic tenants can be served a 30 or 60 day "no cause" termination notice. But in areas with just cause requirements, landlords are deprived of this tool and must either convince tenants to testify, or tolerate a tenant who creates a nuisance. If the landlord is able to obtain the evidence to prove that a permissible cause exists to terminate the tenancy, then there is the issue of presenting that evidence to the court. Though unlawful detainer actions are often heard by the same judges that hear small claims cases, unlawful detainer actions are not small claims cases. They are civil law suits that are subject the same rules governing presentation and admissibility of evidence that are applicable to other civil cases. In addition, unlawful detainer trials are often placed on crowded court calendars with other unlawful detainer trials. The judges who oversee these cases must handle many cases in a short period of time, and they expect landlords who choose to represent themselves to be able to present their case in an efficient manner, in accordance with the rules of evidence. Because of the complex rules governing admissibility, presentation of evidence, as well as the inherent pressures of the courtroom, and the skill (gained from experience) necessary to effectively present evidence and question witnesses, most landlords are not equipped to effectively represent themselves in a for -cause unlawful detainer action. Keeping an attorney experienced in handling for - cause evictions on retainer is an expensive, but necessary, reality for landlords in areas with just cause eviction ordinances. III Just Cause Eviction is an Unnecessary Policy A. State Law Prohibits Retaliatory Evictions Tenant advocates often argue that just cause eviction policies are necessary to protect tenants from being evicted as a result of their complaints about substandard conditions. However, California law already provides protections against retaliatory evictions, regardless of whether the unit is subject to a just cause eviction ordinance. Both the common law and California Civil Code section 1942.5 prohibit a landlord from seeking to evict or otherwise taking adverse actions against a tenant because the tenant has engaged in a legally protected activity (which includes complaining about habitability issues). In fact, Civil Code Section 1942.5(a) provides greater protection than many just cause eviction ordinances because it establishes a presumption in favor of the tenant if the landlord acts to evict the tenant within 180 days after the tenant complains to the landlord or a government agency about habitability. The California anti -retaliation laws function as both a defense to an unlawful detainer action and as a basis for an affirmative lawsuit. B. Being Evicted to Raise the Rent Is a Fallacy The second most popular argument advanced by tenant advocates in favor of just cause eviction is that it protects tenants from being evicted by "greedy" landlords who want to raise the rent. This argument does not hold water. First, this argument ignores the fact that it is rent control policies (which often go hand-in- hand with just cause eviction policies) that are responsible for the landlord's inability to raise the rent to market during the tenancy. But for a rent control ordinance, landlords would not need the unit to be vacant in order to raise the rent to keep up with increased costs. More importantly though, not only do just cause eviction ordinances not provide a solution for the non-existent problem of no -cause evictions being motivated by a desire to raise the rent, they actually do the opposite. Under California law, cities California Apartment Association www.caonet.org Revised 06/2017 — © 2017 — All Rights Reserved Page 5 12t