CORRESPONDENCE - 85B - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

tenant can be evicted at all. This leaves good tenants with a Hobson's choice: live with disruptions until the bad neighbor can be evicted or find a new place to live (which likely means paying more in rent). B. Less Notice and Tarnished Rental Histories Those who advocate for just cause policies seem to assume that because "no cause" termination notices can be served for any reason or no reason at all (but not an illegal reason) that landlords do not have reasons for serving such notices. Of course, this isn't generally the case. It is not good business to evict good tenants for no reason. Rather, 30 and 60 day notices of termination notices are generally served for a reason. Sometimes that reason is not related to the tenant's conduct; for example, if the owner plans to move into the unit (which is also allowed underjust cause ordinances). But often, a 30- or 60 -day notice is precipitated by a tenant's bad conduct. For example, a landlord may choose to serve a "no cause" 30 - or 60 -day termination notice to a tenant who is excessively noisy. Even though the landlord could have terminated the tenancy for cause in these circumstances, it is usually more economical for the landlord to serve a "no cause" termination notice in order to avoid the expense and complexity associated with for - cause eviction (discussed above). But it is not just the landlord who benefits from opting to serve a "no cause" 30- or 60 -day termination notice rather than a for -cause 3 -day notice. The tenant receiving the notice also benefits because he or she is allowed substantially more time to find a new place to live, and the tenant also avoids the negative mark on his or her rental history associated with being served a 3 - day notice. An often overlooked benefit of "no cause' termination notices is that because they can be served for any reason or no reason at all (but not an illegal reason), it cannot be presumed that the tenant did or failed to do something that caused their tenancy to be terminated. For this very reason, CAA's Rental Applicant Reference Form (Form 3.7) does not ask whether the tenant was served a 30- or 60 -day notice, but it does ask whether the tenant was served with a 3 -day notice for cause. Because 3 -day notices can only be served as a result of the tenant doing something they were not supposed to do, or failing to do something they were supposed to, so a landlord considering an application can make a negative inference against a tenant who has been served with a 3 -day notice. Because just cause policies take away the landlords discretion to serve a "no cause" termination notice, they have no choice but to use the 3 -day notice procedure to remove tenants who violate the lease. This means that more tenants will end up with negative marks on their rental histories, which will make it more difficult to find new housing in an already tight housing market. The short notice timeframes also make it more difficult for tenants to move out and avoid an unlawful detainer action. Thus, a tenant who is served with a 3 -day notice is more likely to have an unlawful detainer judgment entered against him or her. Many landlords perform unlawful detainer checks as part of their screening procedure and will not accept the application of a person who has had an unlawful detainer judgment entered against them. C. Increased Costs for Tenants Most rental/lease agreements contain some sort of attorney's fees provision which provides that in the event of legal action between the parties, the losing party must pay some or all of the prevailing party's legal fees. These provisions are enforceable in unlawful detainer actions. While these provisions have the benefit of dissuading unscrupulous landlords from filing frivolous cases, they can also result in judgments against tenants that often include hefty attorney fee awards. In cases based upon "no cause" termination notices, this is not often the case because many courts have local rules that limit awards of attorney's fees to a couple hundred dollars in "ordinary" cases. However, because for -cause evictions are not ordinary — they tend to be complex and expensive — the court will award attorney's fees beyond the amount allowed by the local rules. In addition to attorney's fees, the prevailing party is also entitled, by law, to their "costs," which include things like filing fees, process server fees, and legally mandated - witness fees. As a result of these rules, tenants who are evicted for cause may end up with judgments California Apartment Association www.caanet.org Revised 06/2017 — O 2017 — All Rights Reserved Page 7 121