CORRESPONDENCE - 85B - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Tenants Have Additional Protections Under Existing Law Existing law already provides many protections for the most vulnerable people in our society — low income, elderly, and disabled tenants in the eviction process. Some of these protections apply to all tenants. For example, landlords are held to a very strict standard in eviction cases. The smallest error, such as an inverted number in an address on a termination notice can cause a landlord to lose an eviction case even though the tenant may not have been misled by the mistake. In addition, the unlawful detainer process itself contains several built-in protections for tenants. For instance, when a landlord files an unlawful detainer action against a tenant, the court is required to send a "Notice of Filing of Unlawful Detainer" to the tenant. This notice contains, among other things, the name and telephone number of a legal services organization that provides legal services (typically free of charge) to low-income persons in the county. Other protections specifically target vulnerable populations. For example, landlords' duties to reasonably accommodate disabled tenants may include giving a disabled tenant additional time, beyond the 30 or 60 days provided for in the law to move out. Section 8 tenants have a statutory right to 90 days' notice when their lease is not being renewed or their tenancy is otherwise being terminated through no fault of their own. Tenants in other subsidized housing are already provided protection from no -cause evictions under the rules of the subsidy programs. In addition to these protections, the law gives judges who preside over unlawful detainer cases two powerful tools to assist tenants who have hardships. First, judges have discretion to stay the execution of an unlawful detainer judgment — which has the effect of delaying the lock -out — by up to 40 days after judgment is entered. Second, in cases of serious hardship, the judge has the discretion to grant a "motion for relief from forfeiture." The effect of this ruling is to restore the tenancy, thereby sparing the tenant from eviction. Because this remedy is limited to cases of hardship, it provides a valuable "safety valve" for the truly vulnerable without allowing intransigent tenants to avoid eviction despite their bad behavior. These are just a handful of examples at how California law currently protects tenants. `Just Cause' Eviction Laws Hurt Tenants Good Tenants Get Stuck with Bad Neighbors Due to the amount of evidence required to complete a `for cause' eviction, it takes months if not years to evict a bad tenant. Successful removal requires landlords to give bad tenants multiple written warnings, and to document the on-going issues with objective evidence (photos, security footage, tenant complaints, police involvement). Neighboring tenants suffer during this time as they're forced live with the bad tenant's behavior. The list of horror stories is endless. Tenants Receive Less Notice Landlords rarely terminate the tenancy of residents who pay the rent and comply with the lease. More often than not, a landlord serves a `no cause' termination notice in response to a tenant's violation of the lease. While the landlord could pursue a `for cause' notice, it is easier to give a 30/60 -day notice. So, under a `just cause' ordinance, landlords aren't going to stop evicting bad tenants, they will simply start issuing 3 -day notices versus 30/60 -day notices. Negative Impact on Tenants' Rental History As mentioned above, `just cause' ordinances result in more 3 -day notices being served. Being served with a 3 -day notice is a negative mark on a tenant's rental history, whereas being served with a 30/60 -day notice is not necessarily. This is because 30/60 -day notices can be served for reasons unrelated to the tenant (such as owner move -in or renovation). CAA's Rental Applicant Reference Form asks if a tenant has ever been served with a 3 -day notice but does not ask if a 30/60 -day notice was served. Under a `just cause' ordinance more tenants will have the negative mark of having been served with a 3 -day notice. This will negatively impact tenants' abilities to find new housing.