Gov. Newsom's new bill allow tenants to pay only 25% of rent due

[amokk]

Originally Posted by artillery77

Why the hell would I follow that gibberish? Two votes matter, mine and the tenant's.

And the judge's. Have at it.

https://caltenantlaw.com/california-...-eviction-law/

[artillery77]

Originally Posted by amokk

And the judge's. Have at it.

https://caltenantlaw.com/california-...-eviction-law/

Sometimes the government overextends even it's own tremendous capabilities to govern. If the state makes landlording unprofitable, expect asymetric resistance along a myriad of fronts... If the state seems ungovernable now, just wait until they hand over control from the people that own and invest in a place and turn it over to renters.



Let the government build its own properties to rent to whomever they want.



Me, I don't have any rentals anymore. I have homes I allow friends to live at. We're in a club. If you want to be a member, it costs a lot of money, but it comes with a place to live.



Problem solved.

[HB2HSV]

Originally Posted by amokk

And the judge's. Have at it.

https://caltenantlaw.com/california-...-eviction-law/

From your link

What it is Not
1. It does not replace any existing local rent control or just cause eviction law If a local ordinance limits evictions and provides greater tenant protection than this law, that local law’s protection would control instead of this law. Only one or the other applies, not applicable parts [CC 1946.2(g)] explained in 10 and 11 of the following section.

2. It does not apply at all to these rental units (local laws may provide protection):
1) during the first year of tenancy, or if tenants have been added to the lease, this law does not apply until everyone has lived there for a year or the original tenant has lived there for 2 years
2) for an “unlawful” occupancy, such as an unapproved co-tenant, subtenant or AirBnB
3) to property built within the past 15 years [i.e. certificate of occupancy issued]
4) to duplexes where the landlord lives in the other unit,
5) to single homes and condos owned by other than a REIT or corporation or LLC, a specially worded notice of that exemption is in the lease (or a written notice between 1/1/20 and 7/1/20) [“REIT” means Real Estate Investment Trust, where shareholders collectively are the landlord]
6) rooms rented in the landlord’s home
7) government sponsored housing, until those restrictions expire
8) school dormitories, health care facilities, or religious facilities
9) hotels/motels, for the first 30 days of occupancy, until the 1 year provision applies
10) business tenants
11) rentals already subject to a local Just Cause law as of 9/1/19, even if less protective
12) rentals subject to a local Just Cause law enacted after 9/1/19, if it is more protective as to eviction restrictions, additional tenant protections, or higher relocation payments, it is “consistent” with this law, and the government declares it “more protective.” A less protective one is unenforceable.


3. It does not stop “for cause” evictions, where the tenant is accused to doing something wrong.
Not protected are evictions for
(1) nonpayment of rent,
(2) breach of an important part of the rental agreement,
(3) causing a nuisance,
(4) seriously damaging the property,
(5) refusal to sign a lease extension on similar terms,
(6) criminal activity including threats of serious violence against the landlord,
(7) illegally assigning or subleasing,
(8) refusing to let the landlord legally enter to make repairs or show the property,
(9) using the premises for an illegal purpose,
(10) a resident manager failing to leave when terminated, and
(11) failing to move after giving notice to the landlord of that plan. To get around the “just cause” protections to conceal a retaliatory eviction, the landlord would try to evict for one of these reasons.

[vincenze]

AB 3088.

• CTRA prohibits a landlord from evicting a resident for non-payment of rent or other charges that came due between March 1, 2020 and August 31, 2020 if the resident provides the landlord with a declaration stating their finances have been negatively affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. “High-income” residents, as defined, can also be required to provide documentation of their COVID-19-related hardship, provided the landlord follows a specific procedure.
  
• Landlords are also prohibited from evicting a resident for non-payment of rent or other charges that came due between September 1, 2020 and January 31, 2021 if the resident does both of the following: (1) provides the landlord with a declaration stating their finances have been negatively affected by the COVID-19 pandemic (and documentation, if required for a high-income resident); and, (2) by January 31, 2021, pays 25 percent of the rental payments due between September 1, 2020 and January 31, 2021 that were missed because the resident experienced COVID-19-related financial distress.
  
• Landlords are required to give an informational notice about the new law to any residents who, as of September 1, 2020, have missed one or more payments that came due between March 1 and August 31, 2020.
• Requires a landlord to give a 15-day notice before seeking to evict for any unpaid rent or other charges due between March 1, 2020 and January 31, 2021. The 15-day period does not include Saturdays, Sundays, or judicial holidays.
• Extends “just cause” protections under AB 1482 to all residents until February 1, 2021, with limited exceptions. Eviction for demolition or “substantial rehabilitation” is limited to circumstances necessary to comply with health and safety laws.
• Prohibits any unlawful detainer actions for non-payment of rent or other charges (regardless of when due) prior to October 5, 2020.
• Prohibits unlawful detainer actions against residents with COVID-19-related financial distress for non-payment of rent and other charges due between September 1, 2020 and January 31, 2021 until February 1, 2021.
  
• Allows unpaid rent and other charges due between March 1, 2020 and January 31, 2021 to be collected through small claims court. Existing small claims court limits do not apply.
• These small claims cases may not be filed before March 1, 2021.

[amokk]

Originally Posted by HB2HSV

From your link

Yes. I read it before posting. No fault eviction law which was passed pre-Covid. With covid the legislation is even stricter as Vincenze has posted.

This is factual stuff. I don't even know why you're arguing with me. It doesn't matter what you think is right or not. If you want to contest it, go ahead and evict a tenant and see what happens in court if they decide to lawyer up. But in CA I can assure you that the judge takes the tenant's side all else equal.

[Mike930]

Originally Posted by amokk

Yes. I read it before posting. No fault eviction law which was passed pre-Covid. With covid the legislation is even stricter as Vincenze has posted.

This is factual stuff. I don't even know why you're arguing with me. It doesn't matter what you think is right or not. If you want to contest it, go ahead and evict a tenant and see what happens in court if they decide to lawyer up. But in CA I can assure you that the judge takes the tenant's side all else equal.

I wonder if we’re starting to see fallout from this. The COVID cases in our county went down enough that we came off the state’s “worst” list. Things have started to reopen.

All of a sudden we received an email from our complex management saying that due to the increase in COVID cases, they would no longer be doing routine maintenance. They would do emergency repairs only and we have to leave our place while they’re working “for the safety of their employees”.

The cases are decreasing, not increasing. It makes me wonder if they have a cash flow problem and are trying to cut back or if this is simply punitive. They expect people to clear out if there’s an emergency in the middle of the night? Yeah right.