Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Hi Calguy, I am new to this forum and came across this old post about the RSO guidelines, and it appears that you have experience in evicting problem tenants that are under the RSO. I am a landlord in LA and under RSO guidelines. Im experienced in being a landlord but new to LAs RSO guidelines. We purchased a duplex last year and inherited a tenant who is a HUGE problem. Cant stand the guy and he serves me illegitimate letters from his lawyer friend contesting parts of his lease, such as paying the deposit he never gave the old owner. Among a list of other constant issues we have with him. I want him OUT! But since he has this lawyer friend coworker on his side, I am hesitant to pursue further without getting legal advise, which i cannot afford right now. What do you know about evictions for reasons besides the 12 that are allowed under RSO?-C
When you purchased the duplex, your contract with the previous owner should state you are also purchasing the unit, along with all financial, and tenant obligations included.
Not all buyer/seller contract state this, and that is advantageous to a new property owner.
If the terms of the tenant's lease state a specific date of the lease ending, you will have to honor that, however if there is no reference in the buyer/seller contract stating your responsibility to the existing tenants, then you have no duty, or responsibility to the existing tenants.
If the contract frees you from tenant responsibilities and obligations, you are free to send each tenant a notice stating one or two things.
First that you are the new owner, and second, a new lease agreement will be forthcoming and tenants have the option of accepting it, and renewing, or not accepting it, and returning possession of the unit to you.
Regardless if the tenants are on a month to month, or yearly lease agreement, a 30 day notice is sufficient IF existing conditions from the previous owner are not intact.
If they are, then you would have to wait until 30 days before each lease is set to expire, before issuing a notice.
You have the option of making the rental a month to month, or continue on a yearly lease.
That is up to you.
As I stated above . if your contract with the previous owner states the conditions of the rentals stay as they were when that owner owned the building, as it relates to the terms of any lease agreement between the two parties, then it stays that way until the leases expire.
If the problem tenant is on a yearly lease , evicting that tenant while the lease is in effect, would rely on what is written into the lease agreement.
Some leases state that a landlord can evict before the expiration of the lease, if the reason involves reasons of safety of the property,, or other tenants, as well as willful destruction of the property.
Most yearly leases require the owner, in cases of eviction,(depending on the reason for eviction) or surrender of the unit by the tenant, to pay the remaining balance on the lease.
The first thing I would do , were I you, would be to look at the buyer/seller contract.
If you did not agree to taking over the building with all present terms still in effect, you are free to set your own rules as a new owner, as long as they comply with the rso.
That is to say, you can't come in and raise the rents above what is allowed by the rso, just because you are the new owner of the building.
I have never availed myself to having yearly leases.
I don't like them for a number of reasons.
If I need to get someone out, a 30 day notice is much easier than buying out a lease.
Tenants circumstances change, and sometimes they need to get out of a lease.
A month to month is much better, at least for me, and my tenants.
One more thing having to do with the 12 reasons for eviction dictated by the rso.
They are pretty specific, and if I want someone out of one of my units, I rely on rule number # 3.
I am not sure if you have the book put out by the rso, and in case you don't, here is rule # 3. as it pertains to reasons for eviction of a tenant.
This rule explains why I can evict a tenant because that tenant has bright pink hair, and will not put it back to a more natural color.
That would be called, violation of rental agreement.
Rule #3 explains about a tenant causing damage, but goes on to say, (quote)"The tenant is creating an unreasonable interference with the comfort, safety,or enjoyment of any other residents of the rental complex, or within a 1000 foot boundary line of the rental complex."(quote).
All I would have to say is this tenant is bothering my other tenants with the out outrageous hair color, and my tenants don't want to look at it, or subject their guest to having to look at it.
It is making them uncomfortable.
It goes beyond the bounds of what my tenants consider normal behavior within the complex.
There are many ways to interpret the laws, and this is one that a tenant would have a hard time defending in a court of law.
When adopting a lease, or rental agreement, you need to incorporate every, and anything you want to be agreed upon, as long as it does not infringe upon tenants rights, or the law.
My rental agreements are not your standard Wallcott's legal form.
They are particular to the specific rental property.
If you need more help, you can send me a direct message,
I hope I have been of some help.
Bob.
One more thing I forgot to mention in regard to your tenant contesting parts of the lease..
If the tenant signed the lease, he/she, has no grounds to contest the lease .
The signature on the lease is proof that the tenant agreed to the terms of the lease.
If your building is rent controlled, located in the City of LA, and otherwise qualifies under the LA RSO, then you may only be evicted for certain reasons. In other words, landlords and tenants cannot "contract around" the LA City ordinance that governs rent-controlled properties. The RSO governs. HDICLA is the city agency that provides information on the "certain reasons" a tenant may be evicted. Go to their website to download a brochure listing these reasons.
Contrary to what has been posted above, the no-fault reasons for eviction are not "guidelines." They are part of the LA City ordinance that govern rent-controlled properties. SO, for instance, if you reside in a rent-controlled unit in LA under a one-year written lease, and after a year the tenant and landlord do not enter into a new written lease (meaning they didn't sign a new agreement for the same unit) then the tenancy is now considered a "month-to-month" tenancy. Meaning, same terms as the original written lease, except the term is not "one year," but rather 30 days at a time. The catch, and the difference between the incorrect statements given above is - the landlord cannot simply terminate your month-to-month tenancy by providing you with 30-day advance notice. Not if you are a tenant in a a rent-controlled unit in the City of LA.
If your building is rent controlled, located in the City of LA, and otherwise qualifies under the LA RSO, then you may only be evicted for certain reasons. In other words, landlords and tenants cannot "contract around" the LA City ordinance that governs rent-controlled properties. The RSO governs. HDICLA is the city agency that provides information on the "certain reasons" a tenant may be evicted. Go to their website to download a brochure listing these reasons.
Contrary to what has been posted above, the no-fault reasons for eviction are not "guidelines." They are part of the LA City ordinance that govern rent-controlled properties. SO, for instance, if you reside in a rent-controlled unit in LA under a one-year written lease, and after a year the tenant and landlord do not enter into a new written lease (meaning they didn't sign a new agreement for the same unit) then the tenancy is now considered a "month-to-month" tenancy. Meaning, same terms as the original written lease, except the term is not "one year," but rather 30 days at a time. The catch, and the difference between the incorrect statements given above is - the landlord cannot simply terminate your month-to-month tenancy by providing you with 30-day advance notice. Not if you are a tenant in a a rent-controlled unit in the City of LA.
You had better read again the rules pertaining to the end of a lease period.
If the lease is not renewed by the tenant, the landlord can evict the tenant.
The landlord is under no obligation to renew an expired lease.
In the issue of a landlord and tenant "contracting around", I can put anything in my rental agreements, as long as it doesn't go against rso rules.
One of the rules in my agreements states vehicle parking for tenants only, and is strictly enforced.
That clause is not in any rso rule I have seen.
I have evicted twice over the years because people violated that term of the rental agreement as it pertained to vehicles being parked on the property.
I have other conditions in my rental agreements that are entirely legal, and are not in the rso rules.
As long as the tenant, and I agree with the terms, it is a legal binding contract.
You had better read again the rules pertaining to the end of a lease period.
If the lease is not renewed by the tenant, the landlord can evict the tenant.
The landlord is under no obligation to renew an expired lease.
In the issue of a landlord and tenant "contracting around", I can put anything in my rental agreements, as long as it doesn't go against rso rules.
One of the rules in my agreements states vehicle parking for tenants only, and is strictly enforced.
That clause is not in any rso rule I have seen.
I have evicted twice over the years because people violated that term of the rental agreement as it pertained to vehicles being parked on the property.
I have other conditions in my rental agreements that are entirely legal, and are not in the rso rules.
As long as the tenant, and I agree with the terms, it is a legal binding contract.
Bob.
You're 100% wrong, Bob. It's under RSO rules that you may evict tenants for breach of the rental agreement, which sounds like the only thing you've been doing. Obviously the terms of contracts vary, that doesn't mean you've been evicting tenants for reasons outside of the RSO. And if you successfully evicted tenants for other reasons it's because they didn't know their rights or didn't think they could afford to fight you in court.
Specifically, yes, you are under no obligation to renew a lease, but you may only evict a tenant on the grounds that they refuse to agree to a new lease that is reasonably similar to the previous one. That is very clearly established by RSO. However, once a lease becomes month-to-month, the agreement established in the previous lease continues in its entirety EXCEPT for the term. Thus, you may only evict a tenant after serving a three day notice and then a 30 or 60 day notice (depending on how long they've lived there) for the very specific reasons laid out in RSO, which, yes, includes breach of contract.
Again, the lease agreement must be reasonable. The Pink hair example would never hold up in court as meeting any reasonable standard for what constitutes a nuisance. For one thing, I don't believe any rental contract would ever supercede First Amendment rights. There are many rights that it is not possible for a tenant to sign away in a lease, whether they want to or not (much like workers can not agree to work for free--as this would open up the possibility that employers could coerce them into doing so and then say, "but they agreed to it!!").
All in all, it sounds to me like you're a trash landlord who needlessly exploits tenants and intentionally circumvents the spirit of the RSO. I hope you reconsider your behaviors and those you push out of affordable housing receive justice.
Last edited by salad90065; 08-27-2018 at 04:53 PM..
Reason: minor typos
Hmmmn. This seems to conflict with everything I have read about the LA
RSO - to wit, this is from Caltenantlaw.com:
My question is whether the clause in the lease might supersede the RSO...
It does not and can not. RSO would be unenforceable if that were the case because then all landlords would require tenants to sign contracts that waive their rights. However, as long as there are reasonable terms in your contract and you have breached any of them and failed to cure the breach after receiving a 3 day notice to cure or quit, yes, then the breach of your contract would be included under RSO as a valid reason to evict.
The reason why everything Bob said conflicts is because it does. From his POV as a landlord, he knows he can get away with more evictions than he should, even under RSO, as long as he puts specific language in his contract that his tenants agree to about parking, for example. I consider that unethical, but it is apparently allowed by RSO.
Bob is wrong. If it is an at-fault eviction, there is a step-by-step legal process that must be adhered to. It's not as simple as handing a tenant a letter and they have 30 days to leave. Yes, a landlord is within their right to try that, but that's not an eviction in the legal sense. If a tenant leaves under those circumstances, they've voluntarily vacated. If the tenant fought that, the landlord would have to file a summons and complaint with the court for an Unlawful Detainer. The tenant would have 5 days to respond and request to set the case for trial. At trial, the Landlord would absolutely have to justify the eviction under the RSO, as these laws are set to protect tenants from frivolous evictions and to hopefully regulate the market rate on rental units.
Even a no-fault eviction has a process, though the tenant has less legal recourse to stop it. They would be able to demand relocation assistance and also request an extension--in some cases, up to a year to find new housing.
To respond to the OP:
"I have a question regarding a month to month agreement in a Rent Stabilised building in Los Angeles.
I know that the RSO has specific criteria for eviction of a tenant - there are 12 reasons that allow for it.
My question however, is what if the lease agreement has a clause that allows for termination with thirty days notice by either party...in this instance, does the landlord still need to have one of the 12 reasons, or can they simply send a letter advising termination of the month to month agreement?
Which holds precedence? The RSO guideline, or the contract between the landlord and tenant?
Thanks very much for any clarification anyone can provide!"
There are incredibly few cases in which you can voluntarily give up your legal rights in a contract. You cannot agree to a contract that circumvents the law in this case any more than you can agree to a contract where you agree to sell your organs on the black market. It's illegal and therefore unenforceable. That part of the contract would almost 100% be considered void if brought to trial.
Last edited by salad90065; 08-27-2018 at 05:12 PM..
Reason: formatting clarity
You're 100% wrong, Bob. It's under RSO rules that you may evict tenants for breach of the rental agreement, which sounds like the only thing you've been doing. Obviously the terms of contracts vary, that doesn't mean you've been evicting tenants for reasons outside of the RSO. And if you successfully evicted tenants for other reasons it's because they didn't know their rights or didn't think they could afford to fight you in court.
Specifically, yes, you are under no obligation to renew a lease, but you may only evict a tenant on the grounds that they refuse to agree to a new lease that is reasonably similar to the previous one. That is very clearly established by RSO. However, once a lease becomes month-to-month, the agreement established in the previous lease continues in its entirety EXCEPT for the term. Thus, you may only evict a tenant after serving a three day notice and then a 30 or 60 day notice (depending on how long they've lived there) for the very specific reasons laid out in RSO, which, yes, includes breach of contract.
Again, the lease agreement must be reasonable. The Pink hair example would never hold up in court as meeting any reasonable standard for what constitutes a nuisance. For one thing, I don't believe any rental contract would ever supercede First Amendment rights. There are many rights that it is not possible for a tenant to sign away in a lease, whether they want to or not (much like workers can not agree to work for free--as this would open up the possibility that employers could coerce them into doing so and then say, "but they agreed to it!!").
All in all, it sounds to me like you're a trash landlord who needlessly exploits tenants and intentionally circumvents the spirit of the RSO. I hope you reconsider your behaviors and those you push out of affordable housing receive justice.
The evictions that I have had,have all been within the guidelines of the rso
Those guide lines in many cases,are not specific,they are general.
When I stated there are reasons beyond what is written in the 12 rules, that is still within the guidelines of the rso.
If I evicted a tenant for allowing one of their guest to park on the property, when it clearly states in the agreement, that is not allowed, I have grounds to evict, stating that a rental violation is the reason for termination of the agreement
The rso is not specific as to the absolute reason someone is being evicted,just a general violation of the rental agreement, and states what violations are allowed for an eviction.
Breach of contract, violation of rental agreement covers a wide variety of causes for eviction.
That is what I used as reasons for the few evictions I have had over the years.
None of the evictions I had, ever went into the unlawful detainer stage.
The tenants left within the 30 day period.
They need to do their homework, they are absolutely wrong.
Over the years I have evicted for reasons other than stated in the rso, and so have others of my fellow landlords.
If those evictions were against rso guidelines you can bet the evicted tenant would have raised holy hell with the rso, and housing department.
Trust me on this, after over 30 years in this business, I know where of I speak.
Now what I would suggest to you is, tell us here on this forum, just what the problem is.
Obviously you don't need to name names, but being specific as to what the conflict is about, may help in solving it.
You have stated the landlord wants to terminate a rental agreement, so tell us specifically why. The more that is known, the better the chances for some options you may be able to avail yourself of.
You're 100% wrong, Bob. It's under RSO rules that you may evict tenants for breach of the rental agreement, which sounds like the only thing you've been doing. Obviously the terms of contracts vary, that doesn't mean you've been evicting tenants for reasons outside of the RSO. And if you successfully evicted tenants for other reasons it's because they didn't know their rights or didn't think they could afford to fight you in court.
Specifically, yes, you are under no obligation to renew a lease, but you may only evict a tenant on the grounds that they refuse to agree to a new lease that is reasonably similar to the previous one. That is very clearly established by RSO. However, once a lease becomes month-to-month, the agreement established in the previous lease continues in its entirety EXCEPT for the term. Thus, you may only evict a tenant after serving a three day notice and then a 30 or 60 day notice (depending on how long they've lived there) for the very specific reasons laid out in RSO, which, yes, includes breach of contract.
Again, the lease agreement must be reasonable. The Pink hair example would never hold up in court as meeting any reasonable standard for what constitutes a nuisance. For one thing, I don't believe any rental contract would ever supercede First Amendment rights. There are many rights that it is not possible for a tenant to sign away in a lease, whether they want to or not (much like workers can not agree to work for free--as this would open up the possibility that employers could coerce them into doing so and then say, "but they agreed to it!!").
All in all, it sounds to me like you're a trash landlord who needlessly exploits tenants and intentionally circumvents the spirit of the RSO. I hope you reconsider your behaviors and those you push out of affordable housing receive justice.
What would qualify as "a new lease that is reasonably similar to the previous one?" I purchased my duplex and was told there was NO LEASE at the time I purchased and also recieved a CERTIFICATE OF ESTOPPEL that stated there was NO WRITTEN LEASE AGREEMENT and the the tenancy was month to month. I never wrote up a new Lease, as I was going to UCLA full time and just had too much on my plate. After a few years, I started to notice issues with the tenant's son. Then he got his first car and started to park on the property without asking and obtaining my permission. He just felt entitled to. After several wasted attempts talking to my tenant, her son continued to park on the property. Since I had no lease, I didn't know how to deal with the situation, so I issued a 3 Day Notice to quit (after 3 notices asking her son to stop parking on the premises). She took the notice to the RSO office and submitted A LEASE along with her complaint. About a week after I gave her the 3 day notice, I received a letter to comply from the RSO investigator telling me to issue a notice of cancelation for the previous notice to quit, based on the grounds that it was "an illegal eviction attempt" since there was no language on the lease to support my claim of a violation. I called the investigator to inquire about this "lease" and told him there was no lease, from my knowledge, for this tenancy (I was basically in the dark and had to learn everything from scratch) and I told him I had a document to prove it. He asked me if it was dated. It was. He asked if the tenant had signed it. She had. He then instructed me on how to get a copy of the lease, since it had become public record once she submitted it along with her complaint. Once I obtained a copy of it from the Custodian of Records, I found several other violations, ie. she had not been paying me a monthly $50 Water Bill Reimbursement since I purchased the property. (She still refuses to pay it, even after I won a small claims court case--I filed a counter claim after she filed a $10,000 suit claiming I was harassing her by giving her too many notices for all her VIOLATIONS.) Long story short, the lease I have is from 2006 and has my predecessor's name on it and has no legal fees protection, so if I go to court and lose, I will have to pay HER LEGAL FEES in full which is too much of a risk.
My question is: Can I add a limit of $500 on legal fees on both of our ends, a protection for whoever loses?
Also, the lease states that for any violation outside of non-payment of rent, I must issue a 7 Day Notice to Cure or Quit instead of the 3 Day Notice that both the city and state require. I would like to change that back to 3 Days, versus 7 days.
Also, maybe a no smoking clause, which I think I am legally allowed to change regardless.
Would thos changes be considered "reasonable?" Is there any documentation or law that expands on the allowable changes to a lease renewal/revision?
I have one more question. So these "problem tenants" keep slamming the side door in a very old building (wood frame, built in 1924). Whenever the slam the door, all the walls shake and windows rattle. I have already served them a notice to cure or quit, (about a month ago). They keep slamming the door. Just earlier THIS afternoon, my tenant slammed the door twice, I went outside to politely ask her if there was any reason she was slamming the door. I wanted to know if maybe she was upset over something, especially since I have already served her with the notice (not the first time since I served her the notice that this happens, the problem is recurring, but sporadic). This is obviously causing discomfort and interfering with my quiet enjoyment. Can I really serve them with a 60 day notice to vacate? I know I will end of having to go to court over this and I have no evidence to prove the slamming, outside of me keeping a log, via email to myself every time they slam. The slamming is very LOUD. Again, the walls shake and windows rattle. I am unsure of how to move forward.
Please help. Also, they owe me money for a water bill reimbursement fee, and have failed to obtain renters insurance (as required by the original lease) so there are other violations besides them being a nuisance.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Problem tenants/New Lease Agreement
