Gov. Newsom's new bill allow tenants to pay only 25% of rent due (lease, mortgage)

[vincenze]

Originally Posted by HB2HSV

Nope you're wrong. If the tenant is on a month-to-month, then the landlord does need to offer any reason other than issue a 30-day to vacate notice.

I've done this before to kick out tenants.

You should check the current laws, like AB 1482.

The bill enumerates the just causes to evict a tenant. If the landlord does not have one of these reasons to justify the eviction, attempting to evict the tenant would be unlawful.

“No fault” reasons include:

If a landlord wants to move into the unit or move in a close family member;
If a landlord plans to take the unit off the rental market;
If a landlord intends to demolish or substantially remodel the unit such that it is uninhabitable for at least 30 days.

In the instance of a no fault eviction, the landlord must provide each tenant with relocation assistance equal to one month’s rent.

The bill’s tenant protections -- just cause for eviction and the rent cap -- apply to both month-to-month tenancies and fixed leases. If the tenant is protected by just cause, the landlord must have a cause as provided in AB 1482 to terminate the tenancy. The expiration of the lease alone is not cause for eviction. Once a lease expires, a landlord can require a tenant to sign a written extension or renew a lease (that is substantially similar to the prior lease), but just cause also applies to that extension.

It's even more strict in LA.
If a landlord wants to move in, he must give a city-approved document to all tenants and pay assistance.
However, all no-fault evictions are temporarily prohibited in LA.

I know that a landlord won't like the idea of paying assistance. So, if somebody likes her apartment, she can stay as long as she wishes and pays rent.

---
If I understand correctly the new law, a renter can pay only 25% of her rent, and legally it means she pays her rent.

[mgforshort]

As time goes by we are making it more difficult to be a small landlord without the help of an army of maintenance workers, legal experts and what's not. As the restraints and regulations
multiply these properties will be sold as is or converted to condos. Less properties to rent means higher prices unless the demand drops at the same rate.

Our house survived the 2018 Paradise fire and we moved back after a two-month-long evacuation. It is a 2-bedroom, old home, suitable for the two of us, or one or two more residents in a pinch. I thought about finding another older couple or a single man in the tent city nearby and offering them / him a place to stay for free until they find more suitable housing. We didn't their need rent money, this would have been strictly charity.

The reason we didn't go this way was the horror stories where someone allows a stranger or acquaintance stay for a few weeks, or days, and then when something goes bad the stranger turns into a tenant with all the rights without the responsibilities. I'm not willing to spend thousands on attorneys to evict somebody because I felt sorry for him at an earlier time.

My point is, all these laws meant to protect tenants will eventually backfire and make this country a much harder place to do business. I remember the times when I could rent a nice place on a handshake and handing over $ 2-300, the whole transaction, getting the keys etc. under 15 minutes. That is all gone now, and we'll pay the price.

[vincenze]

Originally Posted by mgforshort

My point is, all these laws meant to protect tenants will eventually backfire and make this country a much harder place to do business.

It would be interesting to see what would happen without additional unemployment money and government restrictions.
Would we see millions of empty apartments and crashing rents?

[HB2HSV]

Originally Posted by vincenze

You should check the current laws, like AB 1482.



It's even more strict in LA.
If a landlord wants to move in, he must give a city-approved document to all tenants and pay assistance.
However, all no-fault evictions are temporarily prohibited in LA.

I know that a landlord won't like the idea of paying assistance. So, if somebody likes her apartment, she can stay as long as she wishes and pays rent.

---
If I understand correctly the new law, a renter can pay only 25% of her rent, and legally it means she pays her rent.

Read your own quote. My reasoning falls into no fault #1.

[vincenze]

Originally Posted by HB2HSV

Read your own quote. My reasoning falls into no fault #1.

Before you said you didn't have to provide a reason.

If you want to move in an apartment yourself, you give a 60-day notice and 1 month's rent in California or $8,500 in LA. If you don't, the renter can stay.

[HB2HSV]

Originally Posted by vincenze

Before you said you didn't have to provide a reason.

If you want to move in an apartment yourself, you give a 60-day notice and 1 month's rent in California or $8,500 in LA. If you don't, the renter can stay.

Wrong again, just a 30 day notice.

[Mike930]

Originally Posted by vincenze

Before you said you didn't have to provide a reason.

If you want to move in an apartment yourself, you give a 60-day notice and 1 month's rent in California or $8,500 in LA. If you don't, the renter can stay.

You keep confusing eviction with non renewal of a lease. It’s two different things.

On a month to month, the landlord can give you 60 days notice of non renewal of the lease if you’ve lived there more than one year. It’s not an eviction and not subject to laws governing evictions.

If you’ve lived there less than a year, only 30 days notice is required.

[vincenze]

Originally Posted by Mike930

You keep confusing eviction with non renewal of a lease. It’s two different things.

On a month to month, the landlord can give you 60 days notice of non renewal of the lease if you’ve lived there more than one year. It’s not an eviction and not subject to laws governing evictions.

No, a landlord in California MUST renew the lease if a tenant pays the rent, except for the 3 reasons above.

Also, a disgruntled tenant can call her ex-neighbors and check if the landlord really moved in or rented her apartment to somebody else.

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/f...01920200AB1482

1946.2. (a) Notwithstanding any other law, after a tenant has continuously and lawfully occupied a residential real property for 12 months, the owner of the residential real property shall not terminate the tenancy without just cause, which shall be stated in the written notice to terminate tenancy.

[Mike930]

Originally Posted by vincenze

No, a landlord in California MUST renew the lease if a tenant pays the rent, except for the 3 reasons above.

Also, a disgruntled tenant can call her ex-neighbors and check if the landlord really moved in or rented her apartment to somebody else.

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/f...01920200AB1482

I stand corrected. Thank you for the link, it’s very interesting. Why anyone would want to be a landlord in California is beyond me.

I wonder if this new proposed law would stand up under court scrutiny.

[HB2HSV]

Originally Posted by vincenze

No, a landlord in California MUST renew the lease if a tenant pays the rent, except for the 3 reasons above.

Also, a disgruntled tenant can call her ex-neighbors and check if the landlord really moved in or rented her apartment to somebody else.

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/f...01920200AB1482

I don't have time to read the entire bill but it's just not true at all on what you said.

I am not required to renew the lease with the simple reason that I choose not to. That's my right as a landlord. This is not a communist country. I am not forced to rent out my property and let the tenants stay even if they cannot pay rent.