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.
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.
Bob.
So, for the reasons I mentioned, none of these are "evictions" in any legal sense. It is a necessary part of an eviction process that you give a written notice to a tenant that they have 30 (or 60 or 90) days to leave, but that is not an eviction if they comply. The tenants voluntarily vacated. Either they didn't know their rights, didn't think they could afford to fight you, or decided they wanted to leave anyway and you inadvertently gave them a way out without breaking their contract.
If you went to court, you'd likely lose a lot of these cases. Someone letting a friend use their parking spot, especially if it's only one time, is a very low bar for eviction and the court would probably side with the tenant. It's a curable violation, not a breach of contract. Now, if after repeated violations and written notices (from you to them) they continued to allow unauthorized guests to park on the property and you could show this evidence in court, yes a court would likely decide in your favor. However, if you can't demonstrate material harm, you still run the risk of losing that case.
Watch out. Eventually you will have a tenant who knows their **** and you'll end up on the hook for illegal eviction and possibly damages and lawyers fees.
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?
Thanks!
-g
This is a really complicated situation. I would get a lawyer.
But sounds like there is, in fact, a lease. Even if it has expired and is now month-to-month, the terms of the previous lease continue to apply. If your tenant signed something that says "there is no lease" that probably doesn't mean there is no contract in place. They probably thought they were signing something that said they agree to continue month-to-month with you. However, whatever the terms were on the most recent term lease they signed would still apply.
You are within your rights to offer a new lease with any terms you like. They are within their rights to refuse it. If you want to see if it is "reasonably similar" to their previous lease, you'd basically have to try to evict them for not agreeing to sign the new lease. Either they will get scared and agree, or you go through the process to take them to court and the judge will decide, "no it's not" and you're SOL, or they will decide "yes, it is" and the tenant can either sign it or vacate.
In the mean time, make sure you put everything in writing. Not text or e-mail, but a signed letter. Give reasonable time to fix any issues. Keep copies for yourself of each one. Take photos if you leave each notice on the door or something, record videos if you deliver in person so you have proof it was received. Keep all of this evidence together so that you can prove to the court that you gave many written notices to fix issues and violations. Otherwise, it's your word against theirs.
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.
These are both possible grounds for eviction. Continue to deliver written notices (see my previous reply to you). If they do not correct these issues within a reasonable time frame (it sounds like 7 days was laid out by the previous lease), you can serve them with a 60 day notice to vacate. If they do not leave after 60 days, go to the court and file an Unlawful Detainer. They will then be served with a 3-day notice. They will likely protest it and you will get a court date for an eviction trial.
In the meantime, you can still agree to settle. If it goes to trial, make sure you have everything documented.
EDIT: If your property is RSO, which it sounds like it is, there are a ton of technicalities which they would likely use to get the Eviction dismissed and you'll have to fix those things (if it's even possible to) on your end and then start the process all over again. Make sure your property and each unit is legal before opening that can of worms, or you may end up having to take the units off the market and pay for your tenant's relocation fees.
So, for the reasons I mentioned, none of these are "evictions" in any legal sense. It is a necessary part of an eviction process that you give a written notice to a tenant that they have 30 (or 60 or 90) days to leave, but that is not an eviction if they comply. The tenants voluntarily vacated. Either they didn't know their rights, didn't think they could afford to fight you, or decided they wanted to leave anyway and you inadvertently gave them a way out without breaking their contract.
If you went to court, you'd likely lose a lot of these cases. Someone letting a friend use their parking spot, especially if it's only one time, is a very low bar for eviction and the court would probably side with the tenant. It's a curable violation, not a breach of contract. Now, if after repeated violations and written notices (from you to them) they continued to allow unauthorized guests to park on the property and you could show this evidence in court, yes a court would likely decide in your favor. However, if you can't demonstrate material harm, you still run the risk of losing that case.
Watch out. Eventually you will have a tenant who knows their **** and you'll end up on the hook for illegal eviction and possibly damages and lawyers fees.
BTW: I am not a lawyer.
Just quoting your last sentence, That is more than obvious.
@ Bob--- You are a prime example of an uninformed landlord, except worse- because you think the law is on your side when it IS NOT. My current landlord has hiked the price of my building several times over the lawful 3% (I am in an RSO building) but she ran into a problem with me--- I knew it wasn't legal. I challenged her on my rights verbally and then in writing after she kept hounding me. I can't tell you if she's willfully ignorant but what I can say is my neighbors had no idea of their rights which gave her ammunition to try it on me.
You underestimate the ignorance of your renters, or maybe you don't? I suppose that's a moral issue you'll have to figure out.
@ Bob--- You are a prime example of an uninformed landlord, except worse- because you think the law is on your side when it IS NOT. My current landlord has hiked the price of my building several times over the lawful 3% (I am in an RSO building) but she ran into a problem with me--- I knew it wasn't legal. I challenged her on my rights verbally and then in writing after she kept hounding me. I can't tell you if she's willfully ignorant but what I can say is my neighbors had no idea of their rights which gave her ammunition to try it on me.
You underestimate the ignorance of your renters, or maybe you don't? I suppose that's a moral issue you'll have to figure out.
I have always followed the letter of the law with all my tenants.
They are well aware of the laws as they pertain to the RSO, because I take the time to explain them before they sign a rental agreement.
They are aware if they don't pay the rent when due, that I can evict them for a violation of their rental agreement, which failure to pay rent on time, is a violation of the rental agreement.
Fortunately my tenants are high caliber,(never low life) and take their financial responsibilities seriously, so evictions have not happened in years.
That only happened years ago before I initiated this tough screening policy.
The policy just about assures me perspective tenants, will be above many of the low life renting units in this city, and I know when a perspective tenant passes this screening, they will be living in one of my units for a long time.
Most of my tenants stay an average of 12 years.
Obviously I am doing something right.
Bob.
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.
