(415)552-9060
My 24-Unit Building Is For Sale, Should I be Worried?

My 24-Unit Building Is For Sale, Should I be Worried?

My 24-Unit Building Is For Sale, Should I be Worried?

I live in 24-unit building in the Western Addition, built long before 1979. It is three stories and, all of the units are either studios or one-bedrooms.  I’ve been there 7 years and pay about $2000 a month for a one-bedroom unit. 

Yesterday we received notice from the property management company that the owner of the building has decided to sell it. I’ve always assumed that because the building is so large it wouldn’t be turned into condos, have owner move-in evictions, etc. Now that it’s being sold, of course I’m worried about what will happen next. Do you have any advice for what we should be aware of with new ownership?  

A few years ago I would have been cautiously optimistic in my answer to your question.

Then, as now, a 24-unit building was ineligible for condominium conversion. An owner-move-in eviction of a given unit sold as a tenancy-in common (the allocation of a single unit to an owner with a shared interest in a building) would have been next to impossible to accomplish, because an OMI requires ownership of a 25% interest in the entire property. An Ellis Act eviction (removing all of the tenants from the building to exit the rental business) would have been impracticable because the highest and best use of a 24-unit building remains as a rental income property.

So it’s likely I would have reassured you that your tenancy would be safe, barring the return of the Lembi family to the San Francisco real estate investor landscape.

But that was yesterday and yesterday’s gone. No tenant is immune from the huckster-carpetbaggers who epitomize today’s new real estate tycoons.

During the last few years, I have noticed an alarming trend. Companies/LLCs often purchase larger rent-controlled buildings like yours with the intent to renovate vacant units, turning studios into one-bedrooms and one-bedrooms into two-bedrooms, etc.

You may ask, how do the units become vacant? There may be a few vacant units in the building as a result of inevitable tenant turnover—the seed units, if you will.

Often the new owners will send the remaining tenants the old “win-win letter,” which goes something like this:

“We are reaching out to you ahead of the start of construction to notify you of the work and also take the opportunity to make you aware of a program the owners have created to help tenants transition into new housing. Some tenants are understandably sensitive to construction activity in close proximity to their unit, and thus one opportunity we would like to bring to your attention is to reach an agreement whereby you would agree to vacate your unit at some agreed upon date in the future, in exchange for a payment of money.”

You know…heads we win, tails you get to live in a noisy, dusty, filthy  construction zone—unregulated by an emasculated EPA, barely regulated by a building department with bigger fish to fry and ignored by a build, build, build planning department. And from a legal perspective, not quite uninhabitable enough to justify moving and suing. You’ve just entered the Tenant Twilight Zone.

“And thus one more opportunity we have to procure a vacant unit.”

How can you find out if your building is slated to double its population?

1. Get a copy of the sales listing or a prospectus for the building. Because this type of project will attract more sophisticated investors, a more detailed proposal may be available, one that includes renovation cost estimates per unit, along with projected income for a renovated unit. If the listing includes these details, then you can begin to plan for the inevitable.

2. You can gain valuable insight into a bare bones listing by analyzing the income and expenses. If the price of the building is comparatively low based on net income, it may not be a candidate for renovation.

3. If the building sells, get as much information as you can about the new owner(s). Find other properties they own or have owned. You can search for recorded documents online here and check the San Francisco Property Information Map for more detailed information.

4. Speak to other tenants in the building. Your combined knowledge will be much more complete…and powerful. Create a listserv. Begin to work as a group, a team. Go to the San Francisco Tenants Union to learn how to organize.

5. Try to get information from the real estate agents handling the sale or the current owners. Occasionally, somebody associated with the building may blab. The first rule of speaking to those in the know: keep your ears open and your mouth shut.

6. If the new owners offer you a chance to discuss a buyout, you or a representative tenant from your group may want to consider signing the Pre Buyout Disclosure form. Signing the form does not obligate you, in any way, to accept a buyout; but it may, in some circumstances, represent another method to gain information from the new owners or their representative. Get the owner to explain why your buyout offer is so low. He may want to rationalize his offer by explaining why his costs are so high. Ask lots of questions and listen carefully.

7. If the new owners begin their construction, don’t wait to complain about the noise and the dust and the trip hazards in the hallways. Always document your complaints in writing. Coordinate your complaints with the rest of the tenants. Give the owners one chance to remedy and if they don’t, call a housing inspector at the Department of Building Inspection.

8. Finally, call your San Francisco supervisor. He or she needs to hear your complaints loud and clear and often. He or she may begin to think twice about accepting that “contribution” from the SFAA or some other shill for the so-called real estate industry.

I don’t mean to alarm you by suggesting your building will be absolutely targeted in this manner, but the impending sale of a building these days, even 24-unit building like yours, should concern tenants. An impending sale also provides tenants with an opportunity to connect, organize and take power.

Call the Tenant Lawyers now for a free consultation.
(415) 552-9060

Can My New Landlord “Bank” My Rent Increases?

Can My New Landlord “Bank” My Rent Increases?

Can My New Landlord “Bank” My Rent Increases?

Can the new landlord bank rent increases?

I live in a house in San Francisco with 3 apartments built before 1979. I’ve lived in my apartment for 10 years, I am 44 and my rent is $1350 plus $150 to park in the garage. I moved in in 2004 and in 2006 the house was sold and bought by a single woman. This is her only property. She lived in the house until 2011 when she moved out of state.  

We’re friendly and over the years I became the de facto property manager as my schedule is flexible, I am the longest running tenant in the house, and know a lot of its history from the previous owner, who I am also friendly with. I’m not compensated for this role.

My rent has never been raised until this year. We had a phone conversation as the landlord didn’t want me to first learn of this increase via official notice. I haven’t received this letter as of yet. The increase will start in June.

My question is: my rent is being increased by 14%. Not a big deal, but I’ve added up the past allowable increases and it seems like my rent is being increased for 10 years of allowable increases (tho slightly under as it adds up to 14.4% or 15.4% if you include 2014-2015).  

Is she allowed to increase my rent by a percentage that includes a time when she didn’t own the house? Or is there a different formula for an increase percentage when the rent has never been raised?

Before I answer your question, a little historical context is in order. After rent control measures were passed in Berkeley (1972, later voided by the Supreme Court and passed in its current form in 1980), Santa Monica (1979) San Francisco (1979), landlords filed many lawsuits questioning the ordinances’ constitutionality. They argued that the statutes violated due process; that they overstepped the municipalities’ police power thereby constituting a “taking ” of landlords’ properties (think eminent domain); and that the limitations on rent increases so interfered with landlords’ return on investment that the increases were unconstitutionally confiscatory.

After the dust settled, the courts generally found that municipalities were within their rights to control rent based upon necessary action to deal with emergency housing shortages. Of course, that emergency has continued to this day.

In one of the earliest cases dealing with rent control, Birkenfeld v. City of Berkeley (1976) 17 Cal.3d 129, the California Supreme Court voided the first Berkeley rent control ordinance (1972) because it sought to roll rents back to 1971 levels and prohibited any adjustments in maximum rents except under a unit-by-unit procedure. Essentially the court found that the process to increase rents would be procedural nightmare, creating an undue burden on the landlords. The court did not decide if regulating rent increases could have a “confiscatory” effect on landlords’ return on investment because the ordinance had been enjoined from the outset, making the assertion speculative. But they did make it clear that return on investment had to be considered when adopting a rent control ordinance.

The provisions are within the police power if they are reasonably calculated to eliminate excessive rents and at the same time provide landlords with a just and reasonable return on their property. However, if it is apparent from the face of the provisions that their effect will necessarily be to lower rents more than could reasonably be considered to be required for the measure’s stated purpose, they are unconstitutionally confiscatory. Birkenfeld v. Berkeley at page 165.

Why is this relevant to your question? Going forward, those who administer various rent ordinances (the San Francisco Rent Board in this case) have always been careful to consider the question of return on investment when they establish guidelines to deal with rent increases.

So the short answer to your question is that any landlord may bank the rent increases on a unit if the increases are within allowable annual limits. It doesn’t matter if the landlord owned the building during the entire increase period, because the increases could have been levied annually by any landlord. This is a method to ensure the allowable return on investment.

See the Rent Board’s annual allowable increase chart to see how much a new landlord can increase your rent. Just add the increases from one year after the inception of your tenancy or last rent increase to understand how much a landlord can “bank.”

But the increase cannot take place in June!

California Civil Code §827 is very clear that a rent increase over 10% requires a 60-day notice. You wrote me in early May and you hadn’t yet received notice. There’s no way that the increase could be effective today.

Call the Tenant Lawyers now for a free consultation.
(415) 552-9060

My Landlord Is Selling The House I Live In, Do I Have To Move Out?

My Landlord Is Selling The House I Live In, Do I Have To Move Out?

My Landlord Is Selling The House I Live In, Do I Have To Move Out?

My husband and I live in a 2-bedroom single-family home in San Francisco, a cottage built in 1922 (no in-law unit, no garage, just a cottage & a large yard). My husband moved into the place 8 years ago, and I moved in with him over 5 years ago. My husband has been the master tenant since I moved in. Our landlord lives in Santa Barbara and has always rented the house to family or friends of family (we’re in the latter group). We have one of those absurdly good deals: our rent is nearly a third of market rate ($1300/month) and it hasn’t been raised in 5 years. In exchange we are responsible for all utilities, and if any maintenance is needed we just have to notify our landlord, pay the bill ourselves, and deduct it from the next month’s rent.

Of course, all good things must come to an end. Our landlord is planning on selling the house in order to get some money for a down payment to buy a home in Santa Barbara (he is newly married and ready to start a family). The realtor he’s using has been very honest and forthcoming with us and told us the estimate is a bit bleak: a LOT of significant work needs to be done on the house. He’s offered to sell the house to us directly for $600k. If we don’t buy it, he wants us to vacate the house before he puts it on the market.

We are most likely not going to buy, because there’s no way we want a $600k house that needs over $100k in repairs. Obviously this means we need to move out, but I don’t know what our rights are as tenants since there are so many exceptions to rent laws for houses. I’m pretty sure this falls under the Ellis Act, which means we get four months notice to vacate and relocation money. I don’t know if our landlord is aware of the relocation money, since he’s been extremely hands-off for nearly 10 years and doesn’t even live anywhere near San Francisco. Even though we’ve had a good, non-contentious relationship with him, I want to be armed with all the relevant facts. Besides, that relocation money is a huge boon to getting a place that let’s us keep our dog! Any help you can give me is greatly appreciated.

You asked about your rights so I’m going to lay them out for you. I’ll let the readers discuss your moral obligations.

Because the house was built in 1922, it is subject to the just cause provisions of the San Francisco Rent Ordinance section 37.9. The landlord cannot ask you to move or serve notice to evict you simply because he wants to sell the house.

Of course, selling the house devoid of tenants is ideal for for staging and marketing it for maximum profit. I see various estimates of the value of selling an empty unit/house ranging from 5-25% of the market value of the property. If the landlord wants you to leave before he sells, he will have to negotiate a deal with you to vacate.

The landlord can evict you using the Ellis Act (a 1985 gift from California legislators greased with payola from the real estate industry). The landlord can “exit the landlord business,” evict you, and sell the house. A future owner’s ability to rent would be prohibited/severely limited for ten years, but that isn’t often a concern for the buyer of an overpriced San Francisco house who simply wants to live there.

You and your wife would have 120 days to move and receive relocation payments of $5,210.91 apiece or an additional $3,473.93 per disabled tenant.

Or he can increase the rent because because you live in a single family dwelling and your tenancy commenced after 1995. (See my comments on the reprehensible, immoral Costa Hawkins Act last week.)

Costs Hawkins tells us that the landlord can increase the rent to any amount he wants. Even if the landlord uses the current market value as a barometer, using your estimate, he can increase the rent to $3,900.00 per month.

If you move based upon a rent increase you cannot afford, you could argue that the landlord’s dominant motive for increasing the rent was to make it high enough to force you to move rather than continue to rent it–that really intended to sell the house. There are a few cases in the courts litigating that issue right now.

If you don’t move and the landlord sells the building with you in it, the new owner can increase the rent.

If a new owner wants to move in, he can evict you under Rent Ordinance § 37.9(a)(8). In that case you and your wife will be entitled to $7,225.00 apiece and another $4,817.00 if you are disabled, with 60 days to vacate.

Suffice it to say that your good, non-contentious relationship with the landlord vanish as fast as you can say “relocation money.”

Call the Tenant Lawyers now for a free consultation.
(415) 552-9060

My Landlord’s Selling My Building, And Now I Have To Fill Out A Bunch Of Forms?

My Landlord’s Selling My Building, And Now I Have To Fill Out A Bunch Of Forms?

My Landlord’s Selling My Building, And Now I Have To Fill Out A Bunch Of Forms?

We got two forms from our landlord, who is in the process of selling the 3-unit Victorian in which we live.  We two, 53 & 64, have lived in our unit since August 1990.  We were wondering if we are legally required to fill out these forms.  They are both from the SF Association of Realtors.

The first is a request for information under Sections 37.9(i) and (j), about protected class status.  The second is a general form asking about the lease (we are month-to-month), such as deposits, current monthly rent, date of last rent increase, amount of increase, etc.

Your question is a common one. The sale of a building, especially a smaller building, justifiably creates anxiety for tenants. The other shoe is going to drop and you don’t know how or when.

Your question also indicates to me that your landlord did not serve you a “Disclosure of Rights to Tenants Before and After Sale of Rental Units Subject to Section 37.9” as required by Rent Ordinance §37.9(k). The mere service of the required disclosure could alleviate some anxiety for tenants, but what self respecting landlord or real estate agent would want to do that?

The forms you described are legally characterized as “estoppel certificates.” Estoppel is the fancy legal term for preventing a person from asserting a fact or a claim inconsistent with a position they previously maintained. They are meant to “estop” (prevent) a new buyer from claiming he  or she didn’t know about agreements made to modify an existing lease. More importantly,  your statements in an estoppel form could be used against you if you make later inconsistent claims.

The short answer to your question is no, not unless your lease requires you to fill out the forms. Leases written in 1990 usually do not contain terms stating that a refusal to sign an estoppel form constitutes a breach of the lease.

Rent Ordinance §37.9(k) (E) is clear that the disclosure must contain:

“A statement that tenants are not required to complete or sign any estoppel certificates or estoppel agreements, except as required by law or by that tenant’s rental agreement.  The statement shall further inform tenants that tenant rights may be affected by an estoppel certificate or agreement and that the tenants should seek legal advice before completing or signing an estoppel certificate or agreement.”

Regarding the first form, there is no harm in filling that out. Why? Because the new buyer should understand that you are protected tenants for the purpose of an owner move in eviction under Rent Ordinance §37.9(i)–one of you is over 60 years of age and you’ve lived in the unit for 22 years. I think it is a good idea to disclose any disabilities as well.

Regarding the second form requesting general information,  at the San Francisco Tenants Union, we recommend that you should think about disclosing information to a new buyer and put that information in a letter rather than limiting yourself to the form.

After 22 years it is likely that your use of the unit has changed since you signed the original lease. For example, if you receive verbal permission from the landlord to have pets even though the lease prohibits pets, you should disclose this to a prospective buyer.

My general advice is to think about how your tenancy has expanded over the years. Do you now use a storage space? Are you allowed to use the roof deck or back yard? All of this should be disclosed in a letter to the prospective buyer.

Of course, if you have an oral agreement, it is likely that the terms only include an amount of rent and a date to pay. In that case, your letter should point out that you have an unrestricted right to sublet and that your pet rhinoceros is allowed to graze in the backyard.

It is a good idea to drop by the San Francisco Tenants Union to speak with a counselor about how to construct your response to the landlord’s request for information.

Call the Tenant Lawyers now for a free consultation.
(415) 552-9060

My Building’s Being Sold, Do I Have To Get Out?

My Building’s Being Sold, Do I Have To Get Out?

My Building’s Being Sold, Do I Have To Get Out?

We have just been notified that our rowhouse in SoMa is being sold by the owner, and is currently on the market.  We have not been given notice to vacate yet, but anticipate that it will be sold pretty quickly.  We are trying to figure out if we would be given relocation benefits, as we have been perfect tenants and would only move due to new owners moving into the unit.  A few facts to consider: the unit is not rent controlled since it is the only unit the landlord owns, it was built around 1907, and our 1 year lease is up July 1st  (then we go month to month).

This is a good time to go over some Rent Ordinance basics. Generally, there are three variables to look at to determine if your tenancy is protected by the Rent Ordinance: Is the building built before 1979? How many units in the building? How long have you lived in the unit? Or course the are a gillion potential exceptions, so read this broadly.

  • If your building was built after 1979, the Rent Ordinance usually does not apply, except in foreclosure evictions. (See Rent Ordinance §37.9D.)
  • If your unit is a single family dwelling (house, condo) it will not be subject to the price control elements of the Rent Ordinance. In other words a landlord of a single family dwelling can increase the rent as much as he desires., unless his dominant motive is to get you out.
  • Single family dwellings built before 1979 are covered by the “just cause” eviction provisions of the Rent Ordinance. A landlord must be able to articulate one of the 15 just cause in Rent Ordinance §37.9 in order to evict you. For example, the sale of a building is not a just cause.
  • If your  tenancy in a single family dwelling began before 1996, the price control provisions of the Ordinance apply. The landlord can only increase the rent each year by the annual allowable increase determined by the Rent Board.
  • If you live in a building with two or more units (illegal units count), built before 1979, your tenancy is subject to both the annual allowable rent increase  and the just cause eviction provisions of the Rent Ordinance.

Of course, the reason I wanted to run through this was your statement: “[T]he unit is not rent controlled since it is the only unit the landlord owns…” It is a common mistake given the complexities of the Rent Ordinance.

You are , indeed, covered by the just cause provisions of the Rent Ordinance. The house was built in 1907. The landlord cannot evict you because the building is for sale. You are likely correct that the only way new owners will evict is through an owner move-in eviction (Rent Ordinance §37.9(a)(8).)

Will you be eligible for relocation payments if you are evicted by new owners? The answer is very likely yes, unless the building is sold and you receive a notice before July 1. On July 1, you will have resided in the unit more than one year. The relocation benefits described in Rent Ordinance §37.9C kick in if the notice is served after the tenants have resided in the unit more than one year.

That may not be the end of the analysis. We’ve noticed a growing trend in which new owners claim that their $1million + purchase has strapped them so much they can’t afford to pay the relocation benefits of say $10, 202.00.  (Whine, cry.) They prefer, instead, to significantly increase the rent on a house or condo (because they can) to drive the tenants out.

If that happens to you, go to the San Francisco Tenants Union to discuss your strategy. You may need a lawyer for this one. Be sure to get the TU approved lawyer list.

Call the Tenant Lawyers now for a free consultation.
(415) 552-9060

Why Is My New Management Company Asking Me So Many Questions?

Why Is My New Management Company Asking Me So Many Questions?

Why Is My New Management Company Asking Me So Many Questions?

So many questons!

I live in a 27 unit building built in 1920 in San Francisco.

I have lived here since 1992. Last year my landlord died and since then a management company has taken over running the building.

Now the management company is asking me to fill out a questionnaire that has a lot of questions about how much rent I pay, my lease, rental increases that I have been charged, and all other details pertaining to my agreement with the landlord.

Should I voluntarily fill out the questionnaire as they request? Will the information I put there be binding in future? etc…

The document you are describing sounds like an estoppel certificate, a tenant questionnaire designed to collect information to present to a potential buyer of the property.

It is likely, given the death of the former landlord, that the management company is collecting the information because, either the building is in escrow or they are preparing to market the building.

Of course the management company’s failure to inform you that the building is for sale is a already a violation of the San Francisco Rent Ordinance. “Before property containing rental units subject to Section 37.9 may be sold, the owner/seller shall disclose to tenants of the property the rights of tenants during and after the sale of the property.” (Rent Ordinance §37.9(k)(1))

The section lists various requirements for the notification including “A statement that tenants are not required to complete or sign any estoppel certificates or estoppel agreements, except as required by law or by that tenant’s rental agreement. ” (§37.9(k)(1)(E)).

You should check your lease to see if there is a requirement to provide the information. If there is not, you may refuse to submit the document.

But should you refuse to submit the information? That’s a more nuanced call.

If you have a cat and there is a no pets clause in your lease, but the landlord told you it was okay, you may want to provide that information to a new buyer. That way the buyer is arguably estopped (prevented) from attempting to evict you for breach of the lease because he knew about the cat and your arrangement with the former landlord.

Similarly, you may want to tell a new buyer that you have the use of the backyard; a storage area in the garage; a parking space not mentioned in the lease; that you own the washer/dryer, etc.

The San Francisco Tenants Union recommends that you write the landlord a letter rather than fill out the estoppel certificate and I agree. Using the form as a guide, you want to think about how you really use your living space as opposed the requirements of the lease. How has your tenancy expanded over the years? I tend to think that you should answer the questions.

Remember that the information you provide could be binding, so it might not be a good idea to inform the landlord about the meth lab in the bathroom.

I should just be cutting and pasting this by now: Check the drop-in hours of the Tenants Union. Take your lease and any other documents pertaining to your use of your apartment to the TU to discuss the items you should include in a letter or whether you should write a letter at all.

Call the Tenant Lawyers now for a free consultation.
(415) 552-9060

My Building’s Being Sold, Do I Have To Get Out?

My Landlord Wants Me To Move Out So He Can Sell My Apartment

My Landlord Wants Me To Move Out So He Can Sell My Apartment

I live at the top of a 4-story, single-family home (garage included) with 2 owners, 1 owns the downstairs unit and my landlord owns his floor as well as my unit above him. My landlord, in addition to his investment partner, owns his unit as well as mine. The investment partner owns a 50% share. I received a call today from the investment partner that they intended to sell both the units and would offer me first and last months rent to help me move out.

I already presume that my tenancy rights are at stake, especially since this sounds like a potential Ellis Act move. My landlord and I have had numerous problems with the downstairs neighbors, who are completely irrational owners that are involved with our overall “living” situation. The investment partner mentioned that the neighbors are going to build a barricade. The other unfortunate thing about the living arrangements is we all share a washer and dryer downstairs. We have tried compromising with these owners but they really are completely unreasonable. I could even take them to court for harassment I’m sure.

I mentioned to the landlord’s investor that I would be interested in buying the property. What is your view on this overall situation. I like the property so much I am willing to buy it and either put up with or sue the downstairs neighbors. I may become part of the conversation with the real estate agent this weekend.

I went ahead and filed a “Report of Alleged Wrongful Eviction” with the Rent Board today to protect myself as this situation continues to unfold.

Any other recommendations or perspective you have that could shed some light on what I am dealing with legally would be most helpful because I am truly trying everything in my power to hang on to this place.

I’m going to try to answer your question with the caveat that I am unclear about the status of your building. Is it a single-family house legally divided into three units? When you mentioned that the downstairs neighbors are going to “build a barricade” and an “overall living situation,” I began to have some doubts. You will need to know the status of your unit to determine the correct course of action to deal with the landlord.

I recommend that you take a look at the SF Assessor-Recorder’s website. Just type in your address and pray that the goddamned thing works. I think I’ve mentioned that I hate this website, but it is better than nothing.

If you have three addresses in the building (a sign that the units may be legally divided) try to use the lowest number to find it. Do you pay your own electricity bill? If so, that also is an indicator that your building has three legal units.

Your landlord states that he wants to sell his two units. If the landlord is selling the units as tenancies in common (TICs), he is really selling partnership interests in the whole building rather than the units themselves. The units must be condominiums to be sold individually.

If the units were converted to condominiums you should be able to see that on the parcel map. The map will show three lot numbers for the building lot. You can also check the Department of Public Works Subdivision Tracking System to determine if the units are condominiums. If the units are condos they are considered single family dwellings.

I’m assuming the building was built before 1979. Regardless of your unit’s status, the landlord has to evict you for just cause. That the unit is for sale is not a just cause.Filing the Report of Alleged Wrongful Eviction was justified.

If you find that your unit is illegal (converted without the proper permits), the landlord can evict you by permanently removing the unit from housing use pursuant to Rent Ordinance §37.9(a)(10). The landlord must obtain the necessary permits and, if you have lived in the unit for more than a year, provide you a 60-day notice to vacate and arelocation payment of $5,101.00.

You can also sue the landlords, including the neighbors downstairs, for void contract. The landlords were not entitled to rent the unit at all; your lease is null and void.

If you live in a legal apartment, the landlord could evict you by moving in a close relative or, if the partner owns more than 25% of the entire building, he could move in. You would be entitled to a 60-day notice and the same relocation payment of $5,101.00. If the landlord want to sell it is unlikely he will serve an OMI (owner-move-in) notice because he has to represent that he will live in the unit for three years.

It’s hard to say if an Ellis Act eviction would be viable. Remember, the downstairs owners would have to agree and it doesn’t sound like they are very agreeable. If that does occur you would be entitled to a 120-day notice and a $5,105.20 relocation payment.

If your unit is a condo, the landlord can raise the rent to market rate because the unit is exempt from the rent control provisions of the Rent Ordinance. The most likely scenario here is that a new owner will evict you, using an OMI eviction.

Frankly, I don’t understand why you want to enter into a partnership (assuming the units are TICs) with neighbors you want to sue and landlords you can’t trust. No, you can’ttrust the landlord because he and his partner are sleazily trying to get you out. That’s why you filed the Report of Alleged Wrongful Eviction, right? Would you marry someone as irrational as your neighbors? Or someone who lies to you? Life is too short. But that’s just my opinion based upon observation (and litigation) of several TICs gone bad.

Before you do anything else, you should rush to the San Francisco Tenants Union to sort this out. Join the Tenants Union. It will be the best forty bucks you ever spend.

Call the Tenant Lawyers now for a free consultation.
(415) 552-9060