(415)552-9060
Foreclosure: Banks Too Big to Fail, Too Big to Obey the Law

Foreclosure: Banks Too Big to Fail, Too Big to Obey the Law

Foreclosure: Banks Too Big to Fail, Too Big to Obey the Law

A well-organized gang blatantly violates the law for the sole purpose of lining their pockets. What? Are the Sopranos back in business? They may not use terms like “vig” or “nut”, but the banks are foreclosing as zealously as loan sharks. And they’re throwing innocent tenants out of their houses in the process.

During the last few weeks came revelations that banks have been foreclosing on properties that they may not even own!

None of this comes as any surprise to tenants and tenants’ rights organizations who have been complaining, since the meltdown, about banks’ illegal practices, including tenant evictions.

In May 2009, Congress passed the Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act which required, at minimum, a ninety-day notice to vacate for tenants without a term lease. Banks have been routinely violating the Federal law since it passed.

Even in San Francisco, with just cause eviction protection (foreclosure is not a just cause), we defended tenants who had already provided the bank (Wells Fargo) with copies of their leases! The bank’s attorneys filed an eviction anyway only naming the owner who didn’t live there (they had been informed of that too), but still seeking to remove the tenants from all of the units.

In May 2010, Tenants Together released its 2010 Report: California Renters in the Foreclosure Crisis. In late June, California Attorney General, Jerry Brown, announced that he would investigate whether tenants rights are violated in foreclosures. This month, the Governator signed Senate Bill 1149 which will help tenants who defend improper bank evictions maintain their credit ratings and require banks to inform tenants of their rights with an eviction notice.

Will these new requirements help? Maybe, but if San Francisco’s law requiring landlords to notify tenants of their rights upon placing a building for sale is any indication, the answer is: Not much. Most of the banks’ soldiers in the field, real estate agents and brokers, can’t read at all, let alone read and understand the law. And they don’t give a shit. If their bosses can act with impunity, why can’t they? Think back to why we got here in the first place.

The only real legal solution to this mess is to pass a statewide just cause eviction law. Even Tony Soprano’s home state, New Jersey, allows eviction for 16 just causes and foreclosure is not one of them.

What can you do if your building is sold in foreclosure?

Occasionally tenants will receive a notice of default meant for the owner. If you do, you have an advantage because you can begin to check public records to see if the there will be a foreclosure auction.

When you know the sale is final, stop paying rent to the owner. Remember the owner has been collecting your rent all the while he hasn’t been paying his mortgage. He needs the money and he will lie about the foreclosure to keep collecting your rent as long as he can. I’ve seen several cases in which the owner still wanted to collect rent in exchange for writing up new leases. This may sound attractive, but if a bank can prove you negotiated a sweetheart lease in anticipation of foreclosure, you could lose rights you may have to stay. Besides, it’s fraud.

Don’t spend the rent you withheld. After foreclosure, banks don’t often inform tenants how and where to pay rent, even if tenants ask. After a few months, they simply serve a three-day notice to pay or quit. If you don’t have the money to pay them you can be legally evicted.

Don’t communicate with the “representative of the bank” without proper notice. Often the first inkling you’ll have that the property is bank-owned is when you see a “representative” skulking around the building. He wants to ask you questions about your tenancy. He’s a real estate thug. He will want to talk about a “cash for keys” program and use veiled threats that you could be evicted if you don’t go along. Get his identification and as much information as you can about him and his employer. You can give him a copy of your lease if he will sign a receipt. You can also mention you know your rights as a tenant. Then politely inform him that you will call the cops if he ever shows his face again without proper notice pursuant to the law. In California it’s Civil Code section 1954.

Gather information. Try to find out who you can contact at the bank. It’s usually impossible because, like all experienced con artists, banks don’t answer the phone. Try to find out which attorneys represent the bank. If you happen to be dealing with a representative and ask him where to pay the rent, he might reply vaguely, “Oh don’t worry about that, the lawyers will send you something.” That’s the time to ask, “Who are the lawyers?” You need to be ready if you receive a notice to quit.

If you receive an unlawful notice to quit, don’t panic. If you live a a jurisdiction like San Francisco or Santa Monica that has a rent ordinance and eviction only for just cause, write a letter to the attorneys on the notice and point that out. Also tell them that if they proceed with an eviction you will file a complaint against them at the State Bar.

If you have a lease and you don’t live in an unenlightened city, send the lawyers a copy and tell them you have the right to stay until the lease expires under Federal law or 90 days whichever is longer. Once again, if they try to evict you illegally you will file a complaint with the State Bar.

Always communicate in writing. When I say “tell” I really mean write a letter.

Report abusive real estate agents to the local board or the California Department of Real Estate. When their licenses may be on the line, sometimes realtors will back off.

You get your security deposit back. Just because the bank did not collect the security deposit from the owner does not absolve it of its legal obligation to refund your security deposit in California. Civil Code section 1950.5(j) is clear that the landlord’s successor in interest is liable for your security if a transfer of the deposit has not be made to the new owner according to  Section 1950.5 (h). In a foreclosure scenario that transfer isn’t made because the old owner defaulted.

The foreclosure mess is far from over. It is time for Just Cause Eviction to be enacted statewide. The best thing you can do is to support Tenants Together with your money or your time.

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

Does My Landlord Get To Ask About My Pot Plants?

Does My Landlord Get To Ask About My Pot Plants?

Does My Landlord Get To Ask About My Pot Plants?

I have an otherwise reasonable landlord. I rent a house with a completely fenced private yard. I have two pot plants. I am a medical marijuana patient. My disability is visible. I’m also a professional psychologist with a license to protect and I know I’m not breaking the law.

The landlord, with my permission brought a workman over to repair a shed. Since I knew he’d see the plants amidst the tomatoes and strawberries I decided to tell him in advance about them and my medical clearance. No further mention was made, and the shed was repaired. I decided to move the plants anyway, since I’ve had them stolen in past and now a workman has seen them.

So they are not on my property now but before the landlord knew that, he wanted to see my medical papers, claiming that his WIFE is concerned – she works in a police station and doesn’t want MY activities to reflect badly on HER. Well, of course if she doesn’t blab about it – how would anyone even know?

That is beside the point. My question is: Does the landlord, or anyone, have the right to demand to see my medical papers?

I believe I have privacy rights as a citizen and as a patient. I also have a prescription for vicodin, and have that in the house, but he’s not demanding to see my medical records on that. Both substances are illegal without medical clearance; both are covered under medical record privacy laws. Or am I wrong?

In addition, just because he owns the house, does not mean it’s his business, nor his or his wifes responsibility for what I do in it. I’m not destroying the property, nor disturbing the peace. It’s my private yard and if I garden naked or grow pot in that garden (within the limit) is not his or anyone’s business. Or am I wrong?

I believe I can only be compelled to show any such papers by court order, or maybe if I want to avoid arrest in some circumstances it would be smart and appropriate to show medical clearance. But can the landlord demand my papers just because he owns the house?

I want to be clear on my rights here. Can you direct me to someone who can answer these questions?

I wish my answer could be simple, something like: We live in San Francisco, the most tolerant city in the world. Of course, you can tend to your marijuana garden in the nude. Doesn’t everybody? Note that my simple answer implies that marijuana use and cultivation is legal and has been for, say, the last forty years. Unfortunately, this simple analysis is not available…yet.

Our society has long maintained conflicting attitudes toward marijuana. Our policies are simply schizophrenic. In California we laud the plant as having beneficial medical value while we still prosecute those who smoke it “illegally.” One might argue that those who make marijuana policy should sit down, smoke a joint, listen to the Dead and think about what they have wrought.

In San Francisco we passed an initiative to make enforcement of marijuana laws the lowest priority for our police and in 2006 established the Marijuana Offenses Oversight Committee to monitor the implementation of the ordinance. Yet on September 30, 2009, the Police Department issued a press release encouraging all citizens to report suspected illegal marijuana cultivation.

As you can imagine, the paradox extends to landlord-tenant relationships. As a medical marijuana patient, California supports your right to smoke and cultivate pot.

Federal law, however, makes it a misdemeanor to possess and a felony to cultivate pot. Rent Ordinance §37.9(a)(4) provides a just cause for eviction if, “The tenant is using or permitting a rental unit to be used for any illegal purpose.” It is also likely that your lease has a similar provision.

So what do you do? I think your decision to remove the plants was a prudent one, given the absolute uncertainty of the law.

Does the landlord have the right to demand to see your medical papers? It depends upon your definition of medical papers. If you mean your medical records that qualified you for your status as a medical marijuana patient, the general answer is no, not without a court order.

The landlord can only get a court order if there is a pending lawsuit. That lawsuit would likely be an unlawful detainer (eviction) action–difficult and expensive to defend.

Why force the issue? Do you have one of San Francisco’s optional city-issued medical marijuana ID cards? If so, I suggest that tenants simply show the landlord their cards. Then the landlord is on notice that you have a viable defense in case he tries to evict you. His eviction could be viewed as disability discrimination.

Is it the landlord’s business to know what’s going on in this building in general? Absolutely! The landlord has the duty to repair and maintain the building. He has the right to inspect the building to perform those duties. I always argue that the landlord knew or should have known about defective conditions in a building when I prosecute a case for breach of the warranty of habitability.

Is it the landlord’s business to know about and control potential illegal behavior in this building. Absolutely! Landlords get sued by municipalities all the time for allowing their buildings to be used as crack houses, for example, under the rubric of “public” nuisance.

I know marijuana is not crack. Tenants have possessory rights to their units as well as the implied covenant of quiet enjoyment. In other words the landlord is mostly required to leave you alone…unless you’re doing something that’s illegal. (Nude gardening doesn’t count unless you live in Boulder, CO.)

The marijuana laws are just as confusing to a landlord. While it’s highly unlikely, a landlord’s property could be seized if a court determined that he had some culpability in an illegal growing scheme. Landlords can be subject to stiff fines for public nuisance. Finally, what are they supposed to do if other tenants or neighbors complain or dutifully report cultivation to the police department? This is one of those rare situations when I see that the landlord is also acting prudently.

As tenants, we can help allay our landlords’ confusion. We can begin to reverse the idiotic policies that lead to conundrums like this. We can vote Yes on Proposition 19 for the legalization of possession and cultivation of marijuana for personal use.

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

Why An Absentee Master Tenant Is A Bad Idea

Why An Absentee Master Tenant Is A Bad Idea

Why An Absentee Master Tenant Is A Bad Idea

Our issue is this: we have a ‘new’ housemate that just is not working out well. She’s constantly being a nuisance despite many verbal and written requests to change her behavior and has a habit of damaging other housemates property as well as the unit itself. We would like to have her out but don’t know if it is legal for us to ask her to move or do we ask the master tenant to evict her?

She’s been living here 8 months and there has been some issue each month that causes us utter consternation at her lack of respect of property and forgetfulness as to the written house rules (despite the verbal and written reminders). If nothing else, due that I cannot keep my property from being damaged (I’m not talking normal wear and tear), I have to now keep furniture/appliances/etc… in my room and have lost space in the house–would this constitute a loss in services and may I reasonably ask for a rent reduction because of it?

When I received this question, my first inclination was not to answer it at all. Why? Because you are asking me a question, in your capacity as a landlord, for advice on how to evict a tenant. I don’t give eviction advice to landlords, period. But, as you can see, I think your issues need to be addressed because they are, after all, very common.

What you have here is a personality conflict. The San Francisco Rent Ordinance does not articulate a just cause to evict someone because of a personality conflict. Your facts, as you state them, do not indicate that your roommate is at all a nuisance in the legal sense. So, based on your question, I don’t believe it would be legal for either the household or the master tenant to attempt to evict your roommate. In fact, you could be liable for any damages she suffers from any “wrongful endeavor” or “harassment” to evict her.

Work out your problems with your roommate. If you need help to resolve your differences, you should try mediating the dispute with Community Boards. I don’t have any direct experience with them, but I have heard, from many sources, that they provide effective, professional and successful meditations for disputes like these.

With respect to a claim for decrease in services, I don’t see that moving your stuff into your room constitutes a substantial decrease in services. Besides, who would you name in your petition? The landlord? The so-called master tenant?

This brings me to real tenant issue implied in your question. The master tenant doesn’t live in the unit and he may not have permission to sublet.

With every complaint to the landlord you run the risk that he will begin an “inquiry” into subletting in the unit. He could claim that, despite any prior permission he gave the master tenant to sublet, he never gave permission to sublet to the current set of tenants. This happens all the time. The landlord was fine with the situation as long as there was no trouble. If he has to deal with trouble anyway, why not just get rid of all the tenants and raise the rent? The fact that the landlord lives in the same building and probably knows you and your roommates is a good thing, but that doesn’t mean that you won’t be spared a long and costly legal battle to save your tenancy.

Every complaint to the “master tenant” increases his desire to evict you. As I pointed out in, “Tenant Troubles: What Rules Govern Master Tenants?” many master tenants like to throw their weight around.

Let’s say the “master tenant” is a great person who isn’t profiting on his control of the unit and won’t try to evict you. (An unlikely scenario, as I point out in my blog post, “Bad Master Tenant.”) What if the landlord sells the building or dies? Do you honestly believe that your tenancy wouldn’t be jeopardized?

Tenants, it’s always a bad idea to rent a room in an apartment with an absentee master tenant. Too many things can go wrong.

Your problem, simply put, is that you have too many landlords. You’re a landlord wannabe. The master tenant is an absentee landlord. To top it off, the real landlord lives in the building. I see a shit storm in your future.

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

I Stopped Paying My Rent Because Of Maintenance Issues, Now I’m Getting Evicted

I Stopped Paying My Rent Because Of Maintenance Issues, Now I’m Getting Evicted

I Stopped Paying My Rent Because Of Maintenance Issues, Now I’m Getting Evicted

My landlord gave me a three day notice for not paying rent and I want to know if I should let it go and fight the eviction. We started renting the house four years ago, the first problem started the day we moved in with the heater not working properly this continued for a year until the landlord replaced the heater. Another time, the landlord took three months to fix broken flashing on the roof over my daughter’s bedroom. Every time it rained, it rained in my daughter’s room. I only me paid half rent during that time. The landlord and property management take their time on any request I make for repairs. Should I fight the eviction?

This is a great question. I hear versions of it all the time. My first response, without knowing all the facts, is almost always no.

We have a saying in the lawyer business, “It’s better to be a plaintiff in a lawsuit than a defendant.” Even though you may have a viable defense based upon what looks like the landlord’s violation of the implied warranty of habitability, the cost to defend an unlawful detainer could run tens of thousands of dollars and there is no guarantee that you will win.

Believe me, there are still judges out there who do not understand that breach of the warranty of habitability is a valid defense to eviction for nonpayment of rent, more than 35 years after the seminal 1974 California Supreme Court decision in Green v. Superior Court.

Your case could also be compromised by the fact that the landlord seems to have compensated you for some of the decreases in services by accepting less rent when the house was less habitable. The landlord is going to claim that he always repaired the conditions (eventually) and that he discounted the rent fairly as consideration for your inconvenience.

You don’t mention if you have notices of violation from the local code enforcement agency, nor do I know if all of your complaints have been made in writing. Those are key elements to a defense to an eviction. That’s one of the reasons why I harp on communicating in writing and calling a housing inspector.

If you live in San Francisco, you have an excellent venue to adjudicate your habitability claims–the San Francisco Rent Board. If you file a petition for decreases in services, you become the petitioner (“plaintiff “) in the case and the landlord has to defend against your claims. You don’t have to hire a lawyer to make your case at the Rent Board. In San Francisco, it is almost always preferable to pay the rent during the notice period and then file a petition at the Rent Board.

If you do not live in a city that has rent control, that’s usually a more compelling reason to pay your rent during the notice period. In general, courts in non rent controlled jurisdictions are even more hostile to tenants than they are here. If you pay the rent, then you will have time to strategize about how to make the landlord accountable, rather than only three days to figure out how to defend a lawsuit.

I should mention here that many landlords’ lawyers arrange to serve three-day notices to pay or quit on Fridays. Why? Because Saturdays and Sundays count. That way a tenant only has Monday to consult an attorney. Luckily the San Francisco Tenants Union is open on the weekends. But if you see me there, it’s very, very likely I’m going to tell you to pay your rent.

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

Landlord Crybabies Forced To Ellis Because Landlording Became So Unpleasant

Landlord Crybabies Forced To Ellis Because Landlording Became So Unpleasant

Landlord Crybabies Forced To Ellis Because Landlording Became So Unpleasant

Landlord crybabies.

Last month the San Francisco Business Times published a reprehensible editorial, “Tenant activists exacerbate rental housing crisis.” They were reacting to the  occupation of an empty building in the Mission by Homes Not Jails on April 4.

This is what riled me up: “Aided by reliable mouthpieces on the board of supervisors, they’ve helped make it so unpleasant over the years to be a landlord in San Francisco that owners of several hundred rental units each year invoke a nuclear option known as the Ellis Act and detonate their rental business by evicting all their tenants.”

I’m sorry, landlord crybabies, but if being a landlord is so unpleasant, why don’t you just sell your building without evicting the tenants?

Essentially that was the question the California Supreme Court posed in Nash v. City of Santa Monica in 1984. “Nash was a 17-year-old student when, approximately a year before the rent and demolition controls were enacted, his mother obtained on his behalf a $260,000 apartment building in Santa Monica. He soon became disenchanted, however, with operating rental housing: ‘There is only one thing I want to do, and that is to evict the group of ingrates inhabiting my units, tear down the building, and hold on to the land until I can sell it at a price which will not mean a ruinous loss on my investment.'” The Court ruled that there was nothing unconstitutional about rent control or demolition control that protected tenants. They reasoned that Nash was getting a fair return on his “investment” and that he could sell the building if he wanted to get out of the landlord business.

That’s when the landlord lobby really started to scream. In 1985 they persuaded their friends in the legislature to pass the so-called Ellis Act to supersede the ruling in Nash to allow landlords to evict all their tenants before they exited the landlord business. The rest is history.

As we all know now, for the last decade, the Ellis Act has been used by speculators who enter the landlord business for five minutes to evict long-term tenants, seniors and the disabled in order to sell units as TICs (tenancies in common.) We also know that those speculators were fueled by a flood of monopoly money from banking geniuses who were later bailed out by taxpayers.

Now the bubble has burst and (big surprise) Ellis evictions dropped 78% in the last year in San Francisco. The Business Times editorial noted this, “But in whatever number, they [Ellis evictions] are a symptom of the dysfunction in the San Francisco rental market and not a cause. Basically, there’s little incentive to remain a landlord in San Francisco — and every incentive to try to get yourself out.” Of course most of the landlords who used Ellis evictions were never in the landlord business and those who were didn’t get out until they saw an opportunity for obscene profit.

If the Business Times cannot recognize that vacant buildings are not a cause of dysfunction in the rental market, what can they see? Not much. The editorial also excuses scofflaw landlords because, “[Rent control] contribute[s] to blight by discouraging landlords from maintaining and upgrading their units.” They misstate the law claiming, “That the owner of the property would in fact be breaking the law by offering it again for rent was apparently lost on the protesters.” In fact, the landlord can re-rent but he would be required to offer the unit to the original renter at the rent-controlled price.

That’s the point. Landlords start to cry like babies when they can’t get exactly what they want, when they want it. “Unpleasant” translates to “I can’t get as rich as I want to as fast as I want to” and “I don’t want to spend the money to maintain my building.” Sob, sob. They also clinch their fists and threaten, “But given that the owner of property ultimately controls whether it remains on the rental market at all, learning at the least to live with them [landlords with their power to Ellis evict at will] would be in everyone’s interests — including, most notably, their [tenant activists] own.”

Unfortunately that threat will remain bone-chilling real until the Ellis Act is either repealed or amended to require that landlords actually be in the business for five or so years until they can get out. And occupying vacant buildings is a laudable method to remind us that, like Jerome Nash, landlords will go to any extreme, including refusing to re-rent units in vacant buildings, to force tenants to bend to their will.

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

Is My Landlord Trying To Evict Me For Smoking?

Is My Landlord Trying To Evict Me For Smoking?

Is My Landlord Trying To Evict Me For Smoking?

I’ve been a tenant in a 36-unit apartment building in SF since October 1992. The landlords hired a new property management company about a year ago. Today, I received a letter from the management company stating that they had received an “official complaint” that smoke originating in my unit has continually permeated into surrounding units. The “complaint” demanded that I be more vigilant in containing the smoke. It goes on to point out the “quiet enjoyment” and “house rules” provisions of my original lease, none of which reference smoking explicitly, although “house rules” refers to “odors.”

OK, I’m a smoker, and have been since I moved in. I smoke three to four cigarettes per day, one of which I don’t smoke in my apartment. I try to be considerate by opening windows and using odor eliminating sprays, etc., and the common hallway window is always open. No one has ever complained to me about smoke and there are other smokers in the building.

In the past couple of weeks, I’ve noticed that the vacant apartment in my wing is being shown to prospective tenants so I wonder if this “official complaint” is coming from my neighbors or the prospective tenants/rental agent. Bottom line–I need advice about how to proceed.

What is the first thing I fix on here? You got it–a long-term, rent-controlled tenancy. The second element is a relatively new management company who wants to show their prowess to the owner by maximizing profit. What do you want to bet that they just hired some new hotshot graduate of the Citiapartments School of Apartment Management? This is a classic case of a landlord’s initial attempt to establish a pretext to evict you.

It would be interesting to understand what exactly made the complaint “official.” Was it in writing? Typed on a real, honest-to-goodness letterhead with straight margins and not too many misspellings? My guess is that the rental agent may have been the “official” complainant. I’ve seen this before. I had a case in which the opposing attorney claimed that a rental agent had a right to quiet enjoyment while exhibiting the units in a particular building. The agent didn’t live in the building.

Quiet enjoyment is a term of art in the law, meaning that the term has a very specific legal definition: “The possession of land with the assurance that the possession will not be disturbed by a superior title.” (Black’s Law Dictionary [8th ed. 2004]). One has to have possession (a lease) of land (an apartment) to claim the right to quiet enjoyment. Believe me; you don’t get to sue the inconsiderate clod sitting behind you, talking through the whole movie, for interfering with your quiet enjoyment. Nor is the rental agent entitled to quiet enjoyment by just being in the building.

Are you interfering with another tenant’s quiet enjoyment? No. Smoking in your apartment is still legal. You are not smoking in the common area. You are not creating a nuisance. You are not breaching your lease. Here’s where the other part of the definition of quiet enjoyment comes in. If the landlord (the one with superior title) is concerned that he may be sued by other tenants for interfering with their quiet enjoyment, he should do something about smoke escaping from under the door. He should install weatherstripping.

Given what you have told me, I think you would be wise to continue your practice of eliminating the smoke as best you can. Respond to the management company in writing. Point out that smoking in your apartment is neither a breach of the lease nor is it a nuisance. Tell them about the precautions you take and request that they install weatherstripping under your door.

I am also concerned that other tenants may be complaining without alerting you. As I said last week, tenants have to stick together. I think you should politely ask your neighbors if your smoking bothers them and try to understand how their concerns could be accommodated. For example, a neighbor sharing the hall may need weatherstripping to create another barrier to smoking entering her unit.

Expanding on my thoughts last week, before you blame yourself or another tenant for problems arising from living in close quarters, consider the landlord’s duties. As in this case, the landlord may be able to fix the problem causing the discord. If management refuses to act, it’s clear to me that the landlord just became the problem.

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

How Do I Ask For Permission To Get A Dog?

How Do I Ask For Permission To Get A Dog?

How Do I Ask For Permission To Get A Dog?

I’ve been living in a fourplex since December 2005. I’d really like to get a small dog, but I don’t know how to go about asking my landlord. Cats were negotiable, and I know that my neighbor has two cats. My lease states: “No pets of any kind shall be kept on the premises without the prior written consent of the Owners. If such consent has been established, the Tenants agree to the following rules:” And then there’s a lengthy paragraph about keeping cat litter a certain way, bird cages, cats being spayed and neutered, but nothing about dogs.

So my question is: how can I ask my landlord for permission to have a dog, without getting rejected?

Fear of rejection…a huge factor in the human condition. Because I have recently bleached my hair, I’m feeling it. Will she think I’m attractive? Will I lose credibility with my clients, or worse, the judge? Why did I let Laura, my hairdresser, convince me to do it? Now do I look like an over-the-hill Billy Idol? Will anyone say Yes! to me ever again?

As the old saw goes, life carries with it few guarantees. Maybe that’s why many of us are so attracted to dogs. They usually offer unconditional love, unlike landlords.

First, I have to say that you are approaching this issue correctly from a legal standpoint. As I have said several times in these columns, you don’t want to get a pet without permission and, after you’re threatened with eviction for breach of the lease, have to send it to the pound or move out. For purposes of this column I’ll assume that you have no disability issues and cannot request a dog as a reasonable accommodation.

I’m also going to assume that you’re rent is below market rate because you’ve lived in the unit for almost five years. Unfortunately, then, you likely don’t have the leverage of threatening to move if the landlord denies your request.

We know the landlord in your case isn’t completely opposed to pets. That’s a good thing. But cats don’t dig and chew and bark. Maybe your landlord is a cat person. That could be a problem.

Before you ask for permission to get a dog, try to anticipate the landlord’s objections. Be ready to explain your concept of a “small dog.” If you get an adult dog, rather than a puppy, you have some good built-in arguments. You already know the adult size of the dog. The dog might be housebroken and not so inclined to chew up the landlord’s precious 1898 door jambs. Be ready to answer the question, “What if the dog gets lonely and barks all day while you’re at work?” Ask the other tenants how they feel about a dog on the premises. If they’re okay with a new dog, that could go a long way in assuaging the landlord’s fears of potential liability.

SF Appeal readers, please share your experiences about this.

There’s an old Butthole Surfers song called “Sweat Loaf” that starts with a question:

Child: Daddy?
Father: Yes, son.
Child: What does regret mean?
Father: Well, son a funny thing about regret is that it’s better to regret something that you have done than to regret something you haven’t done…

The point here is that there is no perfect way to ask your landlord for permission to get a dog. You may be rejected, but you gotta ask.

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