(415)552-9060
My Landlord Forged Documents To Get Me Evicted

My Landlord Forged Documents To Get Me Evicted

by | Oct 7, 2011 | Unlawful Detainer

My Landlord Forged Documents To Get Me Evicted

I feel I did everything legally and now I’m being evicted. I’m being wrongfully evicted because I withheld one month’s rent.

I wrote letter after letter to the manager and owner complaining about water coming through my apartment windows. I moved in June of 2010 so I didn’t have any problems until the rainy season. The first time it started to rain, I realized I had a real problem with 3 out of 4 windows. I had to use big towels to stop it from running down on the floor. So the first thing I did was call the manager. He said he would talk to the owner and get back to me. That was in November of 2010.

I paid my rent and wrote the owner and manager letters asking for the repairs. In July, I wrote the owner and manager a letter that said I would withhold July 2011 rent until the repairs to my windows were done. The manager, who collects the rent, agreed with me. Two days later the owner came to my apartment and told me I should just move if I didn’t like it.

At that point I decided to go downtown to the city of Oakland and file a complaint against the owner. When I was filing my complaint, they informed me that the tenant prior to me in the same apartment made the same complaints. So I waited a few weeks for the city to come and inspect my place, but instead a sheriff came and left an eviction paper on my door.

It wasn’t a summons, it was an eviction notice stating that I would be removed. I question the legal aid person I went to see why wasn’t I being able to see the judge to explain my default. She told me don’t worry about that at this time the thing I need to do was file for a stay so I did and it was granted.

I found out that the owner forged the manager’s name as the person who served me the summons. The manager called the owner in front of me and confronted the owner. The owner admitted he did do this and told the manager if he didn’t lie he would be fire him. The manager said he rather be fired. He said he would help me in anyway because the owner withheld the summons because he didn’t want to go to court. I have all my documents and pictures along with several witnesses that can validate what happened.

This owner forged the manager’s name on three documents, the 3-day notice, the 30-day notice and the summons from the court. He never served me with the summons and complaint so that I would default and I wouldn’t have the right to answer in court. I believe I have an eviction on my credit report now. This can’t be right.

It isn’t right. You did do everything legally. Had the landlord served you with a summons and complaint for an unlawful detainer action, it seems like you could have successfully defended the case. But as I’ve said over and over again, it’s better to be a plaintiff in a lawsuit than a defendant.

Oakland has a Rent Adjustment Board. You could have filed a petition for decrease in services at the Rent Board instead of withholding rent. Oakland Residential Rent Adjustment Program §8.22.070(F) defines decreased housing services:

“A decrease in housing services is considered an increase in rent. A tenant may petition for an adjustment in rent based on a decrease in housing services under standards in the regulations. The tenant’s petition must specify the housing services decreased. Where a rent or a rent increase has been reduced for decreased housing services, the rent or rent increase may be restored in accordance with procedures set out in the regulations when the housing services are reinstated.”

That’s all water under the bridge. Your landlord is a scumbag. I’m not trying to shift the blame to you.

Your landlord pulled one of the oldest, dirtiest tricks in the landlord playbook. We in the business call it “sewer service.” The landlord filed the complaint and instead of serving you, he flushed it down the toilet. I’m not as familiar with the Oakland courts. In San Francisco the court sends a letter to tenants informing them that an unlawful detainer has been filed. That way one can immediately go to the court to look at the file and, if necessary, file an answer without service.

You need to find an East Bay organization who will write (and hopefully argue) a “motion to vacate default and default judgement” for you. This is a motion that essentially asks the court to reinstate the case. The court makes its decision based on two things.

  1. Was your neglect in failing to answer the complaint excusable?
  2. Do you have a triable issue if the court decides to reinstate the case?

Of course you have easy “yes” answers to both questions. You couldn’t answer if you were not served and you have a defense because the landlord failed to fix the windows, breaching the implied warranty of habitability in you lease. The statute that outline this defense is California Code of Civil Procedure §1174.2.

You mentioned that you are working with a legal aid person. Perhaps she is already working on a motion for you, but you should understand that the stay of execution (in UD a court order telling the sheriff to wait to evict a tenant) only gives you the time to file a motion. A stay does not end the matter.

You should get in touch with the East Bay Community Law Center. You can also call John F. Kennedy College of Law, (510) 647-2067 to see if you qualify for representation by their Housing Advocacy Clinic.

Tenants: I’ve already mentioned that it’s a bad idea to withhold your rent without legal advice to do so. This reader’s letter also illustrates that it is important to get your local code enforcement agency to issue a notice of violation for a substantial breach of the warranty of habitability. Civil Code §1941.1 provides a long list of possible violations. If a landlord has a violation he’s more likely to repair the defect. If he does not repair it, you have good evidence to bring to a rent board or a court.

If a landlord refuses to repair, get a code enforcement inspection quickly. Don’t wait! If you are unsure about who to call check out the Crow & Rose list of tenant resources.

Share On Facebook
Share On X
Share On Reddit
Share Via Email
Share On Telegram

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

Contact Us
Sitemap
Privacy Policy
Is This Legal Advice?

My Landlord Won’t Let My Boyfriend Move In

My Landlord Won’t Let My Boyfriend Move In

by | Sep 1, 2011 | Roommates

My Landlord Won’t Let My Boyfriend Move In

BIG fan of the column! Was feeling pretty good about having my boyfriend move into my apartment after your columns the last few weeks, until I hit a snag: my landlord said NO when I asked for permission.

Taking special care to follow every one of your instructions from the past two weeks, I asked my landlord for permission for my boyfriend to move in. I live in a one-bedroom, rent controlled apartment. I pay less than a tenant on a lower floor who has lived there longer. The landlord recently (less than 6 months ago) rented the unit across from me for almost $400 more a month than I’m paying… So when I asked for permission (in writing) his answer was:

“I have reviewed the lease and made a determination. Unfortunately, I must deny your request because the lease is clear on this type of situation. It is my option and wish not to amend our current agreement as set forth by the lease terms. “

There is a use/occupancy clause that says: “Tenant must have the prior written approval of owner if an invitee of Tenant will be present at the premises more than seven consecutive nights or fifteen days in a calendar year.” and

“Assignment and Subletting: Tenant may not assign this agreement nor sublet the whole or any portion of the Premises. This is a blanket prohibition which means that Tenant may not have any other person reside at the premises… no additional tenant or occupant will be allowed in the unit regardless of the relationship between tenant and said proposed occupant.”

The landlord and I talked on the phone and he wouldn’t point to any reason why he is saying no, and he gave me his lawyer’s number to call if I had questions. I asked if he would be willing to do a NEW lease for the two of us (saying “I understand I probably pay the least amount of rent in the building”) and he was not open to that either.

Landlord and I have had a decent relationship thus far. His daughter just moved in below me, so I’m worried that she will find a way to give him just cause (noise) if I make a fuss, or that she will rat me out if he moves in anyway, especially now that the landlord knows we were planning it.
The boyfriend is going to Asia for several months after his lease ends next month, so we don’t have to worry about this until December, when he was going to move in. We were going to look for another place when he got back (one with parking) so it’s not like we were planning on staying forever, but my landlord is being so shady about it that now I want to.

I was planning on getting a recommendation from him in writing before I challenge this nonsense later in the year, so when I am looking to move out, I can worry less about him not recommending me to future landlords. Anything else we can do?

Should I just let the boyfriend move in and try to say he can’t evict me on those grounds? I know I don’t want to be a defendant but I also don’t want to give him the pleasure of having me move out early so he can jack up the rent.

What to do?

I’m happy that reading my columns inspired you to ask the landlord for permission to sublet. You now understand his position on the issue. What if he is correct?

In this case, the landlord may be correct.

The last two TT columns have discussed the effect of replacing a roommate when the lease provides for a landlord’s written consent to do so. In your case the lease absolutely prohibits subletting. If you never had a roommate, you will not be replacing one.

San Francisco Rent Board Rules & Regulations §6.15A is applicable to these facts. The first few paragraphs state:
“This Section 6.15A applies only when a lease or rental agreement includes an absolute prohibition against subletting and assignment.

(a) For agreements entered into on or after May 25, 1998, breach of an absolute prohibition against subletting or assignment may constitute a ground for termination of tenancy pursuant to, and subject to the requirements of, Section 37.9(a)(2) and subsection (b) below, only if such prohibition was adequately disclosed to and agreed to by the tenant at the commencement of the tenancy. For purposes of this subsection, adequate disclosure shall include satisfaction of one of the following requirements:

(1) the prohibition against sublet or assignment is set forth in enlarged or boldface type in the lease or rental agreement and is separately initialed by the tenant; or

(2) the landlord has provided the tenant with a written explanation of the meaning of the absolute prohibition, either as part of the written lease or rental agreement, or in a separate writing.”

Look at the clause in your lease that relates to assignment and subletting. Does it conform to the Rent Board requirements? It looks like the clause has provided an explanation of a blanket prohibition on subletting. That’s a problem.

Does the lease allow for only 1 person? Are you the only named person on the lease? Have you always lived alone?
If the answers to these questions are “yes”, the no-subletting clause is probably valid. If any of the answers are “no”, you may be able to make a case to add a roommate.

Do not let your boyfriend move in without the landlord’s permission. You will be discovered because the landlord’s daughter lives in the building, but that’s not the point. I never recommend that a tenant blatantly breach a lease unless the clause is illegal or unconscionable.

You can explore two other options. You can ask the landlord to allow your boyfriend to stay as a guest until you find another place. The landlord may want you to give notice to move on a date certain. That could be a problem if you can’t find a new place in time.

Or you can get married or you and your boyfriend can register with the City as domestic partners. Check out “Tenant Troubles: Is My New Husband Going To Get Me Evicted?” to understand how the Rules and Regulations apply.
Before you take any other action, I strongly urge to bring your lease and any other relevant documents to the San Francisco Tenants Union for a counselor to review. You may even want to discuss this with an attorney. The TU has a list of approved tenant attorneys.

Sometimes following the rules won’t get you the answer you wanted. But following the rules won’t get you evicted either.

Share On Facebook
Share On X
Share On Reddit
Share Via Email
Share On Telegram

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

Contact Us
Sitemap
Privacy Policy
Is This Legal Advice?

Is My New Husband Going To Get Me Evicted?

Is My New Husband Going To Get Me Evicted?

by | Aug 25, 2011 | Roommates

Is My New Husband Going To Get Me Evicted?

I live in a four unit rent controlled building in San Francisco. I moved into the one-bedroom apartment in 2005.

My ex-husband moved out in 2009, and I finally got around to telling my landlord in 2010, so I am now the only “original occupant”.

However, my new fiancé has been living with me, and paying all the rent since August 2010.The lease requires that, “a substitution, addition, replacement, or sublet of tenants or roommates is not allowed unless the landlord has given specific, written consent.” and “In the event subsequent occupants, co-occupants or substitute roommates are accepted into this rental unit by prior written consent of the owners, the provision the of sf rent control ordinance, part 6, 6.14 & 6.15 will apply. “

We are going to get married in less than a month, I’m going to change my name, which I don’t think is going to be a problem since I pay my rent through money order. But, apparently him living with me but not on the agreement is a violation.

We wanted to act like he hasn’t been living at this address, and do all the stuff to get him on the agreement, but his credit report will state this address as an address. So, that’s sort of a give-away, right? Is there anything that I could do to help alleviate this situation, or will we have to move when we get back from our honeymoon so I won’t get evicted? I love this apartment so freaking much…

As you noted in your email, in your email your situation is almost exactly like our reader’s last week who wanted to swap girlfriends (on his lease.) If your fiancé had not already moved in, you could very easily use the method prescribed in Rent Board Rules & Regulations §6.15B to request permission form the landlord for him to move in. If your ex-husband was originally on the lease you would simply be making a one-for-one roommate replacement.

Of course it would be difficult to make the replacement now because your fiancé already lives with you. It is always tough to fake the approval process. He could move out and move back in. Or you might argue that he is an original tenant if he has been paying directly to the landlord for the past year. But guess what?

Rent Ordinance § 37.9(a)(2)(B) states: “[…] a landlord shall not endeavor to recover possession of a rental unit[…]as a result of the addition of the spouse or domestic partner of a tenant, so long as the maximum number of occupants stated in Section 37.9(a)(2)(B)(i) and (ii) is not exceeded.” The maximum number of people allowed in a one-bedroom apartment per the regulations is certainly more than two, depending upon which code you read.

Rent Board Rules & Regulations §6.15D also addresses this. Creditworthiness cannot be a bar to the addition of a family member unless the family member is going to be legally liable for paying the rent. In your case, no matter where the money comes from, you’re the person who is legally liable because yours is the only name on the lease.

You do not have to engage in any subterfuge.

Readers: It’s never a good idea to try to backpedal to get a landlord’s consent to the addition of a roommate after the roommate has moved in. Follow the rules before you add a roommate. If you’re married to your roommate (or joined in civil union) you should still understand that the rules apply, but they are much more forgiving.

Go get married, have a great honeymoon and don’t worry about eviction.

Share On Facebook
Share On X
Share On Reddit
Share Via Email
Share On Telegram

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

Contact Us
Sitemap
Privacy Policy
Is This Legal Advice?

There’s A Mouse In My (Boarding) House

There’s A Mouse In My (Boarding) House

by | Jul 21, 2011 | Tenant Law

There’s A Mouse In My (Boarding) House

Boarding house mouse.

I moved to SF a couple of years ago, so there are things about the rental laws that I am just finding out. My particular lease doesn’t easily fit into the info I’m finding online so I plan to join the Tenants Union. Since other people might have the same thing happening, I figured I’d email you as well.

Here are the specifics:

I live in a rent controlled building. I moved in on October 1, 2010 and paid a security deposit of $950.00 (my rent is $975 plus water, garbage, and other utilities; the water and garbage bills are in our names and are split with the unit downstairs).

The landlord used to live in the first level unit but no longer does.

There are commercial units on the ground level; the first level is rented out as one unit; my level (the top level) is rented out to 3 people and we all have separate leases for our unfurnished rooms with access to the furnished common areas. This is great in terms of not having to cover for rent when one of the rooms is empty but makes it confusing in terms of applying the laws.

The landlord allows pets. We’re having a mouse issue right now (to be expected when living about restaurants, I suppose) so I’m considering getting a cat. When I asked about how much a pet deposit would be, I was told it’s usually one month’s rent but of the whole apartment, not just of my room, which the landlord said would be $2800.

I know that all deposits can’t be more than 2x the rent for an unfurnished unit and 3x for a furnished unit…but I could see that the landlord would argue that the place is furnished since the common areas are furnished.

So, my questions are these:

1. What is the legal amount of deposit he can ask for in this situation? Would be “unit” be considered to be furnished or unfurnished?

2. When I calculate my interest on security deposit, how much do I subtract for my portion of the rent board fees? Do the 3 of us split our half of the fee if we all have separate leases?

3. Is it even legal to rent out the rooms this way? Is it legal to make us pay the water and garbage?

Ah, life in the city. Always an adventure.

Yes, life is always an adventure when you have to put up with unscrupulous, greedy landlords, but somebody’s got to do it, right?

In this case, the landlord wants to have his cake and eat it too. How? First he rents the rooms in the unit separately, with separate leases and, I’m guessing here, his choice of your roommates. Then he wants to treat the unit as a single unit with three bedrooms for deposit purposes.  It’s a scam to collect $2,800.00 to deal with a problem that it is his responsibility to fix in the first place.

Carefully review your “lease.” When you say the landlord allows pets, do you mean that he just doesn’t enforce a “no pets” clause or is your lease silent on the matter?

If the only reason you want a cat is to deal with the mice, just call the San Francisco Department of Public Health. Get an inspector  to violate the unit and the landlord can deal with it accordingly. I’d do that anyway. Mice and rats are health hazards. They carry all sorts of diseases. Maybe you’ve read about the bubonic plague? A continuing mouse infestation is a per se violation of many housing and health codes, a per se breach of the implied warranty of habitability.

You are correct about deposits law, but Ca. Civil Code §1950.5(c) speaks to deposits “paid on or before initial occupancy.” So the furnished/unfurnished argument is irrelevant.

Because you unit is rent-controlled, any demand for extra money by the landlord will be treated as an illegal increase in rent. If you really want a cat and you need the landlord’s permission, you can point out to him that a $2,800.00 deposit constitutes an illegal rent increase and that you’d be happy to take the issue to the Rent Board.

Rent Board fees are assessed on a per unit basis. You are only liable for your portion of the fee.

If your lease provides for payment of water and garbage and the sharing arrangement is clear, it is legal for the landlord to charge for those utilities and services.

Is it even legal to rent out the rooms this way?

That’s a complex question. San Francisco Housing Code §401 defines lodging house “as any building or portion thereof, containing not more than five guest rooms where rent is paid in money, goods, labor or otherwise.” The San Francisco Building Inspection Department will not violate a boarding house (that’s what your landlord is running) that comprises 5 rooms or less.

Yet, if the landlord attempted to evict you, he would also have to evict your roommates because the unit is a single apartment. In an unlawful detainer (eviction) lawsuit, the landlord must seek possession of the entire unit, not just a room in the unit.

Interestingly, the Rent Board will consider your room as a separate unit for purposes of deciding a petition you may file without adding your roommates. However, I always think it’s better for the tenants in these arrangement to maintain a united front.

As you might imagine these arrangements are frought with problems–problems between tenants who don’t know each other; problems with understanding ones rights and obligations (like yours); but mostly problems with greedy landlords trying to maximize their dough and control. Of course, this type of landlord doesn’t give a rat’s ass if you have mice.

Readers: If you think that living with roommates is a pain in the ass, try living in a boarding house.

Your decision to join the Tenants Union is a good one. Actually, yours is a very common issue. You can go over your lease and any communications between you and the landlord and develop a strategy to “educate” him.

Remember, landlords who rent to tenants in this manner are often psychotic control freaks. They rarely back down. You may also want to consider an exit strategy.

Share On Facebook
Share On X
Share On Reddit
Share Via Email
Share On Telegram

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

Contact Us
Sitemap
Privacy Policy
Is This Legal Advice?

How Do I Get My Deposit Back If My Building’s In Foreclosure?

How Do I Get My Deposit Back If My Building’s In Foreclosure?

by | Jul 14, 2011 | Security Deposits

How Do I Get My Deposit Back If My Building’s In Foreclosure?

My partner and I live in a non-rent-controlled unit (built in 2002, a single unit in a large condominium complex) in San Francisco for two years. After the first year, our lease defaulted to a month-to-month tenancy. Several months ago, our landlord let us know that he was fighting foreclosure and attempting to have his mortgage restructured.

We have kept in touch with him since then, checking to make sure that he is still the owner and that we should, in fact, send our rent checks to him. He let us know prior to the first of July that he was definitely going to be foreclosed, and he was awaiting some kind of bankruptcy ruling “any day now”. He also let us know that he would be leaving the country for several months and that we should send our rent checks, addressed to him, to his relative’s address. He also instructed us to seek tenancy assistance or maintenance from his real estate broker, with whom we worked when we first moved into the unit.

I am worried that the ownership is going to change and we won’t be notified. Should we just keep paying rent to the landlord, even though it seems like the fate of our unit is in limbo? What rights do we have as tenants? Also, how on earth are we going to get our security deposit back?

This is a confusing issue for tenants. No doubt you’ve heard stories about tenants who continue to pay rent to a defaulting landlord only to be socked with a three-day notice to pay or quit from the bank who took over six months ago.

You won’t necessarily be noticed about a change of ownership when a property is foreclosed, but that doesn’t mean you can’t find out. Notices of default and foreclosure sales are a matter of public record.

In San Francisco you can check property records online at the Assessor-Recorder’s website. Property records are now managed by CRiis.com. There is no input on the site for addresses so I suggest you get the APN (Assessor’s Parcel Number, comprising the lot and block numbers) from the SF Assessor-Recorder’s website.You can check the status of the unit from time to time. You should also know that the there is a backlog inputting the latest information. If you think you need up-to-date records , you should probably visit the Assessor Recorder’s office at City Hall.

Absent evidence that the landlord is not the owner of the property, keep paying your rent to him. Get receipts and/or send the rent via certified mail. Lately I’ve been hearing from tenants who stop paying rent when they find out the landlord has defaulted. They don’t pay after service of a three-day notice and find themselves in a losing unlawful detainer lawsuit.

Your rights without rent control are diminished significantly, but you do have Rent Ordinance §37.9D. Essentially the ordinance provides that you cannot be evicted by person or entity who took title through foreclosure, except by one of the 15 “just causes” of the Rent Ordinance. It also requires the person or entity who took title to notify tenants of that fact within 15 days.

The banks and owners will all tell you that your security deposit is, poof, gone, up in smoke. Not true. California Civil Code §1950.5 is clear on this point. I should say clear for lawyers. It’s actually pretty convoluted.

Essentially Civil Code §1950.5(h) provides a process by which the landlord either transfers the security deposit to the new owner or returns the deposit minus any deductions to the tenant. If that doesn’t occur, and it never does in a foreclosure, Civil Code §1950.5(j) is clear: “In the event of noncompliance with subdivision (h), the landlord’s successors in interest shall be jointly and severally liable with the landlord for repayment of the security[…]” You may have to sue both the landlord and the bank, but the bank is on the hook.

So, if you check the property records on a regular basis and continue to communicate with the landlord’s agent, you should be fine for awhile. Frankly, if I was in your situation, I’d start looking for a new, rent-controlled, unit.

For a more comprehensive evaluation, go to the San Francisco Tenants Union.

Share On Facebook
Share On X
Share On Reddit
Share Via Email
Share On Telegram

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

Contact Us
Sitemap
Privacy Policy
Is This Legal Advice?

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

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

by | Jun 15, 2011 | Tenant Law

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.

Share On Facebook
Share On X
Share On Reddit
Share Via Email
Share On Telegram

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

Contact Us
Sitemap
Privacy Policy
Is This Legal Advice?

Can I Be Evicted Just Because My Apartment’s An Illegal Unit?

Can I Be Evicted Just Because My Apartment’s An Illegal Unit?

by | May 19, 2011 | Illegal Unit

Can I Be Evicted Just Because My Apartment’s An Illegal Unit?

Apartment’s an illegal unit.

I’m a protected tenant (65yrs old + 15 year resident) in an illegal unit. The building was recently sold and purchaser was aware of my protected tenant status. It appears that the strategy that is being used to get me out, is to have a building inspector come in to declare unit illegal and also possibly identifying some kitchen defects (venting). Owner has offered $5000 above relocation costs if I agree to get out without having inspector involved. The new owner would be reclaiming my unit for his own use without plans to use it as rental unit.

Can you please tell me what if any options I have if my apartment’s an illegal unit.

First, you need to determine if indeed your unit is illegal. Often illegal units take the form of in-law units under single family dwellings. One can find many of them in the Richmond and the Sunset. There are three characteristics that indicate a unit may be illegal.

No separate PG&E bill. If you are sharing your gas and electric bill or the landlord is paying the utilities, the unit is not separately metered. Of course there are quite a few big buildings and complexes like the Golden Gateway that are not separately metered. But two and three unit buildings usually have separate meters.

Ceiling height. Generally the Uniform Building Code requires a minimum ceiling height of 7’6″. If the ceilings in your unit are lower and you share PG&E, there’s an even bigger chance the unit is illegal.

Secondary egress. If a unit has no secondary means of egress (a second door or window to use to escape from a fire), that’s another big indicator that the unit could be illegal. Think garden apartment at the back of a garage where the only entry and exit is through the garden. Units that only exit into a garage are usually illegal. Converted attics without a fire escape are often illegal units.

SF Assessor-Recorder’s website. In a typical scenario one will find that the Assessor lists the property as a single family house with one unit, even though there is an in-law in the building.

Finally, you can search the Online Permit and Complaint Tracking at the DBI website or if you cannot find any information there make a records request to view the permits and the certificates of occupancy or certificates of final completion at the DBI Office.

Now to your question. You can never be a protected tenant if you live in an illegal unit. Not possible. Because the unit is illegal, it should not be rented at all. You must dispel yourself of the notion that you will be able to stay if the landlord calls the DBI to violate the unit.

The “kitchen defects” to which you refer are not defects. If the DBI cites the unit as illegal, the landlord will be required to “remove the unit from the rental market.” That is accomplished by removing the kitchen, the factor that defines the apartment as a separate dwelling unit.

You should be aware that in order to be legally evicted, the landlord will have “to demolish or to otherwise permanently remove the rental unit from housing use” pursuant to Rent Ordinance section 37.9(a)(10). The landlord must obtain all the necessary permits, give you with a sixty-day notice to vacate and provide you $8,502.00 in statutory relocation benefits.

It is interesting that the landlord does not want to report the unit to DBI. He has not offered you much more than the statutory amount to vacate and he misrepresented (lied about) the relocation amount. Something is very fishy.

I flat out don’t believe the claim that the new owner wants to use the unit for himself. If that’s the case, why all the subterfuge? Forgive me my cynicism, sometimes I can confuse cheap and cheesy with diabolical. But the results are the same–the tenant gets screwed.

You should also understand that the landlord may be liable to you for civil damages. For example, if the landlord originally rented the unit to you and represented it as a legal unit, you may have damages for fraud and/or void contract that could, theoretically, entitle you to demand that the landlord refund all of the rent you paid for 15 years. I say theoretically because there are a whole bunch of factors that need to be evaluated for your specific case.

Go to the San Francisco Tenants Union to discuss your specific options. In the meantime don’t sign anything.

Share On Facebook
Share On X
Share On Reddit
Share Via Email
Share On Telegram

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