(415)552-9060
Can I Be Evicted Just Because My Apartment’s An Illegal Unit?

Can I Be Evicted Just Because My Apartment’s An 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.

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

Time To Hire A Private Eye To Go After Your Landlord

Time To Hire A Private Eye To Go After Your Landlord

Time To Hire A Private Eye To Go After Your Landlord

I have lived in my rent controlled North Beach flat since 1994. In April 2010, a new landlord purchased the building and began eviction proceedings. The tenants in the basement accepted a buyout to move out of the illegal unit they were living in. My roommate and I were also offered a buyout which we refused. Nothing happened until November 30, 2010, when we received a 60 day end of tenancy notice.

The lawyer my landlord hired is an experienced eviction lawyer.

The landlord is claiming he lives in the building in the top empty unit, and is trying to evict my roommate and I so that his brother can move in. I went to the rent board and filed a wrongful eviction because the landlord does not live in the building. I was trying to settle with the landlord, but now they are claiming that my roommate and I never paid last month’s rent and a deposit–a claim my old landlord also made.

I have no records of paying for the last month’s rent and the deposit and when I called Bank of America for copies of my processed checks, they told me they don’t keep copies beyond 7 years. I was young and naive and did not keep copies and I did not make sure that these amounts were included in my lease.

My questions to you are:

1) How can I prove my landlord does not live in the unit? Is it pretty much his word against mine? He owns a condo is SF, which I believe is his primary residence, but he claims he lives in the building and is in the process of selling his condo.

2) Is there anything I can do about the last month’s rent and deposit? Is my old landlord required to keep copies of these records? Is there anything I can do about this?

Whenever I get a case like this, I carefully check the Owner Move In (OMI) Notice. There are specific requirements for an OMI notice that must be followed to the letter.Sometimes even experienced landlord lawyers can omit the details.

For example, sometimes the landlord “forgets” to tell his lawyer about other residential properties he owns. Not listing those properties could invalidate an OMI notice. If you haven’t had an experienced tenant counselor or lawyer read your notice, you should do so immediately. Go to the San Francisco Tenants Union. The counselors there know what to look for in an OMI notice.

The next thing to do is find out if the landlord owns residential properties other than those listed on the notice. You can search online for properties under the landlord’s name at the SF Assessor-Recorder’s website. But I think you can do a more comprehensive address search at the Assessor-Recorder’s office in City Hall. I would also check to see if the brother owns any properties.

If the landlord hasn’t listed all of this residential properties, the notice is invalid. You may also be able to use the information to help you understand where the landlord really lives.

The law is clear that the landlord has to live in the building to be able to serve a relative move-in notice, so there may be a timing issue. That the landlord is hemming and hawing about selling the condo is worth investigating.

Unless the brother now lives in a mansion in Forest Hills that has not been sold or you can somehow obtain photos of the empty unit in your building, it can be difficult to prove where that the landlord is lying.

You need a shamus, a private eye, private dick, you know, a private investigator like Phillip MarloweJake Gittes or Jonathan Ames to fully investigate. You should hire a PI with particular experience investigating landlords. Many tenant lawyers use private investigators in cases like this. I like working with investigators who are sympathetic to tenants.

A PI can find records that are difficult for laymen to get. She can go through the landlord’s trash to try to find documents revealing his true motive. She can also investigate the brother.

Unless you have very good evidence that the landlord is lying, it’s probably not a good idea to stay in the unit past the notice period and risk getting evicted. As I have said before, eviction defense is expensive and complicated.

Sometimes the better move is to just vacate the unit and wait for the landlord to screw up, i.e., the brother doesn’t move in or the landlord never sells the condo, etc. We also use PIs for ongoing investigations like this. A good PI has many tricks to find out who is living in a given building.

One of the best resources to check the coming and going in a building is your neighbors. You’ve lived in the neighborhood for 16 years. You know people. The landlord doesn’t. You should ask your neighbors to keep an eye on the place. I have seen a couple of cases in which the landlord actually bragged to neighbors about how he evicted the tenant. It’s not surprising; stupidity and arrogance are in no short supply in the landlord business.

Regarding your security deposit, unless you can find a copy of your lease that shows how much you paid, you’re probably SOL. Landlords don’t have to account for shit in California.

Situations like these underscore the need for security deposit law reform. Many other states require landlords to create a separate, interest bearing trust account for security deposits. As you may know, I believe that hundreds of millions of dollars are simply stolen by landlords each year in California. It’s time for the trust account requirement, among other reforms, to be instituted in California.

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

My Landlord Filed For Bankruptcy, Is My Deposit Gone Forever?

My Landlord Filed For Bankruptcy, Is My Deposit Gone Forever?

My Landlord Filed For Bankruptcy, Is My Deposit Gone Forever?

Ran across an article of yours that is similar to my problem, only real difference is that I know for sure my old landlord, has filed for bankruptcy and the case is active. After he did not return my security deposit after I moved out, I sued him in small claims court and the hearing date has been scheduled.

After the landlord was served, he wrote a letter to the judge asking for the case to be dismissed because he filed for bankruptcy, and therefore isn’t responsible for his debt to me. The hearing is still set, though.

My question to you, is there anything else I can do to get my money back from him? I’ve contacted the trustee only for them to tell me to get some legal council. They shut me down right away and told me to file as a creditor.

Is there a right question to ask them? The thing is, I don’t believe I am actually a creditor because I did not loan money to the landlord. The landlord is not supposed to spend that money unless damage is done by me. No damage was done and he never gave me a letter stating damage was done.

Honestly, I’m not really sure what my rights are, as I’ve never been in a situation like this before.

Can the judge still find my landlord guilty and require him to pay me or will the judge throw the case out? What are my rights? Anything I can do to improve my case? Maybe quote some civil code to the judge?

I’m a little out of my depth here. Bankruptcy law is as complex as San Francisco landlord/tenant law. You might do well to consult a specialist or, at the very least, read a do-it-yourself bankruptcy book like the various offerings at Nolo Press. Please read my disclaimer below and proceed to read this at your own risk.

Bankruptcy law provides an “automatic stay” of any proceedings to create or enforce a judgment after the “debtor” has filed for bankruptcy. I can’t see anything in the long list of exceptions that could exempt your claim, but remember, I’m not a bankruptcy lawyer.

That means that the judge in your small claims case should take the case off calendar until you move the bankruptcy court to lift the stay. If you decide to do that, you really will need to consult a bankruptcy lawyer.

I would still attend the hearing and see what happens. I think it is highly likely that the judge will table the case. If she asks you to present evidence and eventually rules in your favor, I still think the judgment could be voided. You couldn’t collect it anyway because you will still have to deal with the bankruptcy court.

So why bother to go? You may be able to get some information from the judge’s comments. In the unlikely event the judge rules in your favor (in a written judgment you will receive after the hearing), you may be able to use that when you present your case to the bankruptcy court.

Remember that you can ask for two times the security deposit as statutory damages if the landlord, in bad faith, fails refund the security deposit. (California Civil Code §1950.5(l)) If the small claims judge finds that the landlord owes you statutory damages, you could show that to the bankruptcy court to justify claiming three times your deposit. I don’t know if this will work but it’s worth a shot.

The good news is that California Civil Code §1950.5(d) states, “Any security shall be held by the landlord for the tenant who is party to the lease or agreement. The claim of a tenant to the security shall be prior to the claim of any creditor of the landlord.”

That’s about as clear as a law can get. I read it as meaning that you go to the top of list of creditors and that your claim has priority over anybody, including a foreclosing bank. I also think the law implies that your landlord retained your deposit in bad faith.

You are a creditor for purposes of bankruptcy proceedings. As you can see, the law recognizes that you are more than a creditor in that the landlord misappropriated (stole) your money. Regardless of the outcome of the small claims case, you should file as a creditor with the bankruptcy court. You should do that immediately!

Call the Tenant Lawyers now for a free consultation.
(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

Losing Your Security Deposit For Subletting?

Losing Your Security Deposit For Subletting?

Losing Your Security Deposit For Subletting?

I started subletting a room in an apartment in June. The lease was up this October. A week before I was due to move out, the landlord (who I had never met) showed up in my room at 8:30 in the morning, surprised as to who I was. Turns out the girl I was subletting from (who was on the lease) wasn’t allowed to have subletters. But she never told me that!

Now she told me “we” might not get our security deposit back. I feel like I should get my portion back as I was unaware that I wasn’t allowed to sublet. I’d even take her to small claims court. Do I have any legal claim to my security deposit, or is it my fault for assuming she was allowed to sublet if she was posting ads for subletters on craigslist?

The fact that you were, arguably, an illegal subletter has absolutely nothing to do with your security deposit.Your (and your roommate’s) security deposit is just that–a deposit held by the landlord from which to deduct damages in the unit, caused by tenants, that exceed “normal wear and tear.” The landlord can also deduct unpaid rent from the deposit. This is clearly spelled out in California Civil Code §1950.5.

This could be a ploy by the landlord to keep your security deposit. I believe that the illegal retention of security deposits by landlords is simply theft. I also think that landlords could be bilking tenants to the tune of tens of millions of dollars a year in California. So I wouldn’t be surprised if the landlord is trying to use this as an excuse to keep your dough.

Hopefully, you and your roommate have taken some precautions to prove that you deserve the return of your security deposit when and if you have to take the landlord to small claims court. You can find a list of them in my blog post, “Grand Theft Security Deposit.”

If you have to take the landlord to court and he offers up the lame excuse that he kept the money because you were an illegal subletter, boom (the sound of a righteous gavel), case closed. It is more likely that the landlord will say you damaged the premises in ways that exceeded the scope of normal wear and tear. That’s why it is important to have photographs to prove him wrong.

The landlord may provide photographs of his own at the hearing. Study them carefully. Are they closeups that could be from anywhere? Do they show anything other than normal wear and tear? In a trial we had over a similar issue, the landlord submitted a photo (blown up to 11″ x 14″) of a pubic hair on the hardwood floor. I don’t know if the guy expected the case to be tried by Clarence Thomas, but nevertheless, he lost.

You should tell your roommate not to accept the landlord’s rationale for refusing to return the deposit. Show her this article.

Of course, the other possibility in this scenario is that your roommate is lying to you about the security deposit. I hope that isn’t true, but if it is, you can sue her because she, as the master tenant/landlord, retained your portion of the security deposit in bad faith.

It’s time to start getting all of these bozorific statements to you in writing. Read California Civil Code §1950.5 so you can respond, in writing, with ringmasterish authority. Emails will be fine.

Bring all of your evidence to the San Francisco Tenants Union and ask them to help you begin to prepare for your small claims case.Good luck. Only you can stop grand theft security deposit!

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

Does My Landlord Owe Me Interest For My Security Deposit?

Does My Landlord Owe Me Interest For My Security Deposit?

Does My Landlord Owe Me Interest For My Security Deposit?

Someone recently told me that in San Francisco, a landlord is supposed to give tenants a yearly check for the interest accrued on their security deposit. I’ve lived in my (rent controlled) unit for 13-years and have never received that payment. Is it true? (Mind you, my deposit was so small that I think the interest would only amount to about $60.)

Yes, you are correct. It’s amazing to me that more San Francisco tenants don’t realize this. San Francisco Administrative Code 49.2 provides that simple interest shall be paid to tenants who have lived in their units for at least one year. The interest rates for each year are calculated by the San Francisco Rent Board. The interest is payable annually.

But because it’s a law, it’s not actually that simple. There are a couple of details to consider when you are calculating the interest rate for your deposit.

First, you have to subtract your share of the Rent Board fees. Landlords pay annual Rent Board fees to the Rent Board to cover administrative costs. The fees are assessed on a per unit basis. Tenants are responsible for half of the annual fee. Payment is accomplished by deducting the fee from the annual interest owed. If the landlord pays interest annually (many do not) and your security deposit is small, there may be years when you owe him money for part of the fee.

Second, because the statute provides for payment after one year of residency some people get confused about when interest starts to accrue. Occasionally I run into a landlord’s lawyer who doesn’t understand this. They don’t want to count the interest for the first year. I have to remind them that: 1) It’s required in the statute; and 2) It’s one of the few times tenants get to act like Capital One. The interest starts accruing the second the landlord gets his mitts on the dough!

Alright, let’s figure how much interest you’re owed. Here are the instructions from the Rent Board. Let’s take their example, let’s say your lease commenced on November 1, 1996 and you security deposit is $1,000.00. Take a look at the effective rate for 1996-97. It’s 5%. So from 1996 to 1997 you’re owed $50.00. Continue adding it up from year to year until you get to November 1, 2001. Notice the nasty glitch at August 4, 2002 with 3.7% until February 28, 2003. You will have to apply three different interest rates to get back on track with a November 1 anniversary date.

First you have to figure the daily rate from November 1, 2001 though August 3, 2002. That’s 276 days at 5% (276/365 X .05 X $1000.00 = $37.81).

Second you will have to figure the daily rate from August 4, 2002 until February 28, 2003. That’s 208 days at 3.7%. (209/365 X .037 X $1000.00 = $21.19).

Third, you have to figure the daily rate from March 1, 2003 to October 31, 2003. That’s 245 days (245/365 X .012 X $1000.00 = $8.05).

Your total for years 2001-02 and 2002-03 is $67.05. On November 1, 2003 you’ll use the rate 1.2%. Then you’re back on track.

After you have added up all the interest (should be $449.05), the last thing you have to do is subtract $165.00 (the allowable banked Rent Board fees from 1999.)

Given a November 1, 1996 lease commencement date and a $1000.00 security deposit, on November 1, 2009 your landlord owed you $284.05. I’m not going to calculate the 2009-10 partial interest owed.

What a pain…but often very satisfying given that many security deposits are much higher that $1000.00. If your security deposit is so small that you’ll accrue less than the combined Rent Board fees, don’t bother.

Yo, SF Appeal reading techies. There has got to be a way to develop an automatic calculator for this.

Update: The folks at Relisto.com developed a very good security deposit interest calculator. See it on our Tenant Resources page.

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

Hey, Landlord, Show Me Your Credit Report

Hey, Landlord, Show Me Your Credit Report

Hey, Landlord, Show Me Your Credit Report

I can vividly recall an afternoon in the late 1980s when I was apartment hunting. I went to an open house for a fairly nice one-bedroom in the Inner Richmond, large with a garage, $750 per month (not cheap then). I particularly liked the big working fireplace.  There were a few other people looking at the place, so I was ready. I told the landlord I’d like to fill out an application.

I was just about to dig the wad of C-notes out of my wallet to seal the deal. In those days showing up with enough cash for first, last and deposit usually got you to the head of the line.  I was shocked when the guy asked me for thirty bucks so he could run a credit report. “Are you fucking nuts?” I asked. “Do you actually expect me to pay you to get on your fucking list?” The other folks were getting nervous. When he replied that he did, I walked out and without much trouble found another place, just as nice. Those days are long gone.

Last week, my column, Tenant Troubles in the SF Appeal was entitled, “My Landlord Says He’s Bankrupt, So How Do I Get My Deposit Back?” I couldn’t contain my contempt for the landlord because he seemed to be joyously bankrupt, taunting the tenant, “Neener, neener, neener, you can’t get your security deposit!” It’s the taunt of a greedy landlord, no longer able to play with monopoly money and on his way down from Boardwalk to Mediterranean Avenue.

Since the mortgage meltdown, I hear from more and more tenants who find that their buildings are in foreclosure or close to foreclosure. The landlords are scrambling to squeeze every last dime before the buildings slip from their hands. They continue to collect rent, even after the building is owned by the bank. They refuse to refund security deposits. Even the banks claim (illegally) that they do not have to refund security deposits. Last week I pointed out that a subsequent owner is usually on the hook for security deposits. I have already proposed reforms to current California law to penalize owners who arbitrarily refuse to refund them.

There is another troubling and increasingly common scenariotenants who have recently rented from a landlord only to find that he’s in foreclosure. That got me thinking.

You show me your credit report and I’ll show you mine.

California Civil Code § 1950.6 specifically allows landlords to check tenants’ credit information and references. It also allows them to charge a tenant up to $30 with CPI adjustments from 1998. I think the typical charges are about $35 these days. Of course the rationale for landlords is that they want to be sure that tenants can and will pay the rent.

I never understood the logic because I know that in real life most tenants understand that you pay your rent before you pay the Macy’s bill. However, there are a growing number of landlords who collect rent and don’t use it to pay the mortgage! The law has no provision allowing tenants to find out if the landlord is a deadbeat!

Given the current financial crisis, it’s time to revise Civil Code § 1950.6 to allow tenants to get landlords’ credit reports. The law should require reciprocity. In other words, a landlord should not be able to get a tenant’s credit report unless he provides one for himself.

These days, tenants need to know if the landlord is qualified to rent his overpriced dump to them.

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