Legal Corner Q & A
by Various Authors
Q. With the passage of Proposition H, what must an owner of San Francisco rent-controlled property know?
A. Proposition H revised portions of the San Francisco Rent Ordinance relating to evictions and relocation payment obligations due for displaced tenants. The particular types of terminations affected are typically described as “no-fault” evictions. For the purposes of Prop. H, these include: owner move-in evictions, relative move-in evictions, capital improvement evictions, unwarranted in-law evictions and substantial rehabilitation evictions. For these types of evictions, Prop. H has enlarged the category of“eligible tenants” entitled to relocation payments, as well as substantially increased the amounts due to them.
The threshold issue is to assess which occupants are eligible tenants; only eligible tenants are entitled to relocation payments. Prop. H provides that, regardless of age, an eligible tenant is an "authorized occupant” who has resided in the rental unit for 12 or more months. Significantly, Prop. H requires payments to minor children as well as adult tenants. Thus, prior to serving notice to initiate any of the above types of evictions, a landlord must have clarity as to who is occupying the rental premises and whether or not they fall within the Prop. H definition of an “eligible tenant.”
Once you have determined how many of your rental unit’s occupants satisfy the definition of “eligible tenant,” a landlord must provide those persons with relocation payments as follows: $4,500 per eligible tenant, with $2,250 paid at the time of service of the notice of termination of tenancy, and $2,250 paid when the unit is vacated.
Although the $4,500 payment obligation is due to each eligible tenant,
the maximum payment obligation per household, with the exceptions noted below, may not exceed $13,500. For example, if there are five eligible tenants occupying the rental unit, the relocation payment due will be $13,500, and not $22,500.
However, some households will be entitled to additional $3,000 payments. Upon service of the termination notice, a landlord must inform the eligible tenants that they may be entitled to more money as follows: $3,000 per each eligible tenant who is 60 years of age or older, or disabled. The same amount is due to each household with at least one eligible tenant and at least one minor child. The tenants are informed that they may claim said funds by written notification to the landlord of their entitlement for the extra relocation funds. Upon receipt of that notification, a landlord must, within 15 days, pay one-half ($1,500) of this supplemental relocation money. Within 30 days of receipt of a claim for supplemental funds, the landlord must file written notice of the claim with the San Francisco Rent Board along with a statement as to whether or not the landlord disputes the tenant’s claim for supplemental relocation funds. The balance of $1,500 is to be paid upon that eligible tenant vacating the rental unit (even though the balance of the initial $4,500 is not due and payable until the rental unit is vacated by all tenants).
One must also be aware that these relocation amounts are not fixed, but will increase annually—much like permitted rent increases—based upon the Consumer Price Index. Every year, a new and higher relocation payment will be due to those on the receiving end of a “no fault” eviction notice.
Property owners must continue to be diligent in keeping abreast of the changes to landlord-tenant laws or face the possibility of additional legal/financial liability.
–Daniel Bornstein
Q. I just got a 30-day notice that my tenants intend to vacate their unit via an unsigned email. Is this a valid form of notice? Do I have to accept it?
A. An unsigned email is not a valid method to terminate a tenancy agreement and you do not have to accept it. California Civil Code Section 1946 specifies that either party may terminate a month-to-month tenancy by providing at least 30 days’ written notice by certified or registered mail addressed to the other party. In addition, a lessee may give notice by sending a copy by certified or registered mail to the agent of the lessor, to whom the lessee paid rent for the preceding month, or by delivering a copy to the agent personally.
The law permits the parties to agree in writing for a shorter notice period, as few as seven days, if the agreement is terminated at the end of the initial term. Check your rental agreement to see if it includes such a provision.
I suggest that you write back to the tenant and insist that a signed written notice be delivered or mailed to you. My practice is to serve notices by certified mail, with another copy by first-class mail, which is usually delivered to the recipient faster than certified mail.
Keep in mind that after January 1, 2007, landlords will be required to give at least 60 days’ notice in most cases, because Civil Code Section 1946.1 has been re-enacted.
Also, keep in mind that if the unit is subject to eviction protections under the San Francisco Rent Ordinance, and if the tenant changes her or his mind, the tenant’s notice of termination is not enforceable in an unlawful detainer with an eviction. However, you may have a valid claim to recover any expenses incurred in attempting to rent the unit. If you have signed a new lease with a new tenant based upon the old tenant’s intent to vacate, and the old tenant does not move out, then the would-be new tenant who relied in good faith on the notice of termination of tenancy would also have a claim for damages.
–Michael C. Hall
Q. With garbage rates going up, I decided to change from twice-a-week pickup to once-a-week pickup on my 12-unit building. Is this considered a reduction of services?
A. Unfortunately, there is no black-and-white answer to this question; there is the reasonable answer and there is the reality-of-living-in-San Francisco answer, and the two are not necessarily the same.
The San Francisco Rent Ordinance specifically includes “refuse removal” in its definition of “housing services,” and needless to say, if a landlord were to stop paying for garbage pickup altogether, that would definitely be considered a reduction of housing services.
The change contemplated here, however, only affects the frequency by which garbage is collected. Theoretically, in order for a tenant to successfully argue that the twice a week to once a week garbage removal change constitutes a reduction in housing services, the tenant would have to demonstrate that the tenant rented the unit in reliance on the promise of twice a week garbage collection, or has come to rely on said service or, at a minimum, that the change from twice a week to once a week garbage collection has some negative effect on the tenancy. It is highly unlikely that the rental agreement contains a provision that garbage be collected twice a week. The tenant would therefore have to show that the difference between once a week and twice a week garbage collection has some detrimental effect on the tenancy.
If the change results in the garbage containers overflowing in between pickups and the tenants have to face exposed garbage with a possible accompanying odor, the tenant would have a strong argument that the twice a week to once a week pickup constitutes a reduction in housing services. However, as long as once a week garbage pickup adequately keeps the garbage cans/containers from overflowing (maybe by adding the number of garbage containers or increasing their size), one is hard pressed to think of a reason why the frequency of garbage collection would have any impact on the tenants’ tenancies. If anything, it would result in one less morning per week that the tenants would be woken up by an often-noisy early morning pickup.
Thus, the reasonable answer is that as long as the change does not result in overflowing garbage containers, or otherwise negatively impact the tenancies, the frequency of garbage pickup is not in and of itself a housing service. Whether this would be the ruling of the San Francisco Rent Board in a petition for reduction in services (or these days possibly a petition for wrongful eviction) is, however, by no means a given.
–Fredrik Emilson
Q. I have a longtime tenant who had a stroke a few years ago, which has made both written and spoken communications with him increasingly difficult. I am concerned that if he called me during an emergency, I would not be able to respond appropriately because I cannot understand him. What should I do?
A.Of course, you have no legal responsibility to take any particular steps without a request from the tenant, but your concern is commendable, and your foresight may well prevent a serious problem at a later time.
The tenant may have medical insurance that pays for in-home support services. Have the tenant check on this. In addition, tell the tenant your concerns, and ask for the name of his doctor so you can talk with the doctor (only with the tenant’s permission, of course) and convey your concerns about communication with the tenant in case of an emergency. In the process, you may find out how critical the tenant’s condition is, and whether he should really be living alone. The doctor can tell you if a social worker has been assigned to the tenant, and if the tenant has been given in-home services. Also, the tenant should be told to, and shown how to, dial 9-1-1; the people who answer the phones are trained to deal with persons with speech impediments. The 9-1-1 operators can also trace the phone number back to an address if it’s a true emergency and they can’t understand the tenant.
Of course, getting the name of a family member to contact in case of an emergency is also a good idea. If you have a resident manager, alert the resident manager to the needs of the tenant and make sure that the tenant calls the resident manager before calling you (and after calling 9-1-1 if it’s a true emergency) if he is reporting a building emergency, such as a broken pipe. If no resident manager is available, maybe there’s a neighboring tenant who is willing to be contacted by the tenant if a problem arises. You might be able to match them up with one another.
Finally, a good source of information is the San Francisco Department of Aging & Adult Services at 415-355-3555. If you need further information or guidance, I would suggest contacting them.
–Saul M. Ferster
The opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the viewpoint of SFAA or SF Apartment Magazine. The information contained in this article is general in nature. Consult the advice of an attorney for any specific problem.Daniel Bornstein can be reached at 415-409-7611. Michael C. Hall can be reached at 415-512-9865. Fredrik Emilson is a principal with Cornerstone Law Group and can be reached at 415-357-2099. Saul M. Ferster can be reached at 415-863-2678. Copyright © 2007 by SF Apartment Magazine. All rights reserved.