legal challenges

Below is a list and description of each of the legal challenges with which SFAA has been involved. SFAA and the industry have prevailed in each case that has been taken to the court.

1. Marino v. Hernandez: In this case the plaintiff, A. Paul Marino, filed a complaint for unlawful detainer against the defendant, Ernest Hernandez. Marino's action for unlawful detainer against Hernandez stemmed from Hernandez's violation of a covenant prohibiting subleasing without written consent from the owner.

Hernandez contended that the no-sublease covenant originated when Marino instituted House Rules during Hernandez' month-to month tenancy in June 2009. Marino maintained that the no-sublease covenant existed in the oral lease that Hernandez had with the previous landlord, and that the clause was in effect before he purchased the building.

Marino further argued that violation of the no-sublease covenant was a ground for eviction under the SF Rent Ordinance and the Civil Code. Hernandez argued that the no-sublease covenant cannot be the bases of eviction because the covenant came from House Rules imposed by Marino during the tenancy.

Marino maintained that a tenant in a month-to-month tenancy is impliedly agreeing to the landlord's change in lease terms when the tenant continues to stay and pay rent, if the change in terms is properly enacted pursuant to Civil Code section 827. The trial court agreed with Marino, stating that the tenant's consent to new covenants "is implied by his continued residence."

This decision is very important in that it gives owners the ability to serve and enforce reasonable House Rules for month-to-month tenancies without a written lease agreement, or with an outdated lease agreement absent House Rules. Should the tenant consent to the House Rules explicitly or impliedly, violation of the House Rules would be considered grounds for a just cause eviction.

Paul Marino vs. Ernest R. Hernandez...In this case the tenant argued that the no-sublease covenant cannot be the basis of eviction under the Rent Ordinance because the covenant emanates from House rules unilaterally imposed by the landlord. This decision now makes it possible for landlords to serve and enforce House Rules whenever there is no written rental agreement in existence, and/or to create House Rules for tenancies with leases lacking basic rules.

The new House Rules become effective after 30 days and when the tenant pays his next month's rent in a month to month tenancy.

Thanks to all your contributions to the SFAA legal fund we were able to assist in this outcome in favor of landlords!

2. Larson v. CCSF, Court of Appeal Case No. A125887: In this case, the industry is suing the City over passage of Prop M, the “anti-harassment” law recently passed by the voters. This law seeks to prohibit many aspects of everyday landlord-tenant interaction and communication, and unlawfully grants authority to the Rent Board to award compensatory and punitive damages. This case should be set for oral argument sometime in the Spring of 2010.

3. Quigg v. CCSF, Superior Court Case No. 3169281, which enjoined Prop H on August 10, 2001, imposed a complete moratorium on the processing of all capital improvement work (except seismic), because the Proposition failed to provide a constitutionally required mechanism for increasing rents based on capital improvements. The parties thereafter settled the case amending the Rent Ordinance to allow partial recapture of capital improvement expenses.

4. Bullard v. SF Rent Board (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 488: Case which struck down a portion of Prop G requiring owners doing an OMI to offer non-comparable units to displaced tenants at rent controlled pricing (same rent as tenant was paying in the OMI unit, with limited upward/downward adjustments based upon changes in amenities). The Court of Appeal found that this part of Prop G violated Costa Hawkins.

5. Baba v. CCSF (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 504: Case which struck down parts of the Daly Amendments. The Court of Appeal rejected the requirement that settlements between landlords and tenants must be court supervised, and that a tenant must be represented by counsel. In addition, this case found Daly’s attempt to criminalize certain landlord speech to tenants as unconstitutional.

6. Johnson v. CCSF (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 7: Deletes requirement that an OMI notice must state the amount of relocation payment the owner believes to be due to the tenant.

7. Cwynar v. CCSF (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 637: Overturned demurrer without leave to amend on ground that certain parts of Prop G (1 OMI per building, no relative move-in unless the owner also lives in the building, and the moratorium on elderly/disabled evictions) may constitute a taking of private property by the government without compensation. Due to the long lapse in time between the filing of the case and the Court of Appeals decision, the plaintiffs did not pursue the case. However, many in our industry use this decision successfully to challenge tenants seeking to defeat OMIs that do not comport with the law as currently written.

8. Reidy v. CCSF (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 580: Successful suit against the City to require the withdrawal of NOV order of abatement notices recorded against 3 hotels that had been Ellis Acted. The NOVs were pursued because of a failure to comply with the Sprinkler Ordinance. The Court of Appeal held that such actions by the Building Department violated the Ellis Act.

9. Golden Gateway Center v. Rent Board (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 1204: This case exposed illegitimate Rent Board policies of granting reduction of rent for decreases in housing services when necessary repairs and improvement work were required to be made.

10. Garber v. Levit (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th Supp. 1: In this case, a local landlord successfully challenged the City’s illegal attempt to raise the ownership requirement to do an owner move-in eviction from 25% to 50%, even though a voter approved measure set it at 25% several years earlier.

11. Drouet v. Superior Court (2001) 86 Call app 4th 3981: This California Supreme Court case states that there is really no substantive defense to an Ellis Act eviction. The tenant may argue that a defect exists with the notice, and may also argue that the landlord really does not intend to go out of the rental housing business, but absent proof of these defenses, an owner is entitled to judgment for possession. Any retaliation claim must be asserted outside of the eviction context. Retaliatory eviction cannot be used as a defense in an eviction under the state Ellis Act

12. Tom v. CCSF (2004) 120 Cal. App 4th 672: Affirmed decision of the trial court that a amendments to the Rent Ordinance preventing tenant-in-common owners from occupying their property violated the constitutional rights of privacy and equal protection guaranteed by the California Constitution, and was preempted by the state Ellis Act.

13. Kathleen O'Hara v. CCSF (SF Superior Court No. 992704): In 1997, the Board of Supervisors adopted a moratorium on owner move in evictions involving the eviction of elderly and disabled tenants. Ord No. 482-97. Four individuals, represented by Wiegel & Fried, successfully challenged the moratorium. Judge Raymond D. Williamson, Jr. found the moratorium unconstitutional on its face and that it deprives property owners of their right to enjoy their own property without due process.