In Von Nothdurft v. Steck, (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 524, the manager challenged the written management agreement with the landlord as being “unconscionable” or “an adhesion contract” so void. The Court of Appeal said the agreement was fine and confirmed it was freely entered into. The Court told the manager/tenant she could not have it both ways. Further, managers cannot claim to be “on call”, they are only paid for the time actually working, even if the manager is waiting for a tenant or worker to come to the property.
Continue Reading Landlord can deduct a portion of the value of rental unit to resident manager as part of wages due
Landlord cannot increase rent of rent controlled apartment to market level after parent vacates leaving adult child in possession
T & A Drolapas and Sons LP v SAN FRANCISCO RESIDENTIAL RENT STABILIZATION AND ARBITRATION BOARD et al., and GERALD BORJAS (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 646) –> Costa Hawkins case against landlord
Landlord cannot increase rent after parent (named tenant) vacates leaving adult child occupant in apartment
Facts: The Laras moved into a nine-unit building in San Francisco in 1995. At that time, Borjas, their eldest child was six years old. In 2010, the Laras moved into a home in Daly City but Borjas remained. The Laras continued to make the rent payments on the San Francisco apartment. In 2011 the landlord served a notice increasing rent from about $1,171 per month to $2,000 a month. Borjas contested the increase at the Rent Board. The Board denied the rent increase. Landlord appealed to Superior Court and the court similarly denied the rent increase. Landlord appealed.
Continue Reading Landlord cannot increase rent of rent controlled apartment to market level after parent vacates leaving adult child in possession
Not having Renter’s insurance is not a material breach to support an Unlawful Detainer
Boston LLC v. Juarez 245 Cal. App. 4th 75 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. 2016)
NIVO 1 LLC v. Antunez 217 Cal. App. 4th Supp. 1 (Cal. Super. Ct. 2013)
What is material, and the purpose behind the lease term is important when a forfeiture is being sought. For example, renter’s insurance, and other lease terms that “benefit the tenant, not landlord” cannot be the basis for a material breach to support an eviction.
Several years ago, a well known Los Angeles UD Mill marketed that he had a “secret way to evict a rent control tenant”. The “secret” was to serve a notice to unilaterally change the terms of tenancy to remove something supposedly “not material” but could later be used to evict a tenant or upset the tenant to leave. Landlords then tried removing various items they argued were “not a reduction in rental services” to upset rent control, but something that was material enough to support an eviction. These two cases are the result of this “secret” along with a change to the Los Angeles Rent Stabilization Ordinance. See L.A. Mun. Code, § 151.09.A.2(c). It is ironic that in the NIVO case, the landlord served a notice of change of terms of tenancy “to render all breaches material”. The Notice stated: “3. Renter agrees that Renter’s performance of and compliance with each of the terms of the rental agreement constitute a condition on Renter’s right to occupy the premises. Any failure of compliance or performance by Renter shall allow Owner to declare a forfeiture of this agreement and terminate Renter’s right to possession. Any breach of the contract is a material breach.” (Italics added.)” Both Courts did an excellent analysis of the material vs. non material breach.
Continue Reading Not having Renter’s insurance is not a material breach to support an Unlawful Detainer