Tag Archives: Los Angeles Housing Department

Landlord & Tenant Law

Q & A Regarding Ellis Act Evictions

89.3 KPCC recently posted a questions and answer article regarding tenant’s rights under the Ellis Act. The article is informative for both landlords and tenants because it outlines what occurs during an eviction under the Ellis Act in the City of Los Angeles. The article is relevant for owners and tenants in units subject to the Los Angeles Rent Stabilization.

I generally find that tenants have few rights to stay or “fight” the eviction under the Ellis Act; however, they would be entitled to certain relocation benefits and time frames to move. These issues are important as evictions under the Ellis Act are becoming more prevalent as landlords purchase properties to develop into condominiums, single family homes, or other non-rental uses.

The KPCC article is Renter FAQ: What to do if you get an eviction notice under the Ellis Act. Please contact Attorney Anthony Marinaccio at 818-839-5220 for more information.

Landlord & Tenant Law

Tenants in Single Family Homes in Los Angeles

Steve Lopez from the L.A. Times had recently wrote about a family in Echo Park being displaced as a result of a new development being built on their property. The family who had lived there for 31 years is being “asked” to leave. I quoted “asked” because if they are not out by a certain date, the landlord can start an unlawful detainer, or eviction, against them. The article is “After 31 Years in Echo Park, victims of displacement by gentrification.”

The Los Angeles Rent Stabilization Ordinance, the formal name of Los Angeles’ rent control ordinance, is aimed to protect renters living in rent-controlled apartments. However, the issue with the Echo Park family in the article is that the Los Angeles Housing and Community Investment Department has determined that the family lived in a single family home. Single family homes do not fall within the protections of the Los Angeles Rent Stabilization Ordinance. This means that tenants in a single family home in Los Angeles can lawfully receive a 30 or 60 Day Notice to Quit and they can have their raised at any time (within California law).

The landlord for the property made an offer for the family to move out and provided $12,500 in “relocation.” However, a tenant in a single family home is not entitled to any relocation under the Los Angeles Rent Stabilization Ordinance. Often times developers and landlords offer tenants in single family homes to pay some “relocation” in order to avoid the eviction process; however, they are not required to pay it.

For both landlords and tenants, it is always important to know whether your property in Los Angeles is rent controlled or not. A call to the Los Angeles Housing Department may be able to answer that question quickly.

Landlord & Tenant Law

What Los Angeles Rent Control Does and Does Not Do

I get many questions about the Los Angeles Rent Stabilization Ordinance from landlords and tenants who are often confused by what exactly the rent control ordinance controls and what it does not address.

The Los Angeles Housing and Community Development Department has a Bulletin on what the Department does and does not do for both landlords and tenants that I think is informative.

Basically, the Los Angeles’ rent control applies to all units built before 1978 in the City of Los Angeles. It is important to note that rent control does not apply to cities and other areas outside of the City of Los Angeles. Further, it does not apply to single family homes within the City of Los Angeles. Thus, a renter in a single family home can be served a 30 or 60 Day Notice to Quit while a renter in a multifamily apartment building in Los Angeles that was built before 1978 cannot be served a 30 or 60 Day Notice to Quit for no reason.

Los Angeles’ rent control regulates rents once a tenant moves in. For example, this year a landlord can only raise a tenant’s rent 3% once in the past twelve months. A landlord can also raise the rent an additional 1% for gas and 1% for electricity if the landlord pays for these utilities. A landlord can also raise a security deposit annually by the same annual percentage at the same time a landlord raises the rent.

Under Los Angeles’ rent control, a landlord cannot evict a tenant without cause. A landlord must comply with the legal reasons for an eviction under Los Angeles’ rent control.

If you have questions about Los Angeles’ rent control, please contact Anthony at 818-839-5220.

Landlord & Tenant Law

How Much Relocation Assistance is Required under the Los Angeles Rent Stabilization Ordinance?

Under the Los Angeles Rent Stabilization Ordinance, a landlord is required to pay relocation assistance to each unit prior to evicting a tenant for certain reasons. Los Angeles landlords are required to pay relocation assistance when they are evicting a tenant for the following most relevant reasons:

  1. Eviction for occupancy of the unit by landlord, landlord’s spouse, grandchild, child, parents, grandparents, or resident manager.
  2. Eviction under the Ellis Act.
  3. Eviction due to primary renovation of the unit.
  4. Eviction pursuant to a government order’s Notice to Vacate.

A tenant can either be an “eligible tenant” or “qualified tenant.” A qualified tenant is one that is over age 62, is handicapped or disabled, or who has minor dependent children. An eligible tenant is everyone else.

The next question to ask is how long the tenant has lived there. If a tenant has lived in a unit for more than three years, the tenant would entitled to greater relocation assistance.

The following chart is relevant until June 30, 2015:

Tenants Tenants with Less Than Three Years Tenants with More Than Three Years Income Below 80% of Area Median Income Tenants Renting in Mom & Pop Properties
Eligible Tenant $7,700 $10,200 $10,200 $7,450
Qualified Tenant $16,350 $19,300 $19,300 $15,000

Relocation assistance under the Los Angeles Rent Stabilization Ordinance would be part of an eviction and required the Los Angeles Housing Department to be involved. If you have any questions regarding the process, please contact Attorney Anthony Marinaccio at 818-839-5220 to set up a consultation.

Landlord & Tenant Law

What Constitutes a Qualified Tenant under the LARSO

Recently, the California Courts of Appeal reviewed a case that looked into who can be a qualified tenant under the Los Angeles Rent Stabilization Ordinance. City of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (Wade) offers an interesting look at who may be considered disabled for purposes of determining a “qualified tenant.”

The definition of who is a “qualified tenant” is an important distinction under Los Angeles’ rent control ordinance because a qualified tenant is entitled to a higher relocation amount than an “eligible tenant.” A qualified tenant includes a tenant who is “disabled.”

Here, the Tenant had rented an unpermitted room as an apartment unit from the Landlord. In 2012, the City of Los Angeles issued a Substandard Order requiring the Landlord to evict the Tenant. The Landlord filed a Declaration of Intent to Evict in Order to Comply with the City’s Order. In response, the City’s relocation services provider determined that the Tenant was disabled and was considered a “qualified tenant” entitled to $18,300 to relocate. The Landlord appealed the decision, and the City found that the Tenant was not a “qualified tenant” and only entitled to $9,650 in relocation.

The Tenant argued that he had an “orthopedic disability impairing personal mobility.” The City had found that the Tenant was working part time as an actor and did not require special care or facilities in his home. The Tenant filed a writ, and at trial, the Court found that the tenant was a “qualified tenant.”

The LARSO defines a “qualified tenant” as a person who is handicapped as defined in Section 50072 of the California Health & Safety Code or disabled as defined by Title 42 of the United States Code Section 423.

Health & Safety Code Section 50072 states: “Handicapped means a family in which the head of the household is suffering from an orthopedic disability impairing personal mobility or a physical disability affecting his or her ability to obtain employment or a single person with such a physical disability, where the family or person requires special care or facilities in the home.”

Here, on appeal, the Court found that although the Tenant may have suffered a “disability,” because he was single and not a head of household, the disability required “special care or facilities in the home.” The Court found that the tenant did not require special care or facilities in his home. In reviewing Section 50072, the Court found that there are two categories: a head of household and a single person.

In sum, the Court of Appeals found that the Tenant was not eligible to be a “qualified tenant.”

This case is important for Los Angeles landlords who are required under the LARSO to pay relocation. If you have questions regarding what constitutes a “qualified tenant” or “eligible tenant,” please contact Anthony at 818-839-5220.

 

Landlord & Tenant Law, Real Estate

Is a new condo conversion unit still regulated by the Los Angeles Rent Stabilization Ordinance?

In an interesting but limited decision, the California Court of Appeals was required to review whether an apartment building that was converted to condominiums in 2009 but still left the existing tenants in the units still fell within the Los Angeles Rent Stabilization Ordinance (“LARSO”). The Court found that even if a new certificate of occupancy was issued in 2009, the unit still fell within the LARSO because the existing tenants lived in the unit prior to the conversion. Therefore, rent controls still existed.

The decision in Burien, LLC v. Wiley provides some insight into how condominium conversions can still fall within the regulations of rent control.

Here, the landlord had purchased a building that was built in 1972. Because it was built in 1972, the LARSO applied. The LARSO does not apply to units that have a certificate of occupancy issued after 1978. In 2009, the apartment building was converted to condominiums. In 2011, the Landlord served a 60 Day Notice to a tenant living in the newly converted condominiums raising the rent from $1,401 to $3,000 per month. The Los Angeles Housing Department became involved eventually referring the matter to the City Attorney.

Because the units were a “condo conversion,” the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act also applied. The Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act exempts converted condominium units from local rent control laws if the certificate of occupancy is issued February 1, 1995. However, Civil Code Section 1954.52 provides some exceptions to this exemption from rent control laws.

The Court found that the State Legislature intended to prevent landlords from converting an apartment building to condos but never selling the units to buyers. This would allow a landlord to treat the building the same as an apartment building although new certificates of occupancy are issued.

Here, although there was a new certificate of occupancy issued in 2009, the original certificate of occupancy was issued in 1972. There was no change of use because the units were always used for residential purposes. Therefore, the Court found that the newly converted condo units were still within the realm of the LARSO.

The LARSO does not just apply to apartment units but can also apply to condominium units within the City of Los Angeles. Condos are still subject to eviction controls and rent registration. Further, tenants living in a unit prior to 1996 would still have rent controls as well. This is an important part of the LARSO if you own condo units in Los Angeles.

It is important to note that there are many exceptions within the LARSO and the Costa-Hawkins Act that may apply to new construction, so this ruling may be limited to a specific fact pattern that was found in Burien, LLC v. Wiley. Please contact Attorney Anthony Marinaccio at 818-839-5220 for more information.

Landlord & Tenant Law

Renting Residential Units in a Commercial Space

A recent news article highlighted what could happen when a landlord rents a unit for residential use in a commercial structure. A landlord in South Los Angeles was required to pay $141,000 to nearly a dozen tenants who were living in an old medical center. The landlord was renting examination rooms as living units, some of them without windows. Tenants were required to move after the City of Los Angeles Fire Department issued a notice requiring that they had to leave citing unsafe conditions.

Los Angeles landlords should be wary to rent out units that are not lawful. As a result of the tenants being required to move out, they were entitled to relocation fees.

The ABC news report can be found here.

Landlord & Tenant Law

Consequence of Not Serving Rental Registration Certificate to Tenants in Los Angeles

A recent case highlighted an often overlooked requirement under the Los Angeles Rent Stabilization Ordinance (Los Angeles’ rent control). Under the Los Angeles Rent Stabilization Ordinance, a landlord is required to serve every tenant a copy of the landlord’s rent registration statement or renewal statement from the Los Angeles Housing and Community Investment Department. However, in Lyles v. Sangadeo-Patel, the Court found failure to serve the rent registration certificate did not allow a tenant to receive restitution for prior rent that was paid. The only defense to not serving a statement would be for the tenant to refuse to pay rent.

However, it is important to note that even if a tenant withholds rent as a result of a landlord failing to serve a tenant a copy of the rent registration statement, a landlord must simply serve the notice and the tenant is required to pay rent under the Los Angeles Rent Stabilization Ordinance. This is an important requirement that landlords must perform prior to filing an unlawful detainer against a tenant in a rent control unit.

Plaintiff relied heavily on a previous case, Carter v. Cohen, that held a tenant subject to illegal rent increases and living in a unit without a certificate of occupancy would be entitled to all rent paid to the landlord and treble damages. Here, the rental unit had a certificate of occupancy and was “legal;” however, the only issue was whether or not failure to serve a rent registration statement entitled a tenant to all back rent paid to a landlord. The Court found that such a result would “be an absurd and unreasonable consequence.”

Although this case provides some relief to Los Angeles landlords who do not serve an annual rent registration certificate, a landlord should still do so because failing to do so provides a valid defense to any eviction for non-payment of rent.

Landlord & Tenant Law

Resident Managers and Rent Increases under Los Angeles Rent Stabilization

A recent California decision highlighted the issues that emerge when a landlord releases a resident manager from employment but the resident manager continues to the live on the property. In particular, how the Los Angeles Rent Stabilization Ordinance provides guidance on this situation is important for Los Angeles landlords subject to rent control to understand. 1300 N.  Curson Investors, LLC v. Drumea provides some guidance on this issue that is relevant to Los Angeles landlords, property managers, and resident managers.

Landlord, 1300 N. Curson Investors, LLC (“Landlord”) sued its former resident manager, Cecilia Drumea (“Resident Manager”), and her mother (collectively “Tenants”) seeking declaratory relief, ejectment, and damages. On July 1, 2011, the Landlord had purchased an apartment building in the City of Los Angeles that was subject to the Los Angeles Rent Stabilization. The day prior to the close of escrow, the former owner removed Resident Manager from her duties as the resident manager. The Resident Manager had moved into the building December 13, 1992. Her written lease agreement dated from 1992 indicated her rent was $850/month. In December 1993, she became the resident manager, and was not required to pay her rent. In compensation for her services, she lived rent free.

Landlord, after purchasing the building, served Tenants with a Notice of Rent Increase, increasing the rent to $1,552.03 commencing March 1, 2012. Landlord claims it is entitled to all the rent increases from 1993 to 2012 allowed under the Los Angeles Rent Stabilization Ordinance. In response, tenants still only paid $850/month, but each payment was rejected by the Landlord. Tenants also filed a complaint with the Los Angeles Housing Department.

Landlord filed a lawsuit seeking adjudication on whether or not it could increase Tenants rent to $1,552.03. The trial court found that it could not, and Landlord appealed.

On appeal, the Court found that the Landlord could increase the rent for all the years a tenant also worked as the resident manager. If a tenant becomes a resident manager and is then relieved of her duties, a landlord has a right to increase the tenant’s rent by each annual adjustment while the tenant was acting as resident manager. However, a landlord cannot simply charge market rent, so in the Court’s eyes, the tenant is still protected. The Resident Manager argued that she was never served with the annual registration statement and notices of rent increases during the time she also worked as the resident manager. The Court did not agree that this was required, and found it would be impractical for a landlord to do so.

It is important to note that there is a major difference if a resident manager pays a partial rent payment. An annual rent increase notice and the rental registration certificate must be served, and the rent can only be raised on the partial amount actually paid. The situation would also have been different if the tenant had moved in as the resident manager, and not originally as a tenant who was hired as the resident manager.

A tenant who is also a resident manager has many of the same rights under the Los Angeles Stabilization Ordinance that all tenants have; however, this is a major difference. Generally, landlords cannot “bank” annual increases, so it is a “use it or lose it” policy. If a landlord does not increase the rent during the year, he loses the annual adjustment allowed under the Los Angeles Rent Stabilization Ordinance.

The legal issues between landlords, property managers, and resident managers can be tricky because they involve both landlord-tenant and employment law. It is important to the note the differences how the Los Angeles Rent Stabilization Ordinance treats resident managers. The Los Angeles Housing Department provides a handout highlighting some the information landlords should know.