Tag Archives: Los Angeles Rent Stabilization Ordinance

Landlord & Tenant Law

Ellis Act Evictions in Beverly Grove

NBC recently featured a story about 18 families being evicted under the Ellis Act from their apartments in order for the owner to build an eleven town homes. The story is Beverly Grove Residents Face Eviction.

The Ellis Act is increasingly being used in Los Angeles to make way for new developments. The Ellis Act is used by developers and landlords to demolish existing apartment units in order to develop new condominiums or homes. Under the Los Angeles Rent Stabilization Ordinance, a tenant is allowed to receive relocation assistance after receiving a 90 Day Notice to Quit.

If a tenant is not out after 90 days, a landlord is within his rights to file an unlawful detainer and evict the tenant. However, disabled persons and the elderly are allowed to extend their tenancies for up to one year as long as they provide notice of the extension under the Los Angeles Rent Stabilization and continue to pay rent.

If you have questions regarding the Ellis Act, please contact Attorney Anthony Marinaccio at 818-839-5220.

Landlord & Tenant Law

Section 8 Tenancies in Non-Rent Control Apartment Units

LAist recently posted an article regarding a landlord in in the Mid-City area of Los Angeles evicting all Section 8 tenants in an apartment building. Under Section 8 guidelines, a landlord is only required to serve a tenant with a 90 Day Notice to Quit stating that the landlord does not want to work with the Section 8 program.

A landlord in Los Angeles is allowed to terminate Section 8 tenancies when the apartment building is not subject to the Los Angeles Rent Stabilization Ordinance. As a tenant in a non-rent control building, there are much fewer protections against evictions. The Section 8 tenants being evicted under this situation would not be entitled to relocation fees under the Los Angeles Rent Stabilization Ordinance.

Generally, an apartment building is not subject to Los Angeles’ rent control if the certificate of occupancy for the building was issued after 1978. Tenants in non-rent control buildings in Los Angeles can receive 3o or 60 Day Notices to Quit unlike tenants in rent-control units.

The article is “New Landlord Doesn’t Feel Like Housing Poor People Anymore, Tenants Say.” For more information regarding evictions of Section 8 tenants, please contact Anthony Marinaccio at 818-839-5220.

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

Ellis Act Evictions on the Rise in Los Angeles

KPCC is confirming that evictions under the Ellis Act are on the rise in Los Angeles. The Ellis Act allows landlords to get out of the rental business. It is usually used for condominium conversions and demolishing old units to make new condo units.

In Los Angeles, in addition to the provisions of Government Code Sections 7060-7060.7, the Los Angeles Rent Stabilization Ordinance (“LARSO”) also addresses the process for landlords wanting to evict tenants under the Ellis Act. I have written on the Ellis Act before and the many articles can be found here.

Under the LARSO, tenants are required to get a 120 Day Notice to Vacate, are entitled to relocation, and if they are disabled or elderly can elect to stay in the unit for up to one year. It is important to understand these provisions prior to starting the development process.

KPCC’s article “Ellis Act evictions in L.A. on the rise” provides some of the background on why these evictions are becoming popular and why we may see more in the future as housing prices increase.

Landlord & Tenant Law

Attorneys’ Fees Provisions in Rental Agreements

The California Court of Appeal recently found that provisions in a residential lease that allow for attorneys’ fees may be recovered in the case of a declaratory relief and intentional interference with prospective economic advantage claim. Burien LLC v. James A. Wiley provides some insight on the recovery of attorney’s fees in accordance with rent control in Los Angeles. This case actually stems from the same case I discussed several months ago that involved raising the rent on a condominium conversion that can be found here. The issue that the Court had to review was not the substance of whether a landlord could raise the rent; rather, it was whether a tenant could seek attorneys’ fees in the action.

In 1981, James W. Wiley (“Tenant”) had leased a unit in a building subject to the Los Angeles Rent Stabilization Ordinance (“LARSO”). In 2011, the Landlord purchased the property where the Tenant lived and sent a notice to the tenants that the rent would increase from $1,401 to $3,000 a month. If the building was not subject to the LARSO, the Landlord could have been within his rights to raise the rent to that level; however, the LARSO controls how much a Landlord can raise the rent on a tenant annually.

First, the Los Angeles Housing Department (“LAHD”) sent a letter to the Landlord stating that the rent increase violated the Los Angeles Rent Stabilization Ordinance (LARSO). Ignoring this letter, the Landlord filed a complaint in the instant action against the Tenant for declaratory relief and intentional interference with prospective economic advantage. The Complaint alleged that the two parties were having a dispute on the correct rental rate and sought resolution as to the amount of rent that could be charged.

The Landlord believed that his rental rate increase did not violate the LARSO, while the Tenant believed that it did in fact violate the LARSO. The Landlord also wanted to recover costs of the suit, compensatory damages, and further relief as the court deemed fit. In response, the Tenant sought a dismissal of the action with prejudice, recovery of the cost of suit and recovery of attorneys’ fees. The trial court found in favor of the Tenant due to the property not being an exempt from the LARSO, and thereafter the Landlord appealed. The appellate court also found in favor of the Tenant and affirmed the judgment.

After winning on appeal, the Tenant filed a motion seeking the recovery of the attorney’s fees of about $17,000 on the basis of the attorney fees provision in his rental agreement. Upon examination of the rental agreement the trial court found for the Landlord stating that the attorney fees provision was too broad.

On appeal it was found that the rental agreement entailed recovery for attorney fees if the Landlord brings action on the account of the lessee’s failure to pay the rent. When the Landlord increased the rent, believing that his increase would not be affected by the LARSO, and the Tenant failed to pay, the collection of the rent was Burien’s cause for action. The action brought for declaratory relief was brought to enforce the payment of the increase in the rent and for the damages caused.

The Court concluded that the attorney fees provision in the rental agreement applied to the instant action and the matter was remanded for the Tenant to be reimbursed for the attorney fees. The Court relied upon Civil Code Section 1717 which states, “In any action on a contract, where the contract specifically provides that attorney’s fees and costs, which are incurred to enforce that contract, shall be awarded either to one of the parties or to the prevailing party, then the party who is determined to be the party prevailing on the contract, whether he or she is the party specified in the contract or not, shall be entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees in addition to other costs.”

Civil Code Section 1717 can be applied when the recovery sought in the action was declaratory and as long as the action had a contract involved.

Attorneys’ fees provisions in rental agreements are an important tool for landlords and tenants. They are important to review to determine and there may be reasons why a landlord may or may not want an attorneys’ fee provision in a rental agreement. Further, there are methods to cap attorneys’ fees to avoid the outcome of this case where the Landlord was required to pay over $17,000 in attorneys’ fees for the tenant’s attorney.

Please contact Attorney Anthony Marinaccio at 818-839-5220 for more information regarding these issues on landlord-tenant matters.

Landlord & Tenant Law, Real Estate

Purchasing a Bootleg Unit

They have many names: “converted garage,” “illegal unit,” “bootleg unit,” or “unpermitted unit,” but they’re all the same. There are many units in the City of Los Angeles and surrounding cities that are not actually permitted by the local government authority. In particular, the unit does not have a certificate of occupancy which means that they cannot be lawfully rented out for living purposes.

There is a lot of information available to homeowners and potential homeowners to determine whether or not a property is “legal.” These include the Los Angeles County Assessor’s website and various city websites that may show building permits.

Real Estate Disclosures

Under California law, a seller of real estate must disclose all material and known facts about a property. If a seller knows there is an unpermitted unit, he must disclose these facts. Although the seller may not need to disclose the legal ramifications of such facts, once you are aware that a property has an unpermitted unit, you have the notice to do your due diligence.

In any part of California, the local code enforcement office can require a homeowner to tear down a unpermitted unit. Further, a code enforcement officer can require that you as the landlord remove tenants that live in an unpermitted unit. The only method to remove such tenants would be through the unlawful detainer process.

The City of Los Angeles has a framework and several other consequences for renting unpermitted units which are highlighted below.

City of Los Angeles

If you are considering purchasing a home with an unpermitted unit, there can be severe consequences for renting it out. Under the Los Angeles Rent Stabilization, a tenant is not required to pay rent for a unit that does not have a certificate of occupancy. Further, a tenant is allowed to recover all rent paid to a landlord, plus treble damages (up to three times the amount paid in rent) and attorneys’ fees. Carter v. Cohen (2010) 188 Cal. App. 4th 1038. This can occur even if you did not realize that you, as the landlord, did not have a certificate of occupancy or did not realize you were supposed to have one.

If a landlord receives a Notice to Comply to tear down an unpermitted unit that has tenants, the landlord will be required to pay relocation to the tenants. It is important to note that the Los Angeles Housing and Community Investment Department may find that a single family home that has an unpermitted unit actually falls within the Los Angeles Rent Stabilization Ordinance.

These issues are important for all homeowners to understand and for those looking to purchase a property where there is an unpermitted unit. If you have any questions, please contact Anthony at 818-839-5220. 

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.