Tag: Eviction Attorney Los Angeles; Unlawful Detainer Attorney Los Angeles; Los Angeles Eviction Lawyer; Landlord Attorney Los Angeles; Los Angeles Eviction Lawyer

Our Los Angeles Eviction Attorneys were recently asked to analyze an eviction based upon a tenant’s conducting constituting a nuisance. Under Los Angeles Rent Control “for cause” evictions, a nuisance or use of the property for an illegal purpose is just cause to evict upon the proper service of a three-day notice.

The landlord would carry the burden to demonstrate that the tenant no longer has the right to occupy the property because the tenant has created a nuisance on the property or is using the property for an illegal purpose. To carry this burden of proof, the landlord must demonstrate all of the following: (1) that landlord owns/leases the property at issue; (2) that landlord rented the property to the tenant defendant; (3) that the tenant defendant created a nuisance on the property (conduct constituting the nuisance must be specified and proven more likely than not to have occurred); or that the tenant defendant used the property for an illegal purpose; (4) that the landlord properly gave the tenant defendant three days’ written notice to vacate the property; and (5) that the tenant defendant is still occupying the property. See California Civil Jury Instructions No. 4308.

Therefore, a nuisance caused by a tenant is grounds for eviction, even in rent control “for cause” jurisdictions. If you have questions regarding evicting a tenant, call or email one of our Los Angeles Eviction Attorneys today for a free consultation and case evaluation.

Under Los Angeles Rent Control laws, a Landlord in Los Angeles cannot lawfully collect rent from a tenant until that Landlord has complied with L.A.M.C. § 151.05(a), which provides that all rental units must have a current Certificate of Registration with the City of LA and the tenant has been provided with that current Certificate of Registration. The Landlord’s noncompliance with Section 151.05(a) is a common and typical defense we see tenants bring in eviction actions. Simply put, many Landlords who own maybe one or two income properties, may not be aware of the Rent Control rules in Los Angeles, and therefore have never registered their rental units with the City.

L.A.M.C. § 151.11(B) states that : “A tenant may withhold the payment of any rent otherwise lawfully due and owing after July 1, 1979 until such time as the landlord has complied with Section 151.05 A. of this chapter. Once the landlord has complied with Section 151.05A. of this chapter the tenant becomes obligated to pay the current rent and any back rent withheld pursuant to this subsection.”

Thus, if you are a landlord and you have a tenant who has failed to pay rent or is refusing to pay rent because you don’t have a Certificate of Registration, then you are best served with obtaining the Certificate of Registration, presenting the current Certificate to your tenant, then serving the failure to pay rent notice. Therefore, when your eviction action is filed, that common defense is no longer available to the tenant or his/her tenant rights lawyer.

If you are a Landlord in Los Angeles and have questions regarding an eviction, contact one of our Los Angeles Eviction Attorneys today for a free, no obligation consultation.

Many cities in and around Los Angeles, including the City of Los Angeles itself require certificates of registration (City of Los Angeles) or certificates of inspection (City of Pasadena) prior to leasing or renting out a unit, or lawfully collecting rents.  California law suggests that a rental agreement for a rental unit which violates a local ordinance for example, would be void as against public policy and a landlord would not be entitled to past due rents.  Whereas a landlord may be entitled to possession, the inability to collect rents based on a lack of certification, could prove fatal in an eviction trial premised on a failure to pay rent notice.  Thus, landlords are best served ensuring the rental unit is properly certified and within the local city rules prior to demanding rents.

For a tenant to establish a breach of the implied covenant of quiet enjoyment resulting from a landlord’s conduct in connection with a rental agreement, “minor inconveniences and annoyances are not actionable breaches of the implied covenant of quiet enjoyment. To be actionable, the landlords act or omission must substantially interfere with a tenant’s right to use and enjoy the premises for the purposes contemplated by the tenancy.”  See Andrews v. Mobile Aire Estates, (2005) 125 Cal. App. 4th 578, 589.  Additionally, the person causing the interference need not be the landlord personally, but rather an actionable breach may lie where the interference is caused by a neighbor or tenant claiming under the landlord.  See Petroleum Collections, Inc. v. Swords, (1975) 48 Cal. App. 3d 841, 846.  Thus, landlords should remain mindful of not only the nature of the breach complained of but also the source as the actions of another tenant or third person may still expose the landlord to liability.

Often in eviction actions when a tenant evades service, our eviction attorneys are asked why the tenant cannot be served at their workplace or at another known address. The reason is because the Prejudgment Claim of Right to Possession must also be served to the premises. Pursuant to C.C.P. § 415.46, service of the Prejudgment Claim of Right to Possession will preclude an occupant, whether known or unknown, from objecting to enforcement of the judgment for possession. The Prejudgment claim must be served at the premises to satisfy the manner with which to give an occupant actual notice of the eviction action.

In the case of an evading tenant, (i.e., a tenant that is trying to evade or avoid service), after the fourth attempt at personal service, the landlord’s attorney should promptly apply to the eviction court for an Order To Post or “OTP”. The OTP will allow for the process serve to simply post and mail serve the summons and complaint. The response time is extended to 10 days in an OTP service but service will be deemed completed nevertheless. If you are a landlord and having difficulty serving a tenant, contact our Los Angeles Eviction Attorneys for a free, no obligation consultation.

It is important for landlords to know and understand basic rules of contract interpretation especially when a landlord finds him/her/itself in an eviction trial wherein a rental agreement or provisions thereof, are being challenged by a tenant or scrutinized by a Court.  Under California law, the same rules applicable to the interpretation of contracts are also applied to the interpretation of a written rental agreement.  See Medico-Dental Bldg. Co. of Los Angeles v. Horton & Converse (1942) 21 Cal. 2d 411, 418.  The rules for contract interpretation have been codified and can be found in our Civil Code §§ 1635 to 1662.  Thus, a contract “must receive such an interpretation as will make it lawful, operative, definite, reasonable, and capable of being carried into effect, if it can be done without violating the intention of the parties.”  Cal. Civ. Code § 1643. As follows, words are going to be given their ordinary and popular sense, unless used by the parties in a technical sense, or a special meaning is given to them by usage for example.  Landlords also must keep in mind that ambiguities will be construed against the drafter of the agreement (i.e., interpreted against the landlord), so ambiguous or unclear terms should be cleared up or re-drafted to avoid problems if and when the contract is scrutinized by a Court.  See Cal. Civ. Code § 1654 (“In cases of uncertainty not removed by the preceding rules, the language of a contract should be interpreted most strongly against the party who caused the uncertainty to exist.”)  Therefore, a landlord is best served with a clear and concise rental agreement defining the scope and extent of the relationship with the tenant and accounting for all reasonable contingencies that may arise during the tenancy.

As owner of a residential or commercial income property, Landlords are susceptible to premises liability claims. It is imperative for Landlords to understand the duty imposed by California law. A tenant bringing a claim against the Landlord must demonstrate to a jury that the Landlord breached his/her duty. California Civil Jury instructions define the scope of this duty as follows:

A landlord must conduct reasonable periodic inspections of rental property whenever the landlord has the legal right of possession. Before giving possession of leased property to a tenant [or on renewal of a lease] [or after retaking possession from a tenant], a landlord must conduct a reasonable inspection of the property for unsafe conditions and must take reasonable precautions to prevent injury due to the conditions that were or reasonably should have been discovered in the process. The inspection must include common areas under the landlord’s control. After a tenant has taken possession, a landlord must take reasonable precautions to prevent injury due to any unsafe condition in an area of the premises under the landlord’s control if the landlord knows or reasonably should have known about it. [After a tenant has taken possession, a landlord must take reasonable precautions to prevent injury due to any unsafe condition in an area of the premises under the tenant’s control if the landlord has actual knowledge of the condition and the right and ability to correct it.]

Thus, Landlords are better served to know what a jury will be instructed on with respect to determining whether a Landlord breached his/her duty in a Premises Liability claim.

Generally, under California law, a 3-day notice may be served for a tenant’s default in any monetary obligation under the rental agreement. See Bevill v. Zoura, (1994) 27 Cal. App. 4th 694, 697. The question then is whether late charges incurred by the tenant for his/her failure to pay rent on time may be included in a 3-day notice.

First, as a matter of contract interpretation “rent” usually will exclude items such as late charges and therefore, a 3-day notice pursuant to C.C.P. § 1161(2) should not demand late charges. However, if the contract defines late charges as “rent” or “additional rent” then it is possible that a 3-day notice including late charges will pass court scrutiny. (Residential landlords, be advised that rental units subject Los Angeles rent control rules served with a 3-day notice should not include late charges.) Many standard boilerplate commercial leases will define rent as “any monetary obligation other than the security deposit” and it can be argued at trial that late charges, under such a definition, is deemed rent under the lease and thus a 3-day notice including late charges will pass scrutiny assuming the amount is defined as a “late charge” and distinguished from the rent demanded.

If a late charge cannot be classified as a rent obligation, then a 3-day notice may be served as to late charges due where a rental agreement specifies that the late charges is an independent covenant obligating the tenant to pay the late charges. In such a case, the landlord would serve a 3-day notice pursuant to C.C.P. § 1161(3).

Landlords may either combine a 1161(2) failure to pay rent notice with a 1161(3) breach of covenant/late charge notice in order to comply with the technical requirements of the unlawful detainer statutes, or simply serve separate notices simultaneously and make a demand to cure each breach separately. If combining the two notices of separate breaches, then it is imperative that landlords distinguish the amount due as “rent” from other amounts due such as late charges and also specify that each independent breach must be cured in order to retain possession.

Our Los Angeles Eviction Attorneys prefer initiating eviction proceedings based on a 3-day notice to pay rent and not include late charges where the late charge is a small or nominal amount. If a landlord desires to include late charges and the rental agreement supports the claim as an independent covenant or defines late charges as “additional rent” then we can either serve separate notices or a combined notice in compliance with California’s unlawful detainer statutes. Compliance with the technical requirements of the eviction notice is of the highest importance for landlords and their success at trial.

Residential and Commercial Landlords are better served to incorporate integration or “no oral modification” clauses in their lease agreements with tenants.  This is to ensure that the parties’ intent is ascertained solely from the writings alone, as opposed to oral statements later offered that contradict the writing to be enforced.  If a contract is to be modified, the modification should be in writing.  At the start of a rental agreement, the parties may be amicable and cooperative, but it’s when a party breaches (i.e., tenant fails to pay rent or tenant breaches lease covenant) that all amicability goes out the window and the Landlord is faced with enforcing the terms of the lease and dealing with defenses raised by the tenant that often can and do arise from “oral” promises or certain understandings with the landlord that are inconsistent with the written agreement.  Thus, writings executed by both parties, clearly outlining the intent of the agreement constitute strong evidence when in front of a judge or jury.

C.C.P. § 1161b requires a 90 day written notice to quit to be served upon a tenant or subtenant before they can be removed from the property where the property is sold pursuant to a foreclosure.

If the tenant in the foreclosure has a month to month or periodic tenancy then the landlord may simply comply with the 90 day notice.

If the tenant in the foreclosure has a fixed-term lease in place, then that fixed-term lease will survive the foreclosure (i.e., new owner has to honor the terms thru the lease term) except when any of the following conditions apply:

(1) The purchaser or successor in interest will occupy the housing unit as a primary residence.

(2) The lessee is the mortgagor or the child, spouse, or parent of the mortgagor.

(3) The lease was not the result of an arms’ length transaction.

(4) The lease requires the receipt of rent that is substantially less than fair market rent for the property, except when rent is reduced or subsidized due to a federal, state, or local subsidy or law.

If any of the above 4 conditions apply, then the landlord can just go with the 90 day notice, but the landlord retains the burden of proof at trial to demonstrate one of the 4 conditions mentioned above.

Also, local rent control will kick in and limit a landlord’s ability to evict to only “just cause” evictions. Local rent control ordinances such as the Los Angeles Rent Stabilization Ordinance may limit the reasons for eviction.