In the 60 day notice from the property owner telling the tenant to vacate must include a legal reason as to why the tenant is being asked to leave. The tenant can dispute the reason, such as causing a disturbance, then the case can go to court if the tenant disputes the charge against him/her. If the judgment is against the tenant then eviction process starts.
Renting a house or a condo has different rules and guidelines for evicting a tenant. At lleast that’s the way it works in San Francisco.
The owner of my building can not present me with a 60 day notice just because it’s his building and doesn’t like me. There are laws that protect tenants from discrimination on the basis of race, religion, etc. An owner asking a tenant to leave without a valid legal reason, as the law states, could be facing a discrimination case.
Renting an apartment in a large building or complex is not like “at will employment” where an employer can terminate an employee for no reason. Just because the one year lease is up, the tenant can’t be evicted without a valid legal reason.
You do not know what you are talking about. In California, a month-to-month tenancy is terminable “at the discretion of either party.” That means if the tenant wants to end it, he can, that means if the land lord wants to end it, he can.
It is a perpetual agreement for the tenant to buy housing from the land lord. You cannot compel the land lord to sell the housing to the tenant, nor can you compel the tenant to buy the housing from the land lord. California’s framework for terminating month-to-month tenancy is the 60-day notice. This notice serves as notification that the tenancy is being terminated. No further explanation is required.
You obviously do not understand the difference between a fixed duration lease and a month-to-month tenancy. Under terms of a lease, and this varies from State to State:
-A landlord can write a clause requiring a tenant to pay an indemnity if they terminate the lease early
-The land lord may actually have legal right to the entire balance of rent owed on the lease if the tenant tries to end the lease early
-The landlord can only end the lease under the terms specified in the lease and under the conditions allowed for by local laws. A land lord can not typically end a lease “for no reason”, under the laws of most States.
But month-to-month tenancy is not the same, the tenant is not owed any sort of explanation as to why the month-to-month tenancy is being ended. You do not understand the law in California. In certain locations where tenant rights are very strong some of what you say may be correct, but in California the default is that the land lord can end a month-to-month tenancy with 60 days notice to the tenant at the land lord’s discretion.
The only exceptions would be municipal or county codes that add further restrictions–OP has said he’s done some investigation on that point and not found that the local codes are any more restrictive than State law.
Now, as to your discrimination point. Yes, that is true, there are Federal laws prohibiting discrimination in housing. But when a business relationship can be terminated at the discretion of either party, those anti-discrimination laws do not add any requirement that the parties involved must include a specific reason for terminating the relationship.
So in California if I’m a land lord, I’m perfectly within my rights to terminate a tenancy at my discretion, when said tenancy is month-to-month, and there are no applicable local ordinances, without giving any reason at all. There is no requirement under California or Federal law I give a specific reason for choosing to end a discretionary business relationship.
Now, if a tenant brings suit against me under anti-discrimination laws, it would be wise if I had some explanation. But even then, they would typically need to demonstrate some pattern of behavior to win suit against me. For example if I had exercised my discretion to end 5 month to month tenancies in a 10 unit complex, and those 5 tenancies all happened to be black or Hispanic residents and the 5 white residents were not terminated. That would show a troubling (legally, for me) pattern of behavior, and it would be extremely wise in such a scenario to have an actual, legitimate reason for ending the tenancy of each of those five tenants.
But in general, there is no requirement that I have a reason (as a California land lord) to end a month-to-month tenancy. It is terminable at the discretion of either party assuming proper notice is given. For a land lord this means 60 days written notice. I don’t know what the obligation of the tenant is, I didn’t look that up, but typically the tenant is required to give a certain amount of notice as well or they can be held liable for rent even after they’ve moved out. [So if the law requires the tenant give 30 days notice and they move out with 10 days notice, they might be on the hook for rent even after they’ve moved out. Though the land lord typically has an obligation to try and rent the unit out, and in most places, may not charge for rent during the obligatory period once they have rented it to a new tenant. But, this all varies with local laws.]
I have no idea where you get this notion. Yes, a month-to-month tenancy is exactly like at will employment, if that’s what state law says it is. The law states, in CA, a tenancy relationship with MTM tenant may be severed with proper notice, which the law defines as 60 days. In other words, in a month-to-month tenancy, 60 days notice is all the valid legal reason you need.
NOTE the tenant is NOT being evicted. The tenancy relationship is merely being severed because one party (in this case the landlord) does not wish it to continue. Once the agreement is severed, the tenant has no right to remain.
That’s why people WANT leases. Leases are an agreement to remain, in the absence of bad behavior for a set period of time. There may be penalties on both side if the parties do not uphold the agreement. Contrastingly, MTM tenancy lets both the tenant and the landlord sever unilaterally on short notice.
As far as I can tell, that’s the way it works for rent-controlled apartments in San Francisco. Which apparently is most , but not all apartments in San Francisco. But you can’t extrapolate from the rules for a rent controlled apt in SF to even the rules for a non-rent controlled apt in SF , much less to how leases work outside of San Francisco.(and in truth I wonder why there would even be actual leases with a time period for such an apartment rather than a rental agreement with no time period).
I live in NYC. Rent controlled apartments are governed by one set of rules, stabilized apartments by another and all other rentals are governed by their leases. In those market rate apartments , when the lease is over the landlord can evict you. In places where the courts are very tenant friendly (and NYC is) ,it may take months but renting an apartment does not mean you get to stay there forever.
I don’t know what state you live in Martin Hyde, but I’ve lived in California for over 50 years and I have occupied my apartment for nearly 19 years. I know and understand San Francisco tenant’s rights.
Are you really suggesting that it is legal for the owner of my building to kick me out for no reason at all. If that were true, I would have been booted about 10-12 years ago, since I’m in a rent controlled unit.
But he can’t, because he has no legal grounds to do so.
Maybe it works your way in the other 57 counties in California, but not in San Francisco.
As has been stated many times in this thread, municipal ordinances may be more protective than state law, but no such ordinances apply in Anaheim. Your statement that the OP cannot be required to leave on 60 days notice is flat-out wrong.
Well, that’s actually what we’ve said. We do know for sure that tenancy laws of the City of San Francisco do not apply to the OP. We know that because he has told us he does not live in Anaheim.
What we also know is the standard on month-to-month (MTM) tenancy laws in the State of California. That very standard mentions that cities with rent control and other ordinances operate differently, and that to know the requirements to end a MTM tenancy in those areas you must consult local code–or most likely the local housing authority will have a consumer-facing website that explains it in a manner residents can understand.
The OP mentions he looked into the rules in his city, which is Anaheim and not San Francisco, and found that Anaheim has no further protections than California itself. Meaning his tenancy is essentially governed by the regulations of the State of California, since his city has declined to enact rent control ordinances or etc.
I should note that we’ve been careful throughout this to mention that rental regulations are often a matter of local law, and that what I’ve said about State law in California is subject to local variations as per local law. But even in addition to that, we’ve had the OP actually investigate the matter in his locality and report back to us on that investigation.
So the position you’ve taken, where you come in asserting he has a bunch of rights based on your knowledge of renter’s rights in San Francisco is:
Stated in ignorance of the fact he lives in Anaheim, when he has said he does in this very thread.
Stated in ignorance that California state law does not provide the protections you assert, and thus are not generally applicable to other people in the State.
Stated in ignorance that he most likely has various protections under local laws that he does not in fact have, based on his own investigation into local regulations.
Yes, I know that. Read my posts at the top of this page. And did you read my post that said I’m talking about San Francisco, not the other 57 counties in California.
This is off the rails now. It would be nice if the OP would come back and give us some more details about HIS 60 day notice.
I know laws aren’t the same everywhere, but if I had lived in an apartment for 16 years and had a daughter in High School, I’d attempt to keep the unit. Or at they very least, see why he was singled out to be evicted.
the second has nothing to do with anything, since the OP is not being evicted, but rather, the tenancy relationship is being terminated with legally sufficient notice.
Stated in ignorance of the fact he lives in Anaheim, when he has said he does in this very thread.
Stated in ignorance that California state law does not provide the protections you assert, and thus are not generally applicable to other people in the State.
Stated in ignorance that he most likely has various protections under local laws that he does not in fact have, based on his own investigation into local regulations.[/QUOTE]
Oh ouch.
I know I don’t know as much as you do.
But you did say I didn’t know anything about rent laws in California. So I just pointed out to you that I do know the laws in one county, stating clearly that the other 57 counties probably are different.
I think if you want to post about San Francisco Landlord Tenant law you should start your own thread about San Francisco landlord tenant law. This thread is about a rental in Anaheim, Orange County. At a minimum you could start all your posts with a disclaimer that nothing you’re saying is applicable to the topic everyone else is posting about.
I own rentals in Pennsylvania and I politely didn’t post a bunch of useless misleading advice that only applies to Pennsylvania because the OP very clearly explained where they live in the very beginning of the thread.
Thank you. That was what I was trying to get across but you are doing a lot better job of it. I just don’t understand some of the posters here. Just because you rent from someone doesn’t mean you have the right to live there forever or until you decide to leave. The owner has rights too. And it’s his property not yours. While you have a lease that contract protects you. With no lease or other contract you don’t have a right to keep living on someone else’s property. My girlfriend owns and rents out a townhouse. She has given the renters notice that their lease will not be renewed. At the end of the lease they have no legal right to live there. I don’t expect there to be a problem but if there is the eviction process in PA is relatively quick.
Didn’t you do a thread about your daughter’s choir teacher being fired? Your style of writing is very, perhaps excruciatingly, detailed and if your intention is to write a similar letter, it will not be effective.
Yes, eviction and not renewing a lease or terminating a tenancy may have a very similar practical effect (no more place to live), they aren’t the same thing.
A lot of inexperienced land lords can actually get easily (to their peril) confused about this as well. For example in your girlfriend’s situation a land lord might assume, “we didn’t sign a new lease, I’ve made it clear that the tenancy is at an end when their current lease expires” maybe it’s even already been leased to new tenants who plan to move in after the current tenant’s move-out date.
The assumption an inexperienced land lord might have, is that if the tenant just simply decides to stay there after their final move out day, that the land lord can call the police and have the tenant removed for trespassing. Not the case, at least here and probably in most states–instead the police will tell you essentially it’s a civil matter. The land lord may assume they can watch the house, and when the squatter (no longer tenant) leaves to go to the store or something, they can rush in and change the locks, locking the tenant out.
That might seem reasonable, but again, not legal in most places. Instead, even though the tenant has absolutely no legal right to the residence, you have to evict them. Eviction in those situations does tend to be a quick formality, but it still has to happen. It also typically must be enforced by the local police (usually county sheriff’s department), and the land lord isn’t allowed to physically throw the person out themselves.
In fact anytime someone establishes a residency somewhere there is a potential you may need to evict them if they decline to leave on their own. This even extends to a situation where say, your deadbeat brother needs a place to live, and you come to a verbal agreement that he can crash with you “until he gets on his feet.” Maybe six months of drinking cases of Natty Light on your living room couch later you decide it’s time for him to GTFO. Common sense says you could just bodily remove him as a trespasser if he refuses to leave. But in many States, even in that scenario you would need legal eviction, you were not charging rent, but you had come to a verbal agreement that he could stay there for some indefinite term.
Is this thread still not saying why they’re terminating the tenancy? If I got that notice I would just assume they were converting the place to condos or something along those lines and it wasn’t something I could negotiate on.
Sorry if this was already said, I kind of skimmed.
I’m beginning to suspect that the OP knows exactly why his tenancy is being terminated and just doesn’t want to share that info with us. I think his initial desire go over the manager’s head to plead his case means he was given a reason that he just doesn’t agree with. So maybe there is more of a personality conflict than he cares to admit…otherwise why keep us in such a state of suspense? I’m sure he asked, the second he was handed the letter, “Why?”.
I’ve dealt with the issue from a couple of different angles. My girlfriend was that inexperienced land lord. Last year she wanted them out so she could put the property up for sale. She neglected to give proper notification. She decided to not fight it and gave them another 1 year lease. They have received written notice that there will not be another lease and I don’t think there will be a problem. And as I mentioned, the property is in PA where the eviction process is relatively easy if it ever came to that.
As a police officer I have often dealt with situations where a property owner wants someone kicked out. Whether its a tenant or someone crashing on the couch, if it looks like they have in someway established residency we tell them they are out of luck. At least that night. We have no jurisdiction to kick anyone out of their residence. It must go through the court and the Sheriff’s office. Unfortunately the process seems to be too long and complicated here in NJ. But that does not mean that the one getting kicked out is right or has the right to live there indefinitely. It just means if certain criteria are met there is a process that needs to be followed. In the OP’s case it looks like the manager knows the process.