WARNING - Very Long and rambling! I am not looking for legal advice, I am just bewildered as to why this is happening. Can someone give me their thoughts? My daughter and 3 roommates leased a house together. They were all signers of the 12 month lease. The original lease expired and new one signed on the anniversary date. Twice. On expiration of the third lease they asked for and received a 6-month lease. During month 5 one couple moved out and the remaining 2 began looking for new roommates. They asked for another 6 month leases and were in negotiations with the landlord. The lease expired January 17 and under CA law converted to a month-to-month rental. Normal rent was paid on due date of January 18. On January 20 the landlord sent a letter saying the 6 month lease was not accepted and the uncahsed rent check was returned. The landlord’s letter stated a daily rate for each day past Jan 18 they remained in the house. Unknown to them, on January 19 the landlord filed eviction papers with the court and the roommates were served on January 23 . The 4 roommates filed a response with the court stating they would vacate and asked for their deposit to be used to pay a daily rate on the house and the remainder returned. They also asked for reimbursement of court costs ($455.00 to file response) and reimbursement of lost wages due to court activities.
They also sent a certified letter to the landlord saying the house would be empty and available no later than January 31. The roommates were very lucky and found a new place and began moving and were completely out of the house on January 30. The house was completely empty and clean. Yesterday, January 31, they received notice from the court the landlord has requested a trial. What is the purpose? The house is empty, they tried to pay rent but it was returned, what is the landlord hoping to accomplish?
For one thing, a tenant cannot assume that the security deposit can be used to cover the last month’s rent. Just because a tenant ask for that does not make it happen automatically. Maybe the landlord found some repairs that the remaining security deposit did not cover. Or maybe it’s something else you don’t know. You’ll find out in court.
I have no idea what the landlord could be trying to get out of all this. I work for a leasing company and evictions are the biggest thorns in our sides at the office.
If it was just a matter of the landlord found tenants he liked better and wanted them in the house right away, he would have conceded the security deposit and let them go. I have no clue what he hopes to get out of a trial unless there were damages not covered by the deposit or back rent owed.
I don’t know how the eviction process works in California but in my state the landlord has to give a 3 Day Notice, which basically says you have 3 days business days to vacate the property or we start the eviction process. It sounds like he may have neglected to give proper notice, depending on the laws there.
Jane I just re-read your post again. The way I’m looking at whats happening and the dates involved, it looks like the landlord had planned it out this way. Normal procedure after the new lease was denied and notice was given about the denial, the landlord would have added a “Vacate By” date which should be 30 days from when they were notified about the lease not being renewed.
Again I want to say I don’t know how the CA eviction process works so my info may not pertain to your situation. The only other advice I can give is get any dated documents together and try to show the court he didn’t follow the eviction procedure. Your state website should have some sort of Renter’s Rights guide that outlines the eviction process available.
Thank you for responding. Yes, California requires a 60-day notice to vacate for long term tenants in good standing. If tenants have not paid rent then a 3-day notice to pay up or quit can be sent. Then eviction proceeding can be started. The landlord is saying they don’t have to give notice because the lease expired on Jan 17 and there was no new lease agreement in place so the tenants were in “adverse possession”. But the landlord’s letter telling them the new lease was not accepted was dated Jan 20 and stated a daily rate (monthly rent /30 days) to pay until they moved. I don’t understand how they can be considered in adverse possession.
As far as proceeding to trial, they are out of house, landlord has not communicated any damage report and landlord is still in possession of a security deposit equal to 2 months rent.
They are seeking advice from the college’s legal aid group. Is it possible they might actually get an eviction noted on their records?
Before I answer anymore questions I just want to clarify one thing. In California, if a lease expires and there is not a new lease, does it revert automatically to a Month-to-Month lease, and what is the minimum amount of notice that has to be given to vacate?
Here is a link to the CA website describing landlord/tenant notices. It says if you have lived there more than one year under a periodic tenancy the landlord must give 60 days notice. They lived there 3.5 years under lease agreements so I don’t know how the periodic tenancy/lease difference applies to this situation.
From what I can gather from skimming the site you linked to, the landlord failed to give a proper notice to vacate or jumped the gun and started the eviction process wrongly if the vacate notice was implied in the Jan. 20 denial notice. UNLESS the expired lease has a clause that the tenant agrees to move out within X amount of days after the lease expires. If the lease does have something like that it can be less than 30 days.
Now if the lease doesn’t have a specified time frame to vacate the property then it should have automatically gone to Month-to-Month, in which case the landlord messed up somewhere and filed an eviction notice when he shouldn’t have.
If the lease did have a specified amount of time to vacate, its entirely possible that your daughter may have missed it or forgotten about it and unintentionally stayed longer than she should have. If thats the case the landlord would have a right to file an eviction notice, but only after posting a 3 Day notice. However, based on the timeframe you gave for the events this situation only works if he only gave them something like 48hrs after the lease expires. Even if it was 24hrs after the timeframe still doesn’t quite add up.
Just for hypothetical sakes,
Jan 17-lease expires. Tenants request another 6 month lease.
Jan 20-Tenants recieve denial of a new lease. The specified amount of time to vacate after the lease expired begins.
Jan 23-tenants recieve first eviction summons/notice.
Even if the lease had that vacate clause and they went over it by a day or two I find it highly unlikely that an eviction notice can go from the initial filing to summons issued in a period of a few days.
Thank you. I basically came to the same conclusions as you Today when my daughter received the notice of proceeding to trial I was shocked. I can only assume the landlord wants to keep all the security deposit. I will post again when there are new developments.
No problem. Evil landlords are a big pet peeve of mine since it makes the rest of us looks bad so I’m always willing to try and help someone get out from under one.
Just a quick question, is the landlord the owner of the house and is this the only property he leases out? If it is I would chalk this whole thing up to general ignorance of procedure and pure greed. If he doesn’t really know what he’s doing and wants them out of there I could see his thought process. WANT TENANTS GONE! FILE EVICTION! LANDLORD SMASH SECURITY DEPOSIT!
The denial of the new 6-month lease is the linchpin for the entire argument. Read the last lease CAREFULLY. If there is nothing in it about reverting to a month-to-month tenancy upon termination of the lease, then any time in the house following the end of the lease would be adverse possession.
Judges in landlord-tenant trials listen to squatting tenant stories complete with hard luck tales constantly. The court clerk has a supply of Kleenex. I would be inclined to believe the judge would question the sequence of events here, but if the judge is a stickler for following the PRECISE letter of the law, it could go badly for the tenants.
The tenants might have better luck filing a claim in small claims court for the return of the security deposit. And call Judge Judy. This might be quirky enough for her show.
~VOW
That is a given. But we don;t know that the landlord is actually thinking. He would need a chance to do an inspection of the house before he releases the deposit. The OP didn;t say if this was done yet or not.
In my state that security deposit is supposed to be placed in an interest accruing account, and when it’s returned to you it has to also include that extra interest it’s earned since you first moved in (minus repairs to the apartment).
And not just any repairs, either, some stuff is supposed to be assumed operating costs for the landlord. The apartment can (and likely will) have normal wear and tear.
He can’t just decide to use your deposit to remodel the kitchen for his new tenants.
VOW - Yes, I agree the lease expired and no new written agreement was in place and that can be the only grounds for adverse possession. But there had been conversations with the landlord about a new lease and she seemed to be inclined to sign a new agreement. It is unfair she waits until after the lease expires then files an adverse possession without communicating she wanted them to move out. In fact, being served with court papers was the notice to move out.
Thank you all for replying. The landlord was notified by certified mail the house would be empty by Jan 31, it was actually empty Jan 30. She will not answer or return phone calls. Last night the roommates drove by and checked for mail in the mailbox and saw a notice had been posted on the door basically stating the landlord is assuming the house to be abandoned and will be entering the premises at 4:00 pm today to verify the house has been abandoned. She know the house is empty.
Oh well - will keep you posted when something new happens!
Good call on not communicating by phone. At this point any future communications with the landlord should be done through email or certified mail as to have a paper trail. And that’s only if necessary. I would avoid any communication until the trial date. VOW, from the link Jane Doe provided before, it looks like an expired lease automatically goes to a Month-to-Month upon expiration unless the lease has a set amount of time to vacate stated in it. It’s pretty similar to the rules in my state.
Jane, some future advice for your daughter, if her lease is expiring soon she should find out whether or not it will be renewed before it expires. That way when the expiration date passes everyone is on the same page in terms of staying or moving out. Also any halfway decent landlord should be contacting their tenants before a lease expires to find out if they are going to renew or leave.
Yes, Two Dollar Tallboy, everyone involved has learned to get everything in writing before a lease expres. Even if 3 new leases were approved before and the landlord appears open to a new lease again. Its just puzzling because the landlord/tenant relationship had always been good before. As far as the landlord entering the house at 4pm today, would the presence of a non-interested 3rd party be beneficial? I assume the landlord will do a walkthrough and check for damage even though the certified mail sent previously by the tenants included multiple pictures of the house taken after move out was completed.
DrDeth, I reread the more indepth California publication regarding tenant/landlord rights and responsibilities. It specifically states if a lease expires and there is no new lease in place AND the landlord accepts rent it converts to a periodic tenancy. This last line was not in the more abbreviated version from the state I read earlier. As I stated earlier, the landlord returned the check uncashed with a letter. The letter is dated Jan 20. The lease expred Jan 17 and adverse possession was filed with the court Jan. 19.
Does the letter from the landlord dated 3 days after the lease exprired stating each day past Jan 17 they are in the house will incur rent at $66.67 per day imply any kind of periodic tenancy?
Discussions with a landlord do NOT supercede or change a written contract in any way. Discussions are like the wind as far as extending a lease. When it goes to court, the judge will have ONLY the written lease to consider. If the lease does not mention a month-to-month tenancy, and the lease was not renewed with a written new lease, the folks are SOL.
The only recourse is in the DATES of everything happening. The notice of adverse possession is dated the 20th, the lease ended the 17th. I really don’t think the tenants have any recourse. And it sounds like they will have to go to small claims court to get the deposit back.
IMHO, the landlord either wants the house for himself, or he’s got an offer to sell.
~VOW