Actually, no. The OP asked us if 2 separate notices were required or if 1 notice was sufficient, and if a specific reason stated was grounds for the landlord to fail to give the full time period. He stated as part of describing his situation his belief that the landlord was being descriminatory because he is a disabled veteran, but that was really just background/filler. The actual question asked could have been answered without discussing the landlord’s motivation at all.
I think it’s pretty clear that the landlord did not explicitly state “Oh, you’re a disabled veteran, I don’t want you here. Get out.” The OP has explained what makes it seem like discrimination is the fact that the landlord had no issues with him for 6 years, but then one day learned he was a disabled veteran and suddenly filed notice to evict. Further the reasons stated were minor, old, or false, and unequally applied between the two renters. That is the timing and situation conditions that make it seem like aimed at evicting him but not necessarily the roommate and cobbling up justifications to mask the presumed real motivation.
Frankly, you seem to be overly invested in the answers for no particular reason. The OP didn’t ask us to determine if he was being discriminated against, that was someone else.
RADTENN, I still don’t understand the “non-rent paying” part. Are you saying that the landlord is claiming you do not pay rent or failed to pay rent on time, because she receives the money from your roommate? Are these transactions via check, or in cash? Do you have some way to prove you have paid? Does your roommate agree to back you that you paid him? It seems stupid on the part of the landlord to make this claim if it were to go to court and you could have your roommate testify/sign an affidavit that he obtained your portion of the rent and forwarded it with his, nullifying the most significant justification your landlord listed.
Irishman, I was under the impression that without a written lease agreement, all leases were assumed to be month-to-month - is that not accurate in California?
If so, I would assume that sort of negates your point about it being more difficult to evict the roommate possibly making the OPs position stronger?
I’ve got the impression that the landlord never even knew the OP was living there until her visit in March. It sounds like a side deal on the roommate’s part that was not authorized by the landlord or by the terms of his lease.
And that’s what confuses me. God forbid there’s accusations of, oh say, a meth lab as number 8 for instance. (I’m not saying that’s the case, it’s just an example of what might be hiding in the 13 reasons) I think it behooves the OP to post the 13 reasons if he wants a discussion on discrimination.
Yah - I get you. Honestly, I have a feeling the other reasons are more like:
Has 400 Monchichi dolls in living room
Wears I Love Lucy dress to vacuum
Talks in Cookie Monster voice to pet rabbit
etc. You know, things that aren’t illegal, shouldn’t get a person evicted, but might be sort of embarrassing to post on a public message board.
Of course, I’m totally speculating here, but the OP did state that none of the reasons she gave were on the list of reasonable reasons I posted, and illegal activity is on there right at the top (as is non-payment of rent).
I’m not saying it’s completely off topic. I’m saying that the OP didn’t come in saying “Am I being discriminated against?” The OP came in asking “Can the landlord kick me out in X manner?” Spoons makes it sound like the OP came in to ask the first, and then won’t provide justification for why he thinks so. But the OP didn’t ask us to evaluate the discrimination, just to weigh in on the method of eviction.
Wondering why the OP won’t list all 13 reasons or whatever is pointless. He could list 27 fake reasons and we wouldn’t know if he’s lying or telling the truth. But you have to assume he’s telling the truth, or there’s no point in participating in the thread. So assume he’s telling the truth that none of the excuses amount to anything. The one he listed about being a non-rent paying tenant is the only one that seems particularly valid to terminate a lease early, and that one is odd because he pays rent. So something doesn’t add up. But otherwise, the list comes across as an excuse party. And the unbalanced treatment of the two tenants is suggestive of bias, though there are potential legitimate reasons for unbiased treatment, like my suggestion about the lease terms, or the possibility that the OP has the agreement with the other tenant, not the LL.
As I said, I’m not a lawyer, don’t know California or local law on the matter, so I don’t know if it affects the situation. I said it was something for legal experts to weigh in on. If Calif law says that, then it wouldn’t matter. But if Calif contract law says that oral agreements are treated as binding, then it might affect it. Or if the LL thinks oral agreements are binding, then it doesn’t matter if they actually are. It’s something for the OP to be aware of and consider and research for himself. Since I’m not a lawyer and not the OP, I don’t have the desire/interest to hunt up the details myself.
This is the part that perplexes me the most. How could the landlord not know about the disability of the OP for six years if he had a month-to-month agreement with the landlord in place? Like Frank, I had the impression that the landlord just discovered the OP was living at the place in March, hence the claim that the OP was an “unauthorized occupant”. What I infer is that the OP’s roommate has a long-term rental agreement in place with the landlord, while the OP has a month-to-month agreement with his roommate. Anyway, there’s both insufficient info and too much conflicting info here. Having been a former landlord and tenant, my advice is to go talk to the landlord to see if some arrangement can be worked out that would be acceptable to everyone. The last thing a landlord wants to do is to go through eviction proceedings. No one really wins at the end.
If the op has lived there the there should be a paper trail of rent paid in the past. The landlord should be showing the rent income on his tsax forms. Even if it is a month to month the landlord should have a new tenant sign a 30 day lease. Then the rules of the rent are spelled out. (how many people living there, pets or no pets and so forth)
Evicting a tenant is Calif is not easy. Lots of I’s to dot and T’s to cross, miss one and you start all over again.
I have a problem with the verbal agreements with everyone. I do not think we can determine who and where rental argeements we set up. did the op move in with the room mate paying his share of the rent to the roommate who then forwards all the money to the land lord? Did the landlord really know that the op had move in? Or did the op reach an agreement with the landlord before moving in?
Once a person is declared disabled then “accomodations must be made”. And he is harder to get rid of, be in housing, schooling, or a job.
There are agencys out there who will take up the tenants battle. If the landlord has been doing all his paper work on his own with out help he can be put into a world of hurt. If I was managing my own property I would never send an move out letter to a tenant, my lawyer would.
Possible, but if he’s been there for 6 years he’d be giving Anne Frank a run for her money in terms of being a low profile tenant.
The OP does not want to say, but the only real guess I can make given the overall context of his scenario is that he is being treated for some sort of addiction or substance abuse related issue, and this is a hot button for the landlady who wants nothing to do with it. If it’s just a physical problem with no real social stigma he’s being treated for, the landlady’s behavior (and by extension the entire OP) makes no sense.
I feel for the OP, but he is evidently unwilling to give any concrete indication what her real motivation is in booting him is (and he obviously knows precisely what it is) so this exercise is kind of a pointless guessing game.
Well, there could be mental health issues, diseases of the immune system, chronic communicable diseases etc. that landlords have been known to get bent out of shape about.
However, I’m not sure the specifics of why she decided she wants him out are really required, as long as he indicates it’s a disability which is protected.
I do not disagree, and mental health issues would have been my # 1 choice with a gold star of what he was probably being treated for that freaked her out, but the OP was very adamant that he is not being treated for any mental health issues. Communicable diseases that do not cause bad behavior or property damage, and thus do not impact the real estate like AIDS, or hepatitis etc. are also unlikely to make most landlords want to throw you out the door.
Both significant mental issues and substance abuse issues are huge real world risk factors for landlords in terms of tenants (or their guests) causing damage to the real estate, and fairly or not, will make many landlords want to boot you ASAP.
Your oral agreement is with your roommate, and not the landlord, correct?
Your roommate has the oral agreement with the landlord, correct?
You pay rent to your roommate, and your roommate pays rent to the landlord, right?
If this is so, then your agreement is not with the property owner, and it seems to me she does have the right to evict you with notice as required by law, which she has given, for any reason or no reason. She then would not enjoy this sort of protection with your roommate, who has an agreement directly with her.
ETA: This may be the basis of her ‘non-rent paying’ claim. The OP is not paying rent TO HER, but to his roommate.
IANAL.
But you are a law student, as I recall. Does a landlord who suffers the creation of a subtenancy have the right to eject the subtenant at will? Identify the privities that exist in such a situation.
Perhaps it would be better if we all stuck to the facts that the OP has, rather - has not, provided and quit assuming and showing off about other things. Additionally, the notice used the word “unauthorized” describing the tenancy. Do you think that makes a difference?
I am a commercial real estate agent, NAL, but the short answer for commercial real estate is “no”. That’s one of the reasons many of the sub-tenancy clauses in the commercial leases I use emphasize that a landlord MUST approve all sub-tenancies in writing or they are considered to be in violation of the lease.