One of my elderly tenants lives in rental housing in Oakland.
Although her lease says that “the tenant shall pay the water bill”, she had an informal agreement with the landlord that he would pay it; and he has been doing so for something like 7 or 8 years. The account is in his name.
Now it seems he has let the bill build up for several months, and then turned up demanding that she pay it, and switch the account to her name.
She says she’s fine with taking over the regular payments, but of course they won’t put the account in her name until the past-due bills are paid, and she hasn’t got $600 just lying around.
Obviously she’s in a bad situation; but it occurred to me to wonder if there’s any reason legally why the landlord can’t just spring it on her like this. After all, the account has never been in her name.
I understand that YANAL, or YAN my L. I’m just wondering. Thanks.
Moderator comment: I think this will get better responses in a different forum, brujaja, so I’m moving it from “Comments on Cecil’s Column” to “General Questions”
If the account has never been in her name, how can the water company go after her for the arrears? I mean, it’s like if I moved into a house, and the former owner had not paid the utility bills, the companies would have to go after the former owner.
Oh - and of course I have zero legal knowledge. But the lady in question might look into whether there are laws saying that the water company cannot turn off an essential service like that.
The water company can go after the land owner. On the base of past pratice I doube the land lord could collect from the tenant. But she could end up with landlord problems.
Whoops, thanks, C K Dexter Haven. Nooo idea at all how I did that. Distracted by the “one shoe” thing I guess.
Maybe I wasn’t quite clear — the landlord let the bill get real high — and then HE turned up, yelling at her to pay the bill in HIS name, and then switch it to her name.
He’s threatening to evict her otherwise. As it stands, she probably won’t get her water cut off, but she may be thrown out. (I believe Oakland has what they call “just 'cause” law – they can throw you out just 'cause they want to.)
This has been the arrangement for 7 or 8 years? I’d argue that it (the water being the landlord’s responsibility) is now part of the lease as a constructive change.
Anyone smelling a fish here? A fish that has a lot more money to spend on the rent than your client does?
As in: could the landlord be in a position of being able to collect more rent if he can boot this woman and rent the place to someone else? I really suspect that’s what’s going on. Are there laws about how much he can increase the rent, percentage-wise, for existing tenants?
She should get in touch with a lawyer at least for a consult. The landlord has screwed up in a number of ways:
Setting a precedent where he’s paying the water bill despite what’s in the lease
Not having the water bill in the tenant’s name all along
Is the water bill segregated by rental unit? i.e. is she sure that this is only her usage (vs., say, a single water meter for a multi-family house)?
Yes, the landlord is liable in the end. But he can simply give her a 60 day notice if she doesn’t pay (some communities require more). In fact, he may be able to get away with a 3 day notice “Quit or pay rent”.
So, if she wants to keep living there, she needs to come to an agreement with him. There’s little a lawyer can do here, that wont cost her more in legal fees than she’ll win.
In some areas, like San Jose, the water bill must be in the property owners name.
Oh, they can. They can simply turn the water off, and refuse to turn it back on until the past-due bill is paid. So if you want water, you will have to see that the bill gets paid.
Your second statement – my mother had exactly this happen.
She was renting out the old farmhouse on our west farm to college students, and sometimes they would move out leaving an unpaid bill owed to the rural electric cooperative. Then when the new tenants moved in, the coop would refuse to open an account for them until the past-due bill was covered. And the law allows thatl, since the utility bill is connected to the property. (Mom had to start not giving their damage deposit back until she had verified that the electric bill was paid.)
Your mom’s situation seems like the opposite side of things, as she’s the owner. It makes more sense to me, somehow.
But it’s an interesting point: if I ever buy another house, I’ll have to put in the offer contract that the former owner warrants that they’ve paid all utility bills!!
Yes. They provided the service to that address, and are entitled to be paid for the utility service. Just like if you pay a contractor to remodel your house, and he doesn’t pay his subcontracted electrician. The electrician can file a lien against the house, and you, the homeowner, are subject to that lien.
That is a standard item covered during the closing conference with the realtors, title people, etc. Either they will have had the utility company come out to read the meter within the last day or two (in small towns) or there will be money held in escrow to cover the utility bills when they arrive.
[QUOTE= if I ever buy another house, I’ll have to put in the offer contract that the former owner warrants that they’ve paid all utility bills!![/QUOTE]
If you live anywhere that requires a lawyer for land transfer, they should handle this. My sister received a tax bill after she purchased a store, and sent the bill to the lawyer. The lawyer paid, as the firm knew that they were responsible for ensuring all liens, arrears, and taxes were paid off prior to the day of sale. I don’t know if they sued the former owners, but that’s why you pay them, so you don’t have to worry about it.
One point to make is for everybody moving out to take time-stamped photos of the water meter, power meter, gas meter, etc. on the day of the move, especially if they are analog and not directly connected to the utility company. Do this when you move in as well.
The landlord can give her a 60 notice anytime for no reason if it’s month-to-month. The 3 day applies to rent and rent alone, nothing else. I seriously doubt the landlord would be able to collect back utility payments with a cure or quit notice; the bill’s in his name and he wasn’t enforcing the relevant clause in the rental agreement for many years.
Depending on how stubborn the tenant wants to be, it’s a worst-case for the landlord. He’ll be out money for months of rent while the eviction process drags along, out money for the eviction lawyer, out money for the water bill. And only an eight-year-old deposit to cover it all? I’d ask the water company to waive late fees, pay the back bills, and have it switched to the tenant’s name going forward.
