patrick.net

Not sure if I have much to add. I do think the LL was an idiot for not selling the house vacant. They probably could have gotten more for the home and not had to deal with these issues. If this is a negotiation (and it appears to be) you should be dealing with the current owners (not their inept lackeys). Looks like the court fee is $240 for filing the unlawful detainer, so maybe you can get $500 to go away quickly. That said, if you interfere with the sale, the LL can put you in a world of hurt (unlikely they will, unless they're very spiteful). Personally, I don't have the stomach for stuff like this and would go the Quigley route.

IANAL. YMMV.

If your friend is a landlord why dont you ask him what if his tenant do that to him would he be ok with it? You are in a landlord forum most people in here are either former landlord,current or investor, most of them will never be on your side. Im not with you on this, wait until you are one if ur tenant do that to you would you be ok?

Ohh, and may I point out the double standard that I should obey the law when it comes to the 30 day notice, but ignore the law when it comes to time frame needed to get an eviction to court, dismissal of eviction if premises are vacated before said date, and unlikelihood of a large real estate firm to seek damages for a close being pushed out 1 week.

dang007 says

wait until you are one if ur tenant do that to you would you be ok?

This is kind of a separate issue, but I think property ownership is a joke in this state. If you own something you should have total control over it. Having said that, it's a me against them scenario, that I tried to avoid. They took the hardline, and I've gotta put my family's best interests first.

Shoe on the other foot, what would you do if you were the tenant? Throw away money or thumb your nose knowing they can't really do much?

You sign a contract with them both side need to go with what the contract say. You can do what you want but karma is a bitch.

NuttBoxer says

Also, interesting none of you apparently EVER have to negotiate anything

From your postings, it doesn't sound like you're negotiating-it just sounds like you asked for concessions and then moved right to threats.

Did you offer something for the right to extend your stay? After they said no, did you sweeten your offer?

NuttBoxer says

Shoe on the other foot, what would you do if you were the tenant? Throw away money or thumb your nose knowing they can't really do much?

I would have found a place that I can move into before my lease runs out. That's what I did every time I moved.

Or, I would have negotiated the extra 2 weeks BEFORE I signed with the new place.

zzyzzx says

Sounds to me that the new property managers are morons.

It's part of what economists call "diseconomies of scale." When you deal with a small company, people know each other and tend to know what they're doing, and can make rational decisions. As the company grows, it achieves economies of scale, and making the 1,000th widget costs less than making the first widget. If the company becomes too big to manage, it runs into diseconomies of scale, where the millionth widget or escrow or whatever costs more than the 1,000th one did. Somebody's job might be to empty that house on schedule, and that person might be under pressure from a boss to do the specified job on time, and that boss might be under pressure from another boss. It's what gave rise to the WWII acronyms SNAFU and FUBAR, when conscription enabled vast armies of unprecedented scale.

EBGuy says

I do think the LL was an idiot for not selling the house vacant.

The LL might have been hoping to sell to another LL, in which case having a good tenant in occupancy would add value. Empty houses can quickly become attractive nuisances and lose value.

EBGuy says

If this is a negotiation (and it appears to be) you should be dealing with the current owners (not their inept lackeys).

If you can find them. The consequences of ZIRP include bailing out TBTF banks and empowering over-extended buyers that are too big to manage. I happen to know someone whose building got bought by a bailed out TBTF bank, which is now doubling his rent; he will leave until the bubble bursts, wasting time and effort, his tax dollars and Fed dollars at work.

NuttBoxer says

Ohh, and may I point out the double standard that I should obey the law when it comes to the 30 day notice, but ignore the law when it comes to time frame needed to get an eviction to court, dismissal of eviction if premises are vacated before said date, and unlikelihood of a large real estate firm to seek damages for a close being pushed out 1 week.

Why do you insist on being an "asshole" Just move as per agreement. Next time buy, not rent.

Why do you insist on being an "asshole" Just move as per agreement. Next time buy, not rent.

Because some people are entitled in this country, let some1 else pay for their mistakes.

NuttBoxer says

youareworthless says

you are an entitled whiny piece of shit. live up to your contract, quit being a spoiled child.

What a bunch of vindictive responses. This is why I said I'd be more worried if I was dealing with an individual.

Also, interesting none of you apparently EVER have to negotiate anything. Everything is black and white in your pseudo-reality, where exceptions never, ever occur.

I think it's really about sour grapes because a tenant peon knows some law, and is serving one of your land owning buddy's right up the ass.

au contraire! As your landlord, I'd negotiate, and you'd definitely pay.

I would have sent you a notice along the lines of the following:

I am giving you 30 days notice, please vacate the premises on or before such and such date.

Should you continue tenancy after such and such date, as a tenant in suffrage, in addition to legal proceedings to reclaim the premises, your new rental rate will be $250 per day, payable in advance for the anticipated tenancy.

Legal. enforceable. That way, if I was dealing with an entitled prick who thinks the world should just give him crap, like you, I wouldn't even have to bother going to court. Rather, I'd report your debt to all three credit bureaus, same as any other renter who doesn't pay according to their rental contract.

Unless

Looks like you have 3 weeks at your disposal:

"Unlawful Detainer Lawsuits

Before seeking eviction, a landlord should first speak with the tenant refusing to move to find out why. Courts customarily give evicted tenants time to move out as well; anywhere from five days to four weeks. Also, many municipalities prohibit eviction when temperatures fall below a certain level. To avoid potential legal issues, always ensure you follow state and local landlord-tenant lease termination rules and regulations."

http://homeguides.sfgate.com/tenant-not-leave-30-days-notice-41499.html

PS. What's your deposit situation?

tatupu70 says

NuttBoxer says

Shoe on the other foot, what would you do if you were the tenant? Throw away money or thumb your nose knowing they can't really do much?

I would have found a place that I can move into before my lease runs out. That's what I did every time I moved.

Or, I would have negotiated the extra 2 weeks BEFORE I signed with the new place.

Bingo. It would have delayed signing the new lease by a few hours, or perhaps one day, to call the old landlord and have that discussion beforehand. To just assume "hell I'll just stay longer, and if the old landlord doesn't agree, fuck him, it will take longer to evict" is what an UTTER ASSHOLE thinks.

If you go through with this, I hope they do ruin your credit, you deserve it!

that landlord is an idiot.

Try to negotiate a "fair standard", that negotiation works wonders. And they probably won't go to court (its more of a headache to them than it is for you). Just don't negotiate based on who can do what to whom (you'll lose that one), those are fun on forums but not in real life.

You can't really insist on having the right to overstay the end of the rental agreement. Landlord is technically under no obligation to honor the extension. Just like in a hotel, you can't insist on staying a few extra days without payment just cause something comes up, at best they may allow a late checkout free of charge.

In the future, I would advise that if you continue to rent go with a national reputable company like avalon or whoever bought out archstone. Things are much better spelled out and you will avoid the ambiguities that come with renting from a private individual. Besides, you can invest in a REIT and get some money back in a form of a dividend lol

If you rented in the PRoB you wouldn't be having these types of problems. It's positively feudal out there.

@nuttboxer--

In all honesty, you must have a plan--how you do foresee this playing out?

You should demand a free blow job and an ipad. Otherwise, you will be laying on bed masturbating on closing day. That should spice up the walk through.

Oh they are closing, then to best of my knowledge they can't just toss you out on the street because someone is closing. Either the buyer or seller has to buy you out.
I would fillibuster if I were you.

Tenpoundbass says

I would fillibuster if I were you.

WTF?

@NuttBoxer : just continue to negotiate. Take the high road. Don't let this tip toward litigation ... you have been legally served your 30 days. That's it. There isn't a judge in the world that goes against that. Basic contractual law. Don't think that if you force them toward a legal path they won't reach out and try and exact comeuppance for whatever you pull. They are on really solid ground. YOU are not. No amount of web searches into legal mumbo-jumbo will save you.

NuttBoxer says

... only recourse is an unlawful detainer that may not even get filed in court before we vacate, and can be dismissed if we leave before the trial day.

How good do you feel about making a choice like that? You think that's the right thing to do?

What do they owe you? Why?

I am sorry for the situation you find yourself in.

tatupu70 says

I would have found a place that I can move into before my lease runs out. That's what I did every time I moved.

Or, I would have negotiated the extra 2 weeks BEFORE I signed with the new place.

I asked about pushing up the date, and I will again once it gets closer. But the current tenants of our new place are military being deployed. The military is moving their stuff for them the week before, not much flex there.

This place is $350/month lower than our next best option. For that I'm willing to take some risk...

tatupu70 says

From your postings, it doesn't sound like you're negotiating-it just sounds like you asked for concessions and then moved right to threats.

Did you offer something for the right to extend your stay? After they said no, did you sweeten your offer?

I shouldn't have to explain this, but negotiation starts with one party asking for something they want, and the other party counters with something closer to what they want. A flat no is not negotiating, and that's what they said to both requests I made.

To the last, I haven't threatened. Simply stated we don't have the means to pay for storage and hotel, and don't have another place to go. I offered to pay for the 21 days up front, as I should. Not much I can do when they shut me out right away...

Change the locks!

And only communicate with him through the mail slot.

We got Rew on the ropes don't wuss out on us now.

dang007 says

Because some people are entitled in this country, let some1 else pay for their mistakes.

I haven't made any mistakes. The PM should've remembered who I am, and negotiated. They tried to stick me with the fee for a mouse infestation at this place when they had a huge hole in the garage that let all the mice up to into the attic. I researched and found out that owner is always responsible for pest abatement, stuck to my guns, and they backed off. Some people don't learn though...

This whole thread is why I didn't care if 2010 wasn't the bottom or not, turns out it was, for now any way.
I just got tired of Landlord crap, the house I was in sold three times in 7 years. I didn't care if my house went down another $40K and still woudn't, so my taxes will be cheap when I pay it off soon.

Because now I'm sick of mortagage company, insurance companies having me by the short and curlies when it comes to insurance.

blowmeironvagina says

Legal. enforceable. That way, if I was dealing with an entitled prick who thinks the world should just give him crap, like you, I wouldn't even have to bother going to court. Rather, I'd report your debt to all three credit bureaus, same as any other renter who doesn't pay according to their rental contract.

Unless

What if I didn't agree to the terms and never signed? OHH, YOU'D START THE UNLAWFUL DETAINER SUIT. AHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Straw Man says

PS. What's your deposit situation?

I've confirmed through law and a friend, deposit cannot be touched except for damage to the residence. We will be having a pre-inspection, and we will be taking lots of pictures...

tatupu70 says

@nuttboxer--

In all honesty, you must have a plan--how you do foresee this playing out?

When they said no to financial assistance I replied back that I don't have the means to pay for storage/hotel, and don't have a place to go. I offered to pay the full rent during my time around the first as usual. Their response has been silence. If I feel like it's gotten too far, I will bring in my friend's lawyer. Both my friend who's in real estate, and my friend who own's properties say I have nothing to worry about. The laws I read are on ca.gov sites. I think my footing is pretty solid here...

Rew says

@NuttBoxer : just continue to negotiate. Take the high road. Don't let this tip toward litigation

That's not my interest at all, but they are refusing to offer up any sort of compromise. And I'm open to additional compensation their way if they wanted it. Something to get talks going...

Direct the landlord to this site and then tell them that you are APOCALYPSEFUCK.

NuttBoxer says

What if I didn't agree to the terms and never signed? OHH, YOU'D START THE UNLAWFUL DETAINER SUIT. AHAHAHAHAHA!!!

on a month to month lease, the landlord can change the rent to anything they want, and/or terminate the lease with one month's notice. No signature needed. (some few california rent control cities have different rules but that is the general rule)

you are one of those trash dumbfucks who think they know what they are doing, but actually doesn't.

it may work out your way this time, but the risk/reward ratio on your course of action is just stupidly tilted against your decision. I have literally destroyed assholes like you in court. Your landlord could sign a lease with someone else, promising them the place literally for the day after your lease expires, that person shows up from NY with a truck full of stuff and no where to go. Then, they sue the landlord, and you for: motel for the 2 weeks, truck rental fees for 2 weeks, restaurant meals for the family for 2 weeks since they can't cook at home. ALL legitimate. Why? because you were given legal notice to leave, and choose not to.

the last jackass tenant like you I had, I left his credit in flames. I actually paid the extra $20 to record the small claims judgement against him and his wife on county public records too, just to make sure it kills his ability to rent or buy for years to come.

grow up. you created this situation by not taking your lease turns as serious. quit being a spoiled entitled little child.

blowmeironvagina says

with one month's notice.

Code of Civil procedure Section 1161.3.

Two months if you've inhabited the dwelling for over a year. For a landowner, you don't know much about California rent laws...

NuttBoxer says

I've confirmed through law and a friend, deposit cannot be touched except for damage to the residence. We will be having a pre-inspection, and we will be taking lots of pictures...

http://www.dca.ca.gov/publications/landlordbook/sec-deposit.shtml

Unpaid rent. The LL can give notice now that the rent will increase to a very large amount per day after the 30 day notice period. Then they will file an unlawful detainer the day after the 30 day period. If you stay any days - that amount will be unpaid rent and they will keep your deposit. You'll have to file a claim to try and get it back. You won't win.

Then assuming you move out prior to the trial, their lawyers (this is a corporation; a corporation must be represented by a state bar certified attorney in a legal proceeding) will happily file the civil action additional damages which will minimally be the balance of unpaid rent, the attorney's preparation and filing fees, and the court filing fees for the unlawful detainer and the civil action. Most attorneys bill $500-1000 per hour on the low end, and phone calls, emails, visits to the residence, (for discovery) etc. are all lawfully billable. And they will be done, at least, they will provide billable records to the court. Not to mention other possible damages related to the delay (or loss of) the property sale itself.

Then you will be PRAYING to settle.

If not, you will be deposed. They will bill for that. There will be pre-trial discoveries. They will bill for that. If you are stupid enough to go through all of that AND go to the trial (and represent yourself because every attorney you talk to will tell you to settle.) you will lose. And they'll bill you for that. You get the point.

If you don't attend the deposition or answer the discoveries, you risk being held in contempt, fined, jailed, and the plaintiff may receive summary judgement.

I'd estimate a judgement of at least $20k if you do this. Honestly. They won't settle for anything less than $5k, probably because they know they have 100% likelihood of winning. This will not be filed in small claims court most likely.

Not to mention your solid payment history (and job, presumably) will only encourage them to see this through because they will view you as collectable.

I cannot fathom how bad of an idea this is.

I've seen this before a lot in Los Angeles, especially now that a lot of rentals are being flipped and tenants turned over. This game of chasing "appreciation", also brings a lot of idiot land lords (plenty of those around) who don't know the rules and end up screwing themselves over out of greed. Reminds me of one of those morons out here who tried to kick an old lady out, she is still there rent free 2 years later because of how he did it.

So here is how you win:

1) You said you were there over a year. He owes you 60 days. He can't just do 30 day notice. Do send him a certified letter that he owes you 60. You can remind him that that is the law. They might argue and try to turn it into a position or use some other manipulative thing, as long as you keep it professional it won't escalate. Law is on your side no matter what.

2) Find it if it's under rent control ordinance, if it is (in LA most are) he can't just kick you out just because he wants to. Rent control = cash for keys, you are under no obligation to leave EVER.

FortWayne says

He owes you 60 days. He can't just do 30 day notice.

There is an exception to this. A 30 day can be served the day the unit enters escrow(is sold). I got a soft confirmation they did that part right. I'm pretty sure they can provide harder proof if needed though, so the 30 day is legit.

I think that also means the rent control does not apply.

FortWayne says

So here is how you win:

This is horrible advice.

OP, the moral of the story here is to sign & renew a lease, and make sure to redline any clause allowing the LL to terminate the lease upon sale. Then at least you will know when you have to start looking for a new place to live.

If the LL doesn't allow the redline, move on to another property.

NuttBoxer says

There is an exception to this. A 30 day can be served the day the unit enters escrow(is sold). I got a soft confirmation they did that part right. I'm pretty sure they can provide harder proof if needed though, so the 30 day is legit.

I think that also means the rent control does not apply.

I'm 100% sure that rent control (if it was present before) always applies. There is reason they pay renters here about $25,000 - $35,000 to move out of their old rental units. It is because of rent control. Now if the building is not rent controlled, that doesn't apply of course. They simply can't kick them out legally here so investors pay people to leave, but again that's only if the building is in rent control ordinance. Most of Los Angeles is.

I don't know about 60 days being turned into 30 because of purchase. Based on what is on the government website they have to have 5 things to turn it from a 60 day to 30 day. All 5 must be present or it doesn't make it a valid 30 day:

1) The landlord has contracted to sell the rental unit to another person who intends to occupy it for at least a year after the tenancy ends. In addition, all of the following must be true in order for the selling landlord to give you a 30-day notice
2) The landlord must have opened escrow with a licensed escrow agent or real estate broker, and
3) The landlord must have given you the 30-day notice no later than 120 days after opening the escrow, and
4) The landlord must not previously have given you a 30-day or 60-day notice, and
5) The rental unit must be one that can be sold separately from any other dwelling unit. (For example, a house or a condominium can be sold separately from another dwelling unit.) 203

Based on what I've seen with purchases, they for sure don't have #1 covered. No investor ever walks in with a tenant contract signed for a year. Because no one in their right mind would sign a contract before they see anything. And #5 also depends on property type (apartments generally dont qualify for 30 day, and are often under rent control).

Hope this helps man.

with all the money you saved from renting an "under market" rental over the last 4 years, why the fuck are you squabbling over 2 weeks of temp housing/storage?

FortWayne says

Based on what I've seen with purchases, they for sure don't have #1 covered. No investor ever walks in with a tenant contract signed for a year.

I think this is covered. Buyer is a family looking to occupy. Other circumstances are covered as well.

Just ran across this:
http://www.fresno.courts.ca.gov/_pdfs/Self-Help%20Packets/English%20versions/SHP-25%20R11-11%20unlawful%20detainer%20%28website%29.pdf

Seems to indicate 30 day has to be served by a process server(start of page 3). They used the third method, and did it day of, or day after escrow was entered. Definitely didn't make three attempts to hand deliver. I think could mean they have to re-serve...

NuttBoxer says

Buyer is a family looking to occupy.

sounds like you're being an obstructionist.