patrick.net

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.

it was already stated in the thread, but the bottom line is:

escrow is a time-sensitive process with a lot of contractual contingencies and good faith money on the line. take your shit and get out.

NuttBoxer says

30 day was not served at the beginning of the month, it was served the day escrow was entered, which is now looking illegal. Anyway It was 6th of April I believe.

why is this "i believe"

where you served in writing? taped to your door? process server? email?

the link you presented earlier, trying to bolster your claims about your service being illegal applied to FORCIBLE DETAINER only. Nothing to do with giving you 30 day notice.

If the landlord can show you knew of his intention, all of your stupid legalize won't matter. I've had tenants try this.
Dipshit: your honor, I wasn't legally served...so according to AZ law.
judge to me: did you serve them?
Me: I emailed them and they replied, I have copies of their replies.
Judge to dipshit: are these your emails?
dipshit: yes, but according to az law... blah blah blah.
judge: but, you clearly knew of ________.
dipshit: yes, but that isn't the way its supposed to be served.
judge: you were given notice, you got the notice, you replied about the notice, so you can't claim you weren't served.

and done.

In THE REAL WORLD, it is the intent, and equity of the situation that wins out.

Now, back to your case: In most month to month leases, service has to be made at the time of each period, i.e. on or before the 1st if that is when you pay your rent.

CA law may be different. Perhaps they have a different law regarding sale of the home.

AND, you don't even seem to be sure what day you were served, the 6th is awfully close the 1st, and your track record for veracity is pretty low. Don't think just claiming you didn't see it, or didn't get it in the mail will clear you.

BUT, this is honestly the first point that you might have.

Tenants on a month to month lease have to give their notice on or before the 1st, and for whole periods of the lease, the same applies to landlord where I am. ymmv.

NuttBoxer says

Let me separate the crap in this thread from the substance. I have been an excellent tenant for over 4 years. Thought that would cause the owner to be a little flexible if I needed more than 30 days to find a good place. Tried to negotiate an extension or financial assistance, with the point being I meet their deadline. No negotiation was entertained. Stated I don't have the money, or a place to live, and for those reasons would be staying past the 30 day. Asked for a pro-rate so I could pay for the entire time I stayed.

I'm not expert on tenant law anywhere, but what gets me is the OP's attempts to rationalize what he's doing and pretend it's OK. He didn't try to negotiate at all. He offered to pay rent for the extra time he would be overstaying his lease. Whoop de doo. Of course he's going to pay that. That's not offering ANYTHING for the disruption and extra costs that his overstaying his lease causes the landlord or new owner. Then he has the balls to ask for compensation for his moving and storage costs?? wtf? He's been paying under market rent for several years and now he's going to ask the landlord to pay his moving expenses too?? This guy lives in la-la land.

And don't pretend what you're doing is legal or moral. You are trying to game the system and use a loophole. You may win or you may get hammered. But you are the bad guy--not the landlord. He followed the law. He followed the terms of the contract. You are the one who doesn't want to.

There's a lesson to be learned here

Always get at least 60 days notice ON YOUR LEASE for termination of contract. Its hard to pick up your home and find a new one to move to in only 30 days

errc says

There's a lesson to be learned here

That's a good point, but the lesson I would learn in his shoes is to be thankful he had a hugely undermarket rental agreement for 3 or 4 years. In such a situation, don't worry about how many days notice or quibble on the exact exit date. Just use a pod or similar moving service where you can keep your stuff in storage for a month for free. Then stay in a hotel or go on a short vacation during the move time. You caused the 2 week homeless situation. Fortunately, there is an easy solution. Hopefully, he saved some money during his years of subsidized rent to pay for this expense.

If you fight it, I'm guessing the landlord will take you to court. They want the place vacated and don't want to risk you in there mucking things up. So, you'd have to prepare for that, which is probably a bigger hassle and cost than just getting a pod.

ThereStrategist says

and iI have already learnt more from this thread alone, than 4 years of being the world's best landlord.

There's some useful, but mostly a lot of biased, false information. Regarding service of 30 day in California:

http://www.dca.ca.gov/publications/landlordbook/terminations.shtml#writtennotices

Under Proper Service of Notice is clearly states than "nail and mail", cannot be done until PM has attempted in person or certified service 3 times. The other article I linked to was a handbook for landlords who don't use a lawyer on the step-by-step process of a UD. Obviously you can't file a UD without serving a notice to vacate first.

Now I know people can hypothesize about what might happen all day long, but I'm interested in facts, not opinions. If this went to a UD, I could file a motion to quash based on improper service, and I'll make sure PM is aware. Just one more complication to persuade them it's in our best interest not to make this a legal matter.

Sorry some of you have your panties all wadded up about tenants questioning your supremacy, but please stick to cited law and facts, as some have done.

These punk LL are fortunate that they live in such a hyper conservative hell hole like California, and not a progressive utopia like Pennsylvania, because here we recognize the power imbalance, and protect our renters much better.

The last place we moved out of, both the LL and their realtor lied to us verbally about what was going on, so we told them that they could apply the security deposit as the last months rent. They got all pissy, and I'm certain they were wanting to try and screw us over, but we held up our end otherwise (kept the property looking nice) and moved out and cleaned house quickly in the 13th hour. Moving sucks

Also, there was some wildly inaccurate information about raising the rent on a tenant to get them to leave. In California you are required to give 30 days notice for an increase under 10%, and 60 days for an increase over 10%.

http://www.dca.ca.gov/publications/legal_guides/lt-2.shtml

errc says

Moving sucks

Agreed, and moving over 2 weeks is even worse. That's why I'm not taking this lightly. The one constant I've seen during my years renting, and again in this thread is the arrogance of landlords. I say arrogance because when I look up the law, they are often in violation of it. Usually I've been able to work something out though. Court has only been an option for me once, and I was extremely aggravated by the circumstances, otherwise I wouldn't have taken the time.

I know I'm alone on this, but I couldn't possibly give any less a shit what the law says. The majority of the laws in the United States are unjust and cause harm, so as a freedom loving American, it's my duty to disregard them

NuttBoxer says

Agreed, and moving over 2 weeks is even worse. That's why I'm not taking this lightly. The one constant I've seen during my years renting, and again in this thread is the arrogance of landlords. I say arrogance because when I look up the law, they are often in violation of it. Usually I've been able to work something out though. Court has only been an option for me once, and I was extremely aggravated by the circumstances, otherwise I wouldn't have taken the time.

Wow--your are truly delusional. I have no love for landlords--they are true rent-seekers and add very little value. But you are blatantly disregarding your contract. Just because you screwed up. It's not the LL fault. It's YOUR fault. It's offensive that you try to pretend that it's someone else's fault.

Are you renting a condo or town house? Or is this an apartment building?

FortWayne says

Are you renting a condo or town house? Or is this an apartment building?

House, only unit on the lot.

YesYNot says

'm going to say that those two have a much better grasp on this than nut puncher.

How much will you put on that, and do you have paypal?

No response after I told them I couldn't move earlier due to not having money for storage or hotel, and didn't have anyplace to stay. Asked again this morning, including a higher up in the PM company as the guys I've been dealing with seems to be new to his career. Got a response within an hour that the owner agreed to extend us to the 21st. I thanked them for their flexibility, and requested something in writing to the affect that the 30 day is no longer in affect/has been extended.

All the blowhards with their made up scenarios, this is an example of what really happens, take note, and stop trying to mislead people.

To be fair, my advice involved threats of masturbating NuttBoxer says

How much will you put on that, and do you have paypal?

NuttBoxer says

Got a response within an hour that the owner agreed to extend us to the 21st.

A lot of drama over something that you settled with a simple request by email, as was suggested. It's kind of like you nut punched the whole board.

NuttBoxer says

Got a response within an hour that the owner agreed to extend us to the 21st. I thanked them for their flexibility

Good deal. Next time do it before you sign the new lease.

tatupu70 says

Good deal. Next time do it before you sign the new lease.

Under normal circumstances I would never do this. But rental market is almost like buying a house right now. The place was $350/month lower than our next best option, and we had done a solid two weeks worth of looking up to this point. The discount was worth the risk of the two week window.

blowmeironvagina says

you got lucky this time, though I suspect your attitude is why you are a loser, struggling on the marginal ends, in expensive san diego. grow up.

"Wah Wah Wah, my imagination lost to reality."

Why did the PM cave when they're getting nothing back? Because the slam dunk you're trying to scare other tenants into believing, was a time/money trap they wanted nothing to do with.

You and iSquawk have posted ZERO links backing up your buffoonery, and worse you've tried to deceive people into giving up their tenant rights. Winning an argument is one thing, but when you seek to intentionally mislead people for your own selfish ends, that's despicable.

NuttBoxer says

"Wah Wah Wah, my imagination lost to reality."

Why did the PM cave when they're getting nothing back? Because the slam dunk you're trying to scare other tenants into believing, was a time/money trap they wanted nothing to do with.

You and iSquawk have posted ZERO links backing up your buffoonery, and worse you've tried to deceive people into giving up their tenant rights. Winning an argument is one thing, but when you seek to intentionally mislead people for your own selfish ends, that's despicable.

you are one stupid loser. And this post, shows why you will always be a loser.

they decided it wasn't worth the effort, that doesn't mean you were right at all. IF it had been important to them, you would have been left bleeding.

I had a tenant like you. I gave them notice of a rent increase, they refused, which they can't on a month to month lease.
the next month, they paid the old amount, instead of the new amount. I sent them certified notice that they were short, and to either immediately pay the difference, or consider it their 30 day notice to vacate. they, like you, refused both options.

I filed forcible entry and detainer, they counter sued me for a half dozen bs complaints... (4 year old lease wasn't legal, house issues which don't count in AZ, notice not properly served, rent shouldn't have been raised, etc) the tenants father was a paralegal, and had proficient knowledge of how to abuse the system. It wasted my time, but I got all those dismissed.

Anyways, long story short, being jackasses like you, they did drag out the eviction for an extra two weeks or so.

I got a judgement against them for $5500 on a $900 rental, so much for your thinking your only risk is the rent.

they still didn't go, so I had the sherrif remove them. That was quite a scene, he literally gave them 10 minutes to get out of the house. I changed the locks and installed an alarm system that texts me if it is triggered.

All of their crap was still in the house, and I boxed it all and stored it, billing them $500 for my trouble. I had a towing company remove all 3 of their cars from my property, at no charge to me, either they pay the towing company or never get the cars back.

they sued me again, saying valuable stuff went missing, I shouldn't have towed the cars, etc. the charge was too high. Boo freaking hoo, you had two months to get it out yourself.

I paid $20 extra, just to record the judgement on county records, which guarantees they will NEVER be buying a property, unless it is removed by me.

ALso, I garnished his wages for 1.5 years. he later lost that job, so he still owes me around $3000 + 10% a year... his credit is ruined forever, but I guess he is just working at painting for cash now.

You could have simply asked your landlord about an extra two weeks. Instead of demanding like an insolent entitled child.

I'm quite sure the reason you are a loser who has to find the cheapest rentals you can in Cholla vista, is because of your personality, which you've shown over and over on this board.

NuttBoxer says

No response after I told them I couldn't move earlier due to not having money for storage or hotel, and didn't have anyplace to stay. Asked again this morning, including a higher up in the PM company as the guys I've been dealing with seems to be new to his career. Got a response within an hour that the owner agreed to extend us to the 21st. I thanked them for their flexibility, and requested something in writing to the affect that the 30 day is no longer in affect/has been extended.

All the blowhards with their made up scenarios, this is an example of what really happens, take note, and stop trying to mislead people.

Nice work NB

Kind of funny how all the landlords on the site (you can tell who they are) went ape overboard with telling you to move, and everyone else thought that you can probably just talk it over with them and be fine.

blowmeironvagina says

they decided it wasn't worth the effort, that doesn't mean you were right at all.
...
Boo freaking hoo, you had two months to get it out yourself.

Nobody cares who's right or wrong. Only what's doable and what's not. In NBs case the LL didn't have the luxury of two month and knew damn well that no damage can be done to the tenant if he moves out within three weeks (in CA, have no idea about other states). So they settled for prorated rent which was a smart thing to do. And exactly what NB wanted. So it's a win for him, square and clear.

FortWayne says

Kind of funny how all the landlords on the site (you can tell who they are) went ape overboard with telling you to move, and everyone else thought that you can probably just talk it over with them and be fine.

That's not really true. NB made it seem that he had already tried talking with the landlord and that the LL wouldn't budge. I think everyone agrees that was the best move and one he should have made a long time ago before he came up with the plan to overstay his lease.

FortWayne says

Kind of funny how all the landlords on the site (you can tell who they are)

the landlords on this site say "I'm a landlord"

you really are such a dim bulb, that you think you think you figured something out there! freaking hilarious!

tatupu70 says

That's not really true. NB made it seem that he had already tried talking with the landlord and that the LL wouldn't budge. I think everyone agrees that was the best move and one he should have made a long time ago before he came up with the plan to overstay his lease.

The PM/owner/buyer's initial response was to leave. When I started the thread that's what I was complaining about. I tried asking for concessions, and when they refused, simply stated I couldn't afford to leave. Faced with my response, they gave in rather than start a process that was neither worth their time, or money.

I'm repeating myself, but alot of people who posted on here made assumptions, and don't seem to have really read much of what I wrote.

NuttBoxer says

I tried asking for concessions, and when they refused, simply stated I couldn't afford to leave. Faced with my response, they gave in rather than start a process that was neither worth their time, or money.

Well, you're making assumptions there. It may be that they didn't want to start the process or it may be that you never talked to the person who had the authority to make such a decision. You assume that your threat made them change their mind--maybe, maybe not.

You also misstate many times what transpired. You did not negotiate at all. You asked for concessions and then threw a tantrum when they didn't accept. Like others said--good that it worked out. Hopefully you'll save up some money this time so you can afford to move if you have to.

So I repeatedly asked for the amount due for May, and was finally told to pay the whole month, and I would be reimbursed when my security deposit was returned. It was indicated this was what was in my lease. Looked the lease over, and couldn't find any specifics on last month's payment, or reimbursement for overpayment. Went to the California DCA site and it states a pro-rate should be applied for whatever duration the tenant stays once notice is given. Additionally, California Landlord's Law Book states that rent accepted constitutes an agreement to stay for the number of days paid. So if I were to pay the full rent for May, I would be entitled to stay the entire time.

The pro-rated amount was supposed to be listed in the 30 day from the PM, but it wasn't. I know others in this thread have tried to indicate last month's is due in full when the notice indicates you are leaving before the end of the month. It is not. Amazing how little some landlords know about the rules of their own profession...

tatupu70 says

Well, you're making assumptions there. It may be that they didn't want to start the process or it may be that you never talked to the person who had the authority to make such a decision. You assume that your threat made them change their mind--maybe, maybe not.

Same people where contacted both times. They went for what they wanted, getting us out right away, then settled when we put them in a position to have to attempt to force us out.

NuttBoxer says

Same people where contacted both times.

NuttBoxer says

Asked again this morning, including a higher up in the PM company as the guys I've been dealing with seems to be new to his career. Got a response within an hour that the owner agreed to extend us to the 21st.

Seems like you indicated that you spoke to someone higher up.

NuttBoxer says

They went for what they wanted, getting us out right away, then settled when we put them in a position to have to attempt to force us out.

OK--you clearly want to think that you bullied them into it, so no reason to burst any bubbles.

tatupu70 says

Seems like you indicated that you spoke to someone higher up.

I see how that's confusing. The first time I reached out to PM, I also texted the selling agent after hearing nothing back, because I wanted to make sure seller and buyer had been notified of my request. She informed me she had been notified by email early that morning. Ultimately a decision like this is a buyer/seller decision, the PM is just the errand boy.

Got a pro-rated number for May rent today. Just to confirm, iSquawk and others claiming full rent is due for last month are dead wrong. Don't let landlords bully you into giving up your rights. Especially in California, they are at a disadvantage in most cases.