Law Offices of Richard C. Koman

Why is this case simple? Why is this case important?Why is this case simple? Why is this case important?

Hayward passes emergency just cause eviction!

What if the tenant subleases a room to a roommate or subleases the entire unit? One of the fundamental requirements of an unlawful detainer case is the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship. Here, that relationship exists between the tenant and the subtenant. There is no privity of contract between the owner and the subtenant and the owner has no standing to evict.

We’re excited that bans on rent control are being overturned in other states! Here, where rent control is legal but limited, we need to make sure that our legislature doesn't water down protections. Sacramento needs to bring tenants, not big real estate, to the table. #rentcontrolnow

Update: Attorney immediately served new notices and filed a new unlawful detainer. No rest! I just convinced a landlord attorney to dismiss their case. So I thought I would share some of the basic legal concepts for landlords and tenants alike. While these are technical/procedural issues, the underlying case is about a landlord who installed a heater improperly without permits and no CO detector and wound up poisoning the tenant and his dog. An affirmative lawsuit is forthco...ming. But here's how we knocked out the piece-of-shit unlawful detainer complaint. 1. Landlord based the case on BOTH a three-day notice to pay rent or quit; AND a 60-day notice. Well, which notice is the tenant supposedly in violation of? That makes the case uncertain and subject to demurrer or motion for judgment on the pleadings. 2. Three-day notice included a demand for a late fee. Landlords can ONLY demand rent and they cannot over state the amount due. (As an aside the late fee was 10% of the monthly rent or 120% per annum. That's usurious and should be illegal. But it's the inclusion of the late fee not the outrageous amount that's the issue.) 3. The 60-day notice didn't include the following required language (Civil Code 1946.1(h)): "State law permits former tenants to reclaim abandoned personal property left at the former address of the tenant, subject to certain conditions. You may or may not be able to reclaim property without incurring additional costs, depending on the cost of storing the property and the length of time before it is reclaimed. In general, these costs will be lower the sooner you contact your former landlord after being notified that property belonging to you was left behind after you moved out. 4. The 60-day notice was only served a few weeks before the case was filed. You CANNOT base a UD on an unexpired notice. 5. The attorney claimed he would just dismiss the 60-day notice if that was the only problem (it wasn't) on the day of trial. Of course, that's not how it works. Landlord would have to amend and tenant would have five days to respond.

https://www.kqed.org//its-a-big-deal-newsoms-housing-budge

Butchenson v. Flaker (BV 031862) *After failed motion to quash defendant-tenants have an absolute right to demurrer instead of answer.* In an unlawful detainer case, defendants brought a motion to quash service of summons, which was overruled. The court ordered defendants to file an ANSWER within five days. Defendants brought a writ of mandate challenging the denial of the motion to quash. Defendants timely filed their demurrer but a default judgment was granted anyway. ... This was error. (Pro per appellants.) http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/JAD17-17.PDF