no fault Eviction options San Diego CA 92115
Hi All. my husband and I are trying to turn our rental property (which is on our property with its own address) into a AirBB or short term rental. We currently have an awesome long term couple that has lived there for over 5 years but they are paying way below market value. We bought the house and inherited the tenants in 6/2022. We have a month to month lease and have increased rent each year. We are ready to try AIr BB/ fully furnished short term rental as we believe we can double our income on the rental property. How can we legally evict the awesome tenants in the back? is it insane to try to get rid of awesome paying tenants? what are our options? our Zip code is 92115. We also wanted to know if we are AB 1482 protection act exempt. Getting legal advice is extremely expensive but we are willing to invest if necessary. thank you for your thoughts!
That zip code is city of San Diego. This implies you not only have to deal with AB1482 but also the more strict recently enacted San Diego tenant protection act.
I am assuming by use of back unit, this is at least 2 units
Assuming the back unit is not in need of an extensive rehab, the no fault eviction method would be to move close family into the unit. That old not permit STR for 1 year and you would need to check the San Diego regulation about previous tenant having first refusal.
The more feasible way is to buy the tenant out. This will not be cheap as city of San Diego no fault eviction compensation s 2 months rent, 3 months rent if senior or handicapped.
To me the current San Diego STR market does not justify the expense. We have had STRs in San Diego since 1999 and this has is one of the slowest STR times (not quite as bad as Great Recession). In addition, the STR rents have decreased. Add in the additional effort or cost to use a PM and the profits are not what they were a couple years ago.
Now for your current under market LTR tenants …. Raise their rent the maximum allowed. That is currently 10% (cpi was above 5%) under AB1482 and I believe the same for San Diego tenant protection act. It will take time to get the rent to market rent even with maximum rent increases. Hopefully you understood the laws when you purchased, and depicted the rent control in your underwriting.
Good luck
thank you! very helpful information
Dumb question but if they're month to month, why do you need to evict them? Can't you just not renew their lease?
If they can provide x days notice to terminate the lease, can't you?
Quote from @Cody L.:
Dumb question but if they're month to month, why do you need to evict them? Can't you just not renew their lease?
If they can provide x days notice to terminate the lease, can't you?
In rent control, the LL have few options to terminate a tenancy. Without these restrictions, rent control would have no effect as LL would simply end the lease on below market rents.
What the people who advocate for rent control do not understand is that LL not being able to terminate a tenancy increases LL risk. To compensate for increased risk, the rents must rise. Their lack of understanding of economics is extreme.
Rent control also reduces the benefits of keeping properties pristine and lead to reduced maintenance. If rent is below market, the Units get the maintenance required by law and maintenance necessary to reduce future costs, but they no not get much beyond that. Fortunately, i do not let my rents get much below market rent.
Economists virtually unanimously indicate rent control is bad for tenants yet rent control gets enacted in new areas every year.. I believe many of the politicians know the issues associated with rent control but pass it because of the ignorance of many of their constituents. The various regulations that pass have the what should be obvious consequences of raising rents resulting in extreme rent growth. The rent growth results in improved cash flow.
Quote from @Dan Heuschele:
Quote from @Cody L.:
Dumb question but if they're month to month, why do you need to evict them? Can't you just not renew their lease?
If they can provide x days notice to terminate the lease, can't you?In rent control, the LL have few options to terminate a tenancy. Without these restrictions, rent control would have no effect as LL would simply end the lease on below market rents.
What the people who advocate for rent control do not understand is that LL not being able to terminate a tenancy increases LL risk. To compensate for increased risk, the rents must rise. Their lack of understanding of economics is extreme.
Rent control also reduces the benefits of keeping properties pristine and lead to reduced maintenance. If rent is below market, the Units get the maintenance required by law and maintenance necessary to reduce future costs, but they no not get much beyond that. Fortunately, i do not let my rents get much below market rent.
Economists virtually unanimously indicate rent control is bad for tenants yet rent control gets enacted in new areas every year.. I believe many of the politicians know the issues associated with rent control but pass it because of the ignorance of many of their constituents. The various regulations that pass have the what should be obvious consequences of raising rents resulting in extreme rent growth. The rent growth results in improved cash flow.
Excuse my ignorance as I'm in an LL friendly state, but doesn't some rent control also enforce a maximum rent amount? I would think that would make it difficult to compensate for the inherent risks.
Quote from @Troy P.:
Quote from @Dan Heuschele:
Quote from @Cody L.:
Dumb question but if they're month to month, why do you need to evict them? Can't you just not renew their lease?
If they can provide x days notice to terminate the lease, can't you?In rent control, the LL have few options to terminate a tenancy. Without these restrictions, rent control would have no effect as LL would simply end the lease on below market rents.
What the people who advocate for rent control do not understand is that LL not being able to terminate a tenancy increases LL risk. To compensate for increased risk, the rents must rise. Their lack of understanding of economics is extreme.
Rent control also reduces the benefits of keeping properties pristine and lead to reduced maintenance. If rent is below market, the Units get the maintenance required by law and maintenance necessary to reduce future costs, but they no not get much beyond that. Fortunately, i do not let my rents get much below market rent.
Economists virtually unanimously indicate rent control is bad for tenants yet rent control gets enacted in new areas every year.. I believe many of the politicians know the issues associated with rent control but pass it because of the ignorance of many of their constituents. The various regulations that pass have the what should be obvious consequences of raising rents resulting in extreme rent growth. The rent growth results in improved cash flow.
Excuse my ignorance as I'm in an LL friendly state, but doesn't some rent control also enforce a maximum rent amount? I would think that would make it difficult to compensate for the inherent risks.
The statewide rent cap is 5% + CPI, capped at 10% and does not apply to SFH or newer units. If the rent is not below market rent, this allows for significant rent increases but the market must support the increases. If the risk increases, the market rent increases which allows rent growth that meets the maximum (currently 10% increase). Most of my tenants will be getting 10% rent increases.
Dan Heuschele,
I also am somewhat confused about not renewing a month-month Lease. Does the State Law 567 (due to go into effect April 1st) play any part in this? In fact, does that law ONLY apply to EVICTIONS (I cannot seem to get a straight answer from anybody about this). I have a tenant month-month in my one single family home who I know I need to give 60-days notice. I texted them to let them know I will need to move back into the home, and am willing to give them 5 months notice since they have been pretty good, tho’ running a daycare there I was not told about. My general impression is I can just write them a NON RENEWAL OF LEASE. But I want to be sure I am not going to fall under 567. Thanks for your assistance (I think my question is somewhat similar to others asking about month-month Leases).
Quote from @Jane H.:Dan Heuschele,
I also am somewhat confused about not renewing a month-month Lease. Does the State Law 567 (due to go into effect April 1st) play any part in this? In fact, does that law ONLY apply to EVICTIONS (I cannot seem to get a straight answer from anybody about this). I have a tenant month-month in my one single family home who I know I need to give 60-days notice. I texted them to let them know I will need to move back into the home, and am willing to give them 5 months notice since they have been pretty good, tho’ running a daycare there I was not told about. My general impression is I can just write them a NON RENEWAL OF LEASE. But I want to be sure I am not going to fall under 567. Thanks for your assistance (I think my question is somewhat similar to others asking about month-month Leases).
If the property is owned by an entity that traces to individuals and you plan to reside in the property for at least a year, SB567 should have no impact. The AB1482 will require you pay tenant one month rent. Pay this after move out; do not forgive the last month’s rent to meet this criteria.
It seems like you are doing everything by the rules. SB567 was written because a lot of LL were pushing the rules. They would move into units for brief periods or they would evict for extensive remodel and never complete the remodel. For a few bad actors they created sb567.
I will be moving my son into one of my units when he and his girlfriend finish at UCSB this year. Tenant will not be thrilled, but it is legit that when child completes his degree, he needs a place to live. Family over tenants.
Good luck
Thanks - I totally am a single entity, not a corporate landlord trying to make a killing. I didn’t even raise the rent when I could have. (Are you an attorney by any chance?)
(But I don’t see where AB1482 even applies to me - I am not paying the Tenant a dime.They ran a business (daycare) out of my home which they snuck in w/o telling us. We had to do a lot of research to find out CA allows that. They probably made a killing, using our property. Why should I have to “help” them if they are month to month and I am simply exercising my right not to continue the Lease?
Good luck with your son - you are so right. Family first. Thanks to whoever wrote the newest rules, if Californians think they have a problem with housing now, it seems it’s gonna get a lot worse. Landlords will just throw up their hands and sell everything.
Quote from @Jane H.:
Thanks - I totally am a single entity, not a corporate landlord trying to make a killing. I didn’t even raise the rent when I could have. (Are you an attorney by any chance?)
(But I don’t see where AB1482 even applies to me - I am not paying the Tenant a dime.They ran a business (daycare) out of my home which they snuck in w/o telling us. We had to do a lot of research to find out CA allows that. They probably made a killing, using our property. Why should I have to “help” them if they are month to month and I am simply exercising my right not to continue the Lease?
Good luck with your son - you are so right. Family first. Thanks to whoever wrote the newest rules, if Californians think they have a problem with housing now, it seems it’s gonna get a lot worse. Landlords will just throw up their hands and sell everything.
>Are you an attorney by any chance?)
I am not an attorney. So do not consider this legal advice. I am an asset manager with primary assets being RE related (mostly small MF and mineral rights). Consult your own trusted expert.
>Why should I have to “help” them if they are month to month and I am simply exercising my right not to continue the Lease?
I got you and the OP confused. If it is a SFR, AB1482 does not apply to you. If it is MF then AB1482 applies and the rest of this post applies.
It is because your market is very tenant friendly. I hope you understood this when you did your underwriting when purchasing this property. In your market you do not have the right not to continue the lease for no reason and if you have a legal reason per AB1482 that is not related to tenant non- performance, you need to pay the tenant (even though the lease is up). It does seem that forcing LL into infinite term tenancy should not be legal. LL commits to rent unit for certain amount of time and government determines tenant can stay as long as they desire. Seems wrong, but in other places similar rent control law has held up to legal challenges.
AB1482 applies if the property is MF over 15 years old. There is an exception for 2 units if the owner lived on property prior to the tenant. I am unsure the OO exception exists for the San Diego tenant protection act. Under AB1482 this is considered a no fault eviction (terrible name as the lease is up and they are not going through legal eviction process). Under ab1482 you owe them one month rent.
However, it gets worse for you if the property is MF in the city of San diego. under the city of San Diego tenant protection act, you must pay them 2 months rent or 3 months if they are senior or handicapped.
Now in the event you do not pay them, SB567 can apply. If the judge finds you knowingly did not comply with the law (versus having been ignorant to the law) then you are on the hook for tenant legal bills and penalties. Note if the tenant’s legal representation finds this thread then they will have evidence that you should have been aware of the need to pay tenant compensation. The purpose of sb567 was to provide enforcement mechanism for ab1482.
It may not seem fair, but I recommend paying your tenant the 2 months rent after move out if you are city of San Diego (3 months if tenant is senior or handicapped), 1 month rent if not city of San Diego. Your other option is to go through eviction for their lease violation. It will almost certainly cost you more than the no fault eviction.
As indicated, consult with your own expert. Unfortunately, I have confidence they will confirm what I stated.
Good luck
Ok,
I got it. I am not a MultiFamily unit at all.
Believe me, my blood pressure is going up and down w/all this research. Appreciate your input, but I see none of AB1482 applies to me.
I plan on giving the requisite 60-day notice, and move back to my property. My kids want me closer to them.
Thanks
Quote from @Dan Heuschele:
Quote from @Jane H.:
Thanks - I totally am a single entity, not a corporate landlord trying to make a killing. I didn’t even raise the rent when I could have. (Are you an attorney by any chance?)
(But I don’t see where AB1482 even applies to me - I am not paying the Tenant a dime.They ran a business (daycare) out of my home which they snuck in w/o telling us. We had to do a lot of research to find out CA allows that. They probably made a killing, using our property. Why should I have to “help” them if they are month to month and I am simply exercising my right not to continue the Lease?
Good luck with your son - you are so right. Family first. Thanks to whoever wrote the newest rules, if Californians think they have a problem with housing now, it seems it’s gonna get a lot worse. Landlords will just throw up their hands and sell everything.
>Are you an attorney by any chance?)
I am not an attorney. So do not consider this legal advice. I am an asset manager with primary assets being RE related (mostly small MF and mineral rights). Consult your own trusted expert.
>Why should I have to “help” them if they are month to month and I am simply exercising my right not to continue the Lease?
I got you and the OP confused. If it is a SFR, AB1482 does not apply to you. If it is MF then AB1482 applies and the rest of this post applies.
It is because your market is very tenant friendly. I hope you understood this when you did your underwriting when purchasing this property. In your market you do not have the right not to continue the lease for no reason and if you have a legal reason per AB1482 that is not related to tenant non- performance, you need to pay the tenant (even though the lease is up). It does seem that forcing LL into infinite term tenancy should not be legal. LL commits to rent unit for certain amount of time and government determines tenant can stay as long as they desire. Seems wrong, but in other places similar rent control law has held up to legal challenges.
AB1482 applies if the property is MF over 15 years old. There is an exception for 2 units if the owner lived on property prior to the tenant. I am unsure the OO exception exists for the San Diego tenant protection act. Under AB1482 this is considered a no fault eviction (terrible name as the lease is up and they are not going through legal eviction process). Under ab1482 you owe them one month rent.
However, it gets worse for you if the property is MF in the city of San diego. under the city of San Diego tenant protection act, you must pay them 2 months rent or 3 months if they are senior or handicapped.
Now in the event you do not pay them, SB567 can apply. If the judge finds you knowingly did not comply with the law (versus having been ignorant to the law) then you are on the hook for tenant legal bills and penalties. Note if the tenant’s legal representation finds this thread then they will have evidence that you should have been aware of the need to pay tenant compensation. The purpose of sb567 was to provide enforcement mechanism for ab1482.
It may not seem fair, but I recommend paying your tenant the 2 months rent after move out if you are city of San Diego (3 months if tenant is senior or handicapped), 1 month rent if not city of San Diego. Your other option is to go through eviction for their lease violation. It will almost certainly cost you more than the no fault eviction.
As indicated, consult with your own expert. Unfortunately, I have confidence they will confirm what I stated.
Good luck
Well said Dan. This entire thread should be required reading for anyone considering being a LL in CA. Or, even Washington and Oregon, which are similar in their tenant friendliness..
https://www.ashleypetersonlaw.com/san-diego-enacts-new-tenan....
You should be fine by serving the proper notice (60 days). And no, it's not crazy to evict if they are good tenants. Some great tenants are willing to pay market value.
Another option is to consider making it a corporate rental or for traveling nurses. I didn't want to manage my own STR's and I didn't want to pay 20% in STR management fees either so I opted for the in-between if you will. My tenants stay for a period of anywhere from 30-90 days typically but I'm able to capture a higher rate in line with STR without all the headache of Airbnb guests and their constant bugging.
Just be sure to consider all options before committing to STR. It's a ton of work and sometimes depending on how seasonal your property is it's not too far off from long-term or mid-term rates.
Quote from @Amara Berg:
It sounds like you are currently exempt since you're additional property is on the grounds you currently reside in. This article breaks it down pretty well:https://www.ashleypetersonlaw.com/san-diego-enacts-new-tenan....
You should be fine by serving the proper notice (60 days). And no, it's not crazy to evict if they are good tenants. Some great tenants are willing to pay market value.
Another option is to consider making it a corporate rental or for traveling nurses. I didn't want to manage my own STR's and I didn't want to pay 20% in STR management fees either so I opted for the in-between if you will. My tenants stay for a period of anywhere from 30-90 days typically but I'm able to capture a higher rate in line with STR without all the headache of Airbnb guests and their constant bugging.
Just be sure to consider all options before committing to STR. It's a ton of work and sometimes depending on how seasonal your property is it's not too far off from long-term or mid-term rates.
I believe you are responding to the OP. It appears you need to educate on AB1482 and possibly the tenant protection act.
From OP “We bought the house and inherited the tenants in 6/2022. … How can we legally evict the awesome tenants in the back?“
this implies the property has multiple units (tenants in the back) and the tenants have lived there longer than any potential OO situation (inherited the tenants). AB1482 applies in this case. In addition, I suspect the San Diego tenant protection act applies if the property is in the city of San Diego. Converting a unit to STR is not a legal reason for a "no fault eviction".
sb567 allows a judge to enact penalties and legal fees against LL that do not abide by AB1482.
the OP needs to abide by the law or risk the consequences. This will include providing correct lease termination notice that cites one of the Ab1482 legal reasons for a “no fault eviction”. Note the city of San Diego has stricter laws on the lease termination notice requirements.
OP, if you have doubts about the content of my post, please consult your own expert/lawyer. Do not attempt to terminate the tenant without having a legal reason for the no fault eviction as SB567 can make this a costly mistake.
good luck