California extending eviction moratoriums through end of July

19 Replies

For those landlords in California, Governor Newsom signed another executive order authorizing local governments to extend current eviction moratoriums two more months, through July 28th.  (His previous executive order expired May 31st.)

So this can be good news or bad news.  If your local governments don't extend their moratoriums, you may be able to resume evictions (provided you don't fall under one of the provisions of the federal eviction moratorium from the CARES Act).  Or your local governments may follow suit with the state and extend the eviction moratoriums through the end of July.  I know cities around me, like Sacramento, have already announced they'll be extending their eviction moratoriums.  

Personally, I don't have a need to do any evictions, but I know a lot of landlords have tenants that aren't paying right now and need to recover possession of their properties.  So hopefully, if you're in that position, you can work something out with your tenants, or your cities start allowing evictions, or you can weather or couple more months of no evictions.  Because it seems like those are now the options.

I agree that this is both good and bad.

Good for people who really need the help so that they have somewhere to live.
Bad for landlords, like my father-in-law, that rely on the rent to pay their own bills.

In my opinion, if jurisdictions want to do this, they need to pay the landlords via their local taxes.  Services cannot just be provided for FREE.  It is really no different than building a house and then telling the contractor that you don’t have to pay them.  There is a transactional relationship between landlord and tenant - the landlord provides a property and the tenant agrees to pay for the service to live there.  This rushed public-policy will have some long lasting negative effects on the housing market.


Hi @Kyle J. - just wanted to get a bump on this post.  I just read that Biden's eviction moratorium only applies to properties with federally backed loans.  So for those of us with a federally backed mortgage, does do you think we are clear to file unlawful detainer after 1/31/21? . 

This assumes that Newsom doesn't extend the current state moratorium and there are no additional ones applied further down on the local level.


Originally posted by @Jason Mak :

Hi @Kyle J. - just wanted to get a bump on this post.  I just read that Biden's eviction moratorium only applies to properties with federally backed loans.  So for those of us with a federally backed mortgage, does do you think we are clear to file unlawful detainer after 1/31/21? . 

This assumes that Newsom doesn't extend the current state moratorium and there are no additional ones applied further down on the local level.

I assume you meant to ask whether those of us WITHOUT federally backed mortgages would be clear to file unlawful detainers after 1/31/21.  In any event, there's lots of things to look at and consider.

First, as I understand it, Biden only requested a couple things.  He requested that federal housing agencies extend eviction protections for those tenants living in properties with federally-backed mortgages.  He also requested that the CDC extend the federal eviction moratorium (which is not just limited to those living in properties with federally-backed mortgages), which is currently set to expire Jan 31st.  He would like both of these to be extended until March 31st.  However, as of the writing of this post, I don't believe either have been extended to that date (though I'm guessing it's likely they will be).

Here's a couple articles with more info on that part of it if you're interested:

Biden Signs Executive Order to Extend Eviction Moratorium. Is More Rent Relief Next?

Biden seeks to extend bans on evictions and foreclosures

With all that being said, what's more relevant to your question in my mind is what's going on in our state since AB3088 provides the primary eviction protections to tenants here.  As you may know, the eviction protections outlined in this law are due to expire at the end of this month.  However, two new bills have already been proposed (one to extend them through March and the other that would extend them all the way into 2022).  And our Gov. Newsom has already indicated he wants one of them and will sign it:

Newsom to Legislature: Don’t let state’s eviction protections lapse

So, to me, it's too soon to tell what landlords will be able to do after January 31st.  Yes, the current protections end after that date.  (Of course, for those who aren't receiving any rent at all or who have tenants who are violating other terms of the lease, AB3088 already allows the filing of Unlawful Detainers. You don't have to wait until after Jan 31st.)

Lastly, numerous attorneys have formed the opinion that these federal eviction moratoriums (like the CDC order) don't even apply in California.  For example, here's the opinion from the legal department at the leading landlord association in California (CAA):

Like I said, lots of things at play here, and these are just some of my own observations/opinions.  As always, I suggest consulting your own landlord-tenant attorney for actual/specific legal advice.   

"Remember that time we didn't go outside or pay rent for a year and a half?  Or was it two years...?  Great times!  haha"

This is past being a joke.

@Kyle J. . Hey Kyle - thanks for the detailed response and I'm completely in agreeance with your interpretations.  I'll look further into AB3088 as well to see if there are any loopholes there

@Kyle J. I also spoke to my attorney (not just now, but a few weeks ago) regarding those tenants that are violating AB3088 (i.e. not paying the 25% rent) and he mentioned that regardless of if they are paying the 25% or not, some courts (I'm in San Bernardino County) aren't even hearing a case as long as it is related to non-payment of rent.

Do you see this happening in your jurisdiction?

Originally posted by @Jason Mak :

@Kyle J. I also spoke to my attorney (not just now, but a few weeks ago) regarding those tenants that are violating AB3088 (i.e. not paying the 25% rent) and he mentioned that regardless of if they are paying the 25% or not, some courts (I'm in San Bernardino County) aren't even hearing a case as long as it is related to non-payment of rent.

Do you see this happening in your jurisdiction?

That’s unfortunate, but not completely surprising. Even when laws are clear, sometimes there’s a disparity in how they’re interpreted and/or applied. 

I haven’t had to file against any of my tenants. Thankfully they’ve all been continuing to pay their rent on time. 

@Jason Mak   Coincidentally, about an hour after my previous post discussing the two new bills that have been proposed in California to extend the tenant eviction protections afforded under AB3088, I got an email from the California Apartment Association (CAA) saying that they now believe the Legislature passing an extension is "inevitable".  In fact, it appears they're no longer even trying to advocate to prevent it, they're merely trying to negotiate what it will include. 

According to the email, CAA’s advocacy team has demanded that an extension of AB 3088 include:

(1) dollars to reimburse rental property owners for unpaid rent;
(2) a provision that tenants who can pay be forced to do so;
(3) a provision that enables an owner to evict problem and nuisance residents; and
(4) a prohibition on local governments adopting different local laws (preemption).

Here's some more information directly from the email if you're interested:

VoterVoice: COVID Relief Bill Should Protect Landlords Too