San Jose, CA Duplexes - No cause evictions
Investor · San Jose, CA · Member since 2018 · 313 posts · 230 votes
BP Community,
Can anyone share their experiences with 60-day no cause evictions for duplexes? I have worked with larger apartment communities in the past but I need to confirm if there are any different rules that I might not be aware of in the case of duplexes. Thanks.
@Brian Larson The info mentioned above by @Account Closed used to be correct, but with the recent passage of AB1482 unfortunately no longer is. If the tenants have lived in this duplex for 12 months or more, you'll now need "just cause" to evict them unless this is an owner-occupied duplex (i.e. you reside in the other unit).
*Note that the law in the link provided above mentions that, in order to apply you need "all of the following", and the very first thing it lists after that is: "The dwelling or unit is alienable separate from the title to any other dwelling unit." (This excludes duplexes.)
There are a few permissible reasons you can still do a "no fault" eviction, but they're very limited (i.e. owner intends to occupy the unit, withdrawal of the property from the rental market, you intend to demolish or substantially remodel the property, etc).
Here's a link with some more info that you might find helpful: https://cal-rha.org/legislative/ab-1482/
The rules are the same. If they haven't already lived in the unit for a full 12 months, you only have to give 30 days notice. If they've already lived in the unit for 12 months or more, you have to give 60 days notice. Here's the actual code:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=CIV§ionNum=1946.1.
@Account Closed - Thanks for the link. I was already fairly confident but I just needed confirmation from another person.
@Account Closed - Thanks for the link. I was already fairly confident but I just needed confirmation from another person.
Yeah, if you get sued, you can tell the judge, buy Sue said I could! :-)
Haha. That’s no gonna happen. 😊
@Brian Larson The info mentioned above by @Account Closed used to be correct, but with the recent passage of AB1482 unfortunately no longer is. If the tenants have lived in this duplex for 12 months or more, you'll now need "just cause" to evict them unless this is an owner-occupied duplex (i.e. you reside in the other unit).
*Note that the law in the link provided above mentions that, in order to apply you need "all of the following", and the very first thing it lists after that is: "The dwelling or unit is alienable separate from the title to any other dwelling unit." (This excludes duplexes.)
There are a few permissible reasons you can still do a "no fault" eviction, but they're very limited (i.e. owner intends to occupy the unit, withdrawal of the property from the rental market, you intend to demolish or substantially remodel the property, etc).
Here's a link with some more info that you might find helpful: https://cal-rha.org/legislative/ab-1482/
@Brian Larson The info mentioned above by @Account Closed used to be correct, but with the recent passage of AB1482 unfortunately no longer is. If the tenants have lived in this duplex for 12 months or more, you'll now need "just cause" to evict them unless this is an owner-occupied duplex (i.e. you reside in the other unit).
*Note that the law in the link provided above mentions that, in order to apply you need "all of the following", and the very first thing it lists after that is: "The dwelling or unit is alienable separate from the title to any other dwelling unit." (This excludes duplexes.)
There are a few permissible reasons you can still do a "no fault" eviction, but they're very limited (i.e. owner intends to occupy the unit, withdrawal of the property from the rental market, you intend to demolish or substantially remodel the property, etc).
Here's a link with some more info that you might find helpful: https://cal-rha.org/legislative/ab-1482/
Regarding the link you mentioned from me, you're referring to a section that is about an owner selling the property. And the following sections all have to apply. It's when an owner is selling to someone who is intending to move into the property, then the owner must give the tenant 30 days notice of that, and there are other things, but at any rate, it doesn't apply here.
For anyone who is interested, the California Department of Consumer Affairs used to have this really great landlord-tenant booklet on their website, but they don't anymore. I suggest downloading a copy, which I have a long time ago, but found it on this website:
https://www.achhd.org/documents/California-Tenants-Guide.pdf
I especially like a section in it that explains how to charge for wear and tear to paint and carpets, etc., explaining life expectancy for items. It's a shame the state quit publishing it, but it's still really helpful. Most laws don't change a lot, so most of it is still on point.
I also really love the Nolo Press California landlord rights and responsibility book. Not sure if it's okay to post a link to that book here, but you can Google it.
And yes, you're right about the new law. Thanks for the great link.
You can still kick a tenant out, you just have to give them one month's rent within 15 days of giving them notice to move. You also have a lot of extra leeway regarding the tenant living in the unit for over 12 months - if they have moved anyone else in. Then, it gets reset to something like 24 months, I think. So, it's really not that hard to kick a tenant out. Then, you can go ahead and raise your rents once the unit is empty. Kind of silly law, really, as it still allows landlords to kick out tenants and raise the rents to market. I guess that makes it somewhat fair, though - you aren't stuck with a tenant forever.
I guess I might go ahead and give them notice and see if they sue me. There is nothing that I could find in the new bill that addresses penalties or fines. It just said if you don't give them the month's rent, the termination notice is void. So, the worst thing that could happen, seems to me, is the tenant tells me I can't kick them out yet and I say, whoops, you're right - here's a new notice and a month's rent. Or they send me a demand letter after they're out and they find out they should have received money to move, which is required before suing in small claims court (they're not likely to actually pay for a lawyer and sue in civil court), and then I'd say, whoops, sorry, here you go.
I know, I'm shameless. That's if I was the owner. If I was an owner's manager, I'd tell him/her they had to pay the tenant a month's rent :-)
Here's the full text. Let me know if anyone sees anything about fines or penalties in it. I searched it with every term I could think of like fines or penalties or bad faith and nothing came up. After giving it a quick scan, I really don't think it's as bad as landlords are worried about. Like I say, you can still kick a tenant out. It's just a new law that says you have to give them cash for keys, which a lot of landlords end up doing anyway.
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200AB1482
Isn't the California rent control law in place state wide?
Thanks for all the comments on this topic folks. It will be interesting to see how this new law impacts the state.
Isn't the California rent control law in place state wide?
Apparently so. It doesn't change the rent controls already in place in some cities, though.
As of January 1st of this year the whole state of California is rent controlled. No disrespect to Sue but eviction is not an easy situation to deal with anymore in California. I'm dealing with it right now. If the tenant hires a non-profit attorney they can cause you a lot of problems. Get used to the term, "cash for keys", if you're a landlord in this state.
As of January 1st of this year the whole state of California is rent controlled. No disrespect to Sue but eviction is not an easy situation to deal with anymore in California. I'm dealing with it right now. If the tenant hires a non-profit attorney they can cause you a lot of problems. Get used to the term, "cash for keys", if you're a landlord in this state.
Well, let's give it time. I was thinking about this today and how most of my tenants were students. At most, they usually stayed 3 or 4 years. You could always just target tenants you know won't stay very long or switch them all to AirBnB.
The other option might just be shorter term leases with more planned turn costs because if the leases are 12 months or shorter, the tenants lose all these protections. Either way, none of these options sound good right now.
The link posted by @Kyle J. was very useful. It stated that just causes where the tenant is not at fault requires the owner to pay relocation assistance or a rent waiver, which is one months rent. Seems reasonable. But the San Jose Tenant Protection Ordinance (https://www.sanjoseca.gov/your-government/departments-offices/housing/landlords-property-managers/eviction-procedures) says the relocation assistance is based on the size of the unit:
1-Bedroom: $8,400
2-Bedroom: $10,353
3-Bedroom: $12,414
So for duplexes in San Jose, which one is it? Is it one months rent or is it $10,353 for a 2 bedroom for example?
The link posted by @Kyle J. was very useful. It stated that just causes where the tenant is not at fault requires the owner to pay relocation assistance or a rent waiver, which is one months rent. Seems reasonable. But the San Jose Tenant Protection Ordinance (https://www.sanjoseca.gov/your-government/departments-offices/housing/landlords-property-managers/eviction-procedures) says the relocation assistance is based on the size of the unit:
1-Bedroom: $8,400
2-Bedroom: $10,353
3-Bedroom: $12,414
So for duplexes in San Jose, which one is it? Is it one months rent or is it $10,353 for a 2 bedroom for example?
@Zaid Nad - The new statewide law (AB1482) essentially sets the minimum standard throughout the state. However, individual cities can establish their own rent control laws/ordinances that give more protections to the tenants (i.e. lower rent cap, higher relocation assistance, etc). They just can’t establish laws that give less protections.
If San Jose has an ordinance that calls for more relocation assistance than what the new statewide law requires, you have to follow the San Jose ordinance if you’re in San Jose. Remember, the new California law is just the minimum standard.
Here’s another link with some more FAQ that may be helpful: https://a17.asmdc.org/issue/ab-1482-frequently-asked-questions
Related to your question, especially pay attention to the question and answer I took from this link and listed below (it’s talking more about the rent control piece but addresses how this new law doesn’t replace any local ordinances):
Q. For tenants living in cities with rent control, how would they know if they are covered by the local rent control policy or AB 1482?
A. Housing units that are subject to a local rent control ordinance with an annual rent limit lower than the rent cap are covered by that ordinance, not by AB 1482. All other rental units within the jurisdiction are covered by AB 1482 unless the unit meets one of the exemptions provided in the bill (e.g. units constructed within the past 15 years). Per state law known as the “Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act,” local rent control can only apply to units built prior to 1995 (and in some instances earlier) and cannot apply to single family homes and condos. AB 1482 covers some units that local rent control policies cannot cover under Costa-Hawkins. As a result, in jurisdictions with local rent control ordinances, the bill would be additive, covering some units not already covered by the local rent control ordinance.
The link posted by @Kyle J. was very useful. It stated that just causes where the tenant is not at fault requires the owner to pay relocation assistance or a rent waiver, which is one months rent. Seems reasonable. But the San Jose Tenant Protection Ordinance (https://www.sanjoseca.gov/your-government/departments-offices/housing/landlords-property-managers/eviction-procedures) says the relocation assistance is based on the size of the unit:
1-Bedroom: $8,400
2-Bedroom: $10,353
3-Bedroom: $12,414
So for duplexes in San Jose, which one is it? Is it one months rent or is it $10,353 for a 2 bedroom for example?
Zaid,
Duplexes are NOT subject to the City of San Jose rent control. Thus, 1-month of relocation assistance or a rent waiver is all it is.
I always recommend investors to hire a professional property management company to manage their rentals. You want to be an investor, not a landlord. There are other nuisances associating with renting properties especially with a tenant friendly state like CA. Let the professionals do their job while you’re focusing on building generational wealth.
@Brian LarsonDoing a 12 month leases, and then doing another lease with the same tenant, won't get you out of AB1482, unfortunately.
The NOLO book comes out every year in April, so I would wait for the new edition. They also provide updates, that are so so.
Rent Control does not apply to housing that is under 15 years old - rolling date. AOA has been doing webinars on it, the attorney usually has a link on his twitter feed.
AB 1482 was badly written per a lawyer I heard speak on it, and there is a huge amount of controversy on which CPI rate to use. The law's author states one thing, and the bill actually says something else. A lawyer I heard speak said something about this being the lawyer full employment act, as the details are figured out through court cases. And that you really don't want to be a test case. He made a really good joke about you don't want a new nickname, "defendant". I have heard 3 presentations by lawyers on this so far.
If you do substantial remodel (whatever that means), you can give notice to the tenants, but then you need to pay them a months rent if they have been there over 12 months, unless your city is stricter.
You also need to add stuff to your leases this year, to be in compliance. AOA should have a sample lease up soon.
Another law that was passed in CA basically says you need to take Section 8 tenants, as long as they meet your requirements. You can't discriminate based on source of income. You can legally deny them if they don't meet your credit requirements.
Plus the CA Law on Independent Contractors was passed! This one is getting a huge amount of push back, but is still the law. Mark Twain quote of "Never pick a fight with people who buy ink by the barrel." describes the situation, since lots of independent writers got affected.
Regarding the link you mentioned from me, you're referring to a section that is about an owner selling the property. And the following sections all have to apply. It's when an owner is selling to someone who is intending to move into the property, then the owner must give the tenant 30 days notice of that, and there are other things, but at any rate, it doesn't apply here.
For anyone who is interested, the California Department of Consumer Affairs used to have this really great landlord-tenant booklet on their website, but they don't anymore. I suggest downloading a copy, which I have a long time ago, but found it on this website:
https://www.achhd.org/documents/California-Tenants-Guide.pdf
I especially like a section in it that explains how to charge for wear and tear to paint and carpets, etc., explaining life expectancy for items. It's a shame the state quit publishing it, but it's still really helpful. Most laws don't change a lot, so most of it is still on point.
I also really love the Nolo Press California landlord rights and responsibility book. Not sure if it's okay to post a link to that book here, but you can Google it.
And yes, you're right about the new law. Thanks for the great link.
You can still kick a tenant out, you just have to give them one month's rent within 15 days of giving them notice to move. You also have a lot of extra leeway regarding the tenant living in the unit for over 12 months - if they have moved anyone else in. Then, it gets reset to something like 24 months, I think. So, it's really not that hard to kick a tenant out. Then, you can go ahead and raise your rents once the unit is empty. Kind of silly law, really, as it still allows landlords to kick out tenants and raise the rents to market. I guess that makes it somewhat fair, though - you aren't stuck with a tenant forever.
I guess I might go ahead and give them notice and see if they sue me. There is nothing that I could find in the new bill that addresses penalties or fines. It just said if you don't give them the month's rent, the termination notice is void. So, the worst thing that could happen, seems to me, is the tenant tells me I can't kick them out yet and I say, whoops, you're right - here's a new notice and a month's rent. Or they send me a demand letter after they're out and they find out they should have received money to move, which is required before suing in small claims court (they're not likely to actually pay for a lawyer and sue in civil court), and then I'd say, whoops, sorry, here you go.
I know, I'm shameless. That's if I was the owner. If I was an owner's manager, I'd tell him/her they had to pay the tenant a month's rent :-)
Here's the full text. Let me know if anyone sees anything about fines or penalties in it. I searched it with every term I could think of like fines or penalties or bad faith and nothing came up. After giving it a quick scan, I really don't think it's as bad as landlords are worried about. Like I say, you can still kick a tenant out. It's just a new law that says you have to give them cash for keys, which a lot of landlords end up doing anyway.
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200AB1482
Hi Sue,
Do you know where I can get a copy of the document you mentioned? The link you provided is no longer valid. Thanks!
This one
https://www.achhd.org/documents/California-Tenants-Guide.pdf
Best,
Jin