California extending eviction moratoriums through end of July

Rental Property Investor · San Marino, CA · Member since 2011 · 398 posts · 144 votes

5y

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.

1 Reply

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

OP

Rental Property Investor · Northern, CA · Member since 2012 · 5k+ posts · 5k+ votes

5y

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 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.

1 Reply

Chris John

Member since 2020 · 671 posts · 937 votes

5y

"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.

2 Reply

Rental Property Investor · San Marino, CA · Member since 2011 · 398 posts · 144 votes

5y

@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

Rental Property Investor · San Marino, CA · Member since 2011 · 398 posts · 144 votes

5y

@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?

OP

Rental Property Investor · Northern, CA · Member since 2012 · 5k+ posts · 5k+ votes

5y

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.

VoterVoice: COVID Relief Bill Should Protect Landlords Too

OP

Rental Property Investor · Northern, CA · Member since 2012 · 5k+ posts · 5k+ votes

5y

@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

Rental Property Investor · San Marino, CA · Member since 2011 · 398 posts · 144 votes

5y

@Kyle J. Thanks for the good information.

Originally posted by @Kyle J.:

@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:

Gary Rollings

Member since 2021 · 4 posts · 0 votes

5y

@Kyle J

Does the Moratorium Extension interfere or poise a hinderance with Landlords who’s Fixed Term Leases (i.e. 1 Year) expire and LL opts for a Non-Renewal to regain possession? (In CA btw)

https://cal-rha.org/legislative/ab-1482/

OP

Rental Property Investor · Northern, CA · Member since 2012 · 5k+ posts · 5k+ votes

5y

Originally posted by @Gary Rollings:

@Kyle J

Does the Moratorium Extension interfere or poise a hinderance with Landlords who’s Fixed Term Leases (i.e. 1 Year) expire and LL opts for a Non-Renewal to regain possession? (In CA btw)

The original post in this thread about the eviction moratorium being extended was something I posted about 8 months ago. Since that time, AB3088 (also known as the COVID-19 Tenant Relief Act of 2020) was passed and became statewide law.

I posted above how the eviction protections in AB3088 are due to expire at the end of this month (January 31), but are likely to be extended by one of two bills being considered. However, neither of those bills have actually been signed into law yet and they’re quite different from each other. So it’s too soon to tell what protections we may end up having to navigate as landlords.

Having said that, there’s another statewide law (AB1482) already in effect that could potentially hinder your ability to end a one year lease and end the tenancy of the tenant.

If your tenants have been in the property for over 12 months, AB1482 no longer allows landlords to terminate their tenancy with a simple 30 or 60 day notice unless: 1) the property qualifies for an exemption, or 2) you have “just cause”.

Here’s some more info on AB1482 if you need it:

Gary Rollings

Member since 2021 · 4 posts · 0 votes

5y

@Kyle J.

Got it. Thank you for the prompt response. AB 1482 does not apply in my situation as it is a SFH not owned by a real estate investment trust, a corporation, or a limited liability company in which at least one member is a corporation. Also, they have lived at the premises for less than a year thus far.

OP

Rental Property Investor · Northern, CA · Member since 2012 · 5k+ posts · 5k+ votes

5y

Welcome. And that’s great. I also have single family houses that qualify for the exemption.

Just be sure you gave your tenants the proper/required notice that you were exempt (which is explained in greater detail in the link I referenced in the prior post). As that was required to be done to truly be exempt, even for those of us with single family houses that are eligible for the exemption.

You probably knew that, but just wanted to mention it anyway because I’ve talked to a lot of people who weren’t aware that was a requirement.

Gary Rollings

Member since 2021 · 4 posts · 0 votes

5y

@Kyle J.

Awesome! Say perhaps the Tenants do not vacate after a 30-day Notice of Non-Renewal is given, would a Holdover Eviction be the best way to proceed forward?

Rick Albert

Real Estate Agent · Los Angeles, CA · Member since 2018 · 2k+ posts · 1k+ votes

5y

This can make for an opportunity.

These regulations are hurting landlords. There is no doubt about it. What this will ultimately do is convince landlords to sell their rentals and invest elsewhere (I'm talking single family homes and condos where it is likely to be owner occupied). This will decrease inventory, making it harder on tenants looking to move.

Here is where it gets interesting. If you can weather the storm, then it means you are part of that low supply. Rents go up and you can be pickier with who you choose as tenants. One of my investor clients now requires photos of where the prospective tenant currently lives. When I rent out my units, I'm most likely going to do the same. I have a rental coming up in a few months and I plan on being very picky and may push the envelope on the price because I can.

What are your thoughts?

Rental Property Investor · San Marino, CA · Member since 2011 · 398 posts · 144 votes

5y

@Kyle J.. Hey Kyle - wanted to get your thoughts or opinion about the State Rental Assistance Program (where states kicks in 80% of rent and landlord forgives 20%)

Do you think landlords should take this deal?

Also from all the documentation/language that I have read, this applies to rent only....RUBS/Utilities don't apply...what do you think?

OP

Rental Property Investor · Northern, CA · Member since 2012 · 5k+ posts · 5k+ votes

5y

Originally posted by @Jason Mak:

@Kyle J.. Hey Kyle - wanted to get your thoughts or opinion about the State Rental Assistance Program (where states kicks in 80% of rent and landlord forgives 20%)

Do you think landlords should take this deal?

Also from all the documentation/language that I have read, this applies to rent only....RUBS/Utilities don't apply...what do you think?

There's lots to consider with this new law (SB91). As for whether or not landlords should "take the deal", I think it will depend on a number of factors. For example, things like: how far behind (how much $) their tenant is behind on rent, likelihood the tenant would ever be able to catch up on their own (without assistance), whether the tenant is collectible should the landlord decide not to pursue assistance and go after a judgment in small claims court instead (some tenants are judgment-proof so the assistance may be a better option), ability of the landlord to weather the storm (do they have a lot of reserves or are they about to lose the property), willingness of the tenant to cooperate in the process (you need the tenant's cooperation for this to work), etc.

There's so many things to consider that it's going to be different for everyone, I'd imagine.

As to your other question about whether or not it applies to utilities, I actually think it does. The text of the law defines "rental debt" for the purposes of the State Rental Assistance Program as the "rent, fees, interest, or any other financial obligation under a lease for use and occupancy of the leased premises".

I've already attended some training on this new law that was conducted by the California Apartment Association, and in that training their legal folks opined that "any other financial obligations under a lease" could include things like utilities, parking fees, pet rent, etc.

Rental Property Investor · San Marino, CA · Member since 2011 · 398 posts · 144 votes

5y

@Kyle J.. thank you Kyle - I'm glad I asked you and thanks for the explanation regarding "other financial obligation under a lease..."