Welcome!

Posted: 4th January 2012 by Melissa in Uncategorized
 

Welcome to the FBS Rent Sense Blog. We will be posting weekly Rent Sense Articles written by Neil and Chris. These articles can also be seen in major publications such as the San Diego Union Tribune. Our goal is to bring quality information to help counsel those already in or interested in the industry. Check back each week to see what is new and exciting in the Property Management world.

“Nearly half of all the housing in San Diego is offered for rent. This condition has existed locally for decades and will continue for the foreseeable future. It is imperative that rental owners and rental residents respect the other for their important role in the essential segment of our local economy. The more informed each are about their respective rights and responsibilities as well as changes in the marketplace the more realistic are the expectations. That just makes good sense; Rent Sense.” – Neil,  2008

Where your home matters…

KTS Legal Questions Dec 2017

Posted: 8th December 2017 by Melissa in Rent Sense
Tags: , , , , ,
 

FBS operates Rental Properties for Independent Owners utilizing Industry Best Practices which creates direct benefits to our Rental Customers. We have provided Superior Housing Alternatives now in our 5th Decade. Our available rental inventory changes daily. www.fbs-pm.com

As professional managers we must stay on top of local, state and federal laws, regulations and housing codes that are imperative to our clients and rental customers. We review and update our contracts, policies, forms and routines with the help of KTS (Kimball, Tirey and St. John)
Ted Kimball, Esq. weighs in:
 Question: My tenant has some damage to the outside window to the house I rent to them. The tenant claims the damage was done by a burglary attempt but I suspect they locked themselves out and damaged the window when trying to get back in. Who is responsible for the repair?

Answer: Unless proved otherwise, damage to the premises caused by unknown third parties, acts of nature, or unexplainable are the responsibility of the landlord.

Question: In a co-signer situation what forms do you recommend that the co-signer sign along with the tenant?

Answer:  They  should  sign  a  separate  guarantee  agreement  that  has  been  reviewed  by competent counsel.

Question: As resident managers, we are dealing with several tenants in violation of pet rules. In retaliation, they have made false accusations of us entering their apartments without notice. They are now disturbing other tenants with this untruth and questioning our integrity. How can we protect or defend ourselves?

Answer: You can serve a three-day-notice to perform conditions and/or covenants or quit to permanently remove the unauthorized pets. If you can prove the pets are still there after the notice expires, you can file for unlawful detainer.

Question: In assessing a late charge in a lease, is there a law stating how many days after the due date must expire before a late charge can be imposed.

Answer: California law does not prohibit a landlord from charging the tenant a bona fide late charge after the rent is delinquent. The rent is not delinquent unless one business day has passed at the time the rent became due. If the rent is due on the first and the first is on a weekend, a late charge could not be imposed until after the first business day expires.

Question: What happens when the lease expires? Is it assumed that the agreement goes month-to-month? Or should a new agreement be signed.

Answer: If the lease does not speak to renewal or reversion to month-to-month and the tenant remains in the premises with the landlord’s consent, the law will presume a month-to-month agreement if the rent is paid and accepted by the landlord.  It then can be terminated by either side serving the other with a written thirty-day or sixty-day notice to quit.

Question: I have a lease with two male tenants. The lease specifies two occupants only. One of the tenants has a girlfriend who spends the night every day of the week for the last month.  How do you determine when a guest is an occupant.

Answer: Unless the tenant admits to having another person move into the rental unit, you need to prove that they are occupying the unit through circumstantial evidence.  Proof of facts such as receiving mail at the premises, coming to and from work on a daily basis, present on weekends, or making requests from management all could lead a trier of fact to conclude that the person is an occupant of the premises.

Question: Someone told me that a guest of a resident can file a fair housing complaint, is that true?

Answer: Yes. Guests have standing to bring a fair housing complaint or lawsuit if the guest receives discriminatory treatment while visiting a resident at your property. A common example would be refusing to allow a guest to bring his assistive animal with him when he visits your resident at the property.

Question: Is there a law for returning the security deposit within a certain time frame? If I missed the due date is there an automatic penalty? I overlooked accounting for a deposit and it has been 25 days

Answer: California law allows residential tenants and landlords to contract for up to 21 days for the accounting and, if applicable, return of all or a portion of the tenant’s security deposit. There is no automatic penalty for being late.

Question: When we have called attention to a violation of the lease or community rules, tenants frequently will say we are “picking” on them.  How can we protect ourselves? Answer: First, make sure you are enforcing the lease and community rules equally to all violators. The best way to avoid or minimize legal challenges is by documenting all incidents and responding in a consistent manners.

Question: When typing up a new lease, should we use the spelling of the tenant’s names as it appears on the application or on their driver’s license.

Answer: It is important to be consistent on how you spell their name in the event legal action is necessary. It is best to use the name exactly as it appears on their driver’s license and request that they fill out the application in a manner consistent with this request.

Question: If a one-year residential lease is broken, what becomes of the security deposit? Answer: Once the tenants have vacated the premises and the landlord has taken over possession, the time to account for the use of the security deposit (normally 21 days) begins. The deposit can be used for any monies owed the landlord including delinquent rent.

Question: I have single family homes that I have for lease. They have large, well- maintained gardens.  How do I best insure that they are kept up?

Answer: Your best bet is to hire a gardener yourself, build the cost into the rent and have the lease read that the gardener has permission to enter the property for gardening/landscaping/mowing etc. That way you have more control.

This article is for general information purposes only. Laws may have changed since this article was published. Before acting, be sure to receive legal advice from our office. Ted Kimball is a partner with Kimball, Tirey & St. John LLP. Our primary practice areas are landlord/tenant, collections, fair housing and business and real estate, with offices throughout California. Property owner’s and manager’s with questions regarding the contents of this article, please call 800.338.6039.

 

 

Rent Sense: Long-Term Investors in Real Estate Should Benefit from Current Tax Reform Proposals

Neil Fjellestad and Chris DeMarco

Special acknowledgement to an article authored by Thomas Faust Jr. Chairman and CEO, Eaton Vance

Generations of Americans (many through 401-k contributions) have wisely invested their savings in the stock market to build assets for retirement and to fund educational costs, pay medical bills and meet other family needs. In the process, they’ve provided needed capital to American businesses to help the economy grow—thereby creating greater economic opportunity for all.

Obviously, the same is true for long-term individually held real estate investments that are operating as small rental businesses. While these investors experience risks that most cannot and/or will not abide they hope to provide financial improvement for themselves and/or to future generations as they choose. Investors with the will power to be long-term risk takers deserve public incentives which often takes the form of tax incentives.

Independent Rental Owners might be utilizing their knowledge and preference for rental property along with the specialized rules of a REIT to include a unique stock market strategy as well. Such individual investors are attempting to tap into opportunities available through larger acquisitions, geographical disbursement of holdings, diversity of real estate type and/or access to sophisticated real estate services.

Consistent with our nation’s pragmatic commitment to incentivize free markets and preserve individual rights, American investors have always had the ability to decide for themselves exactly what stocks they buy and sell, without interference from the government. Believe it or not, the Senate version of the tax reform bill seeks to change that. For individual investors who hold multiple positions in the same stock purchased over time, the Senate provision would require them always to sell — and make gifts of — the oldest shares first. That’s called FIFO, or first-in, first-out.

Because most stocks increase in value over time, requiring stocks to be sold on a FIFO basis will cause investors to pay more capital gains taxes as they sell down their investments, which the government estimates as generating $2.4 billion of new tax revenue over the next 10 years. While that’s a lot more in taxes for investors to pay, it’s only a drop in the bucket towards offsetting the overall costs of tax reform. The burden of requiring investors to sell stock on a FIFO basis will fall especially hard on retirees. The retiree will be forced always to sell the oldest – and often biggest gain—shares first. That means higher capital gains taxes and less income to pay for retirement.

The financial planning for younger investors will be more distorted by taxes (opposite of stated goal of reform). Those that have enjoyed the benefits in successful stocks will be less inclined to sell down their investments – because they’ll owe more taxes – and discouraged from buying more of the same stock – again, because their tax bill will go up when it later comes time to sell. Since tax considerations will increasingly influence what investors buy and sell, markets will become less effective in allocating capital appropriately to best support growth in the economy. By interfering with efficient capital formation, the FIFO provision ends up costing not just holders of successful investments, but all the beneficiaries of economic growth.

KTS Legal Questions-Nov 2017

Posted: 29th November 2017 by Melissa in Legal Questions
Tags: , ,
 

FBS operates Rental Properties for Independent Owners utilizing Industry Best Practices which creates direct benefits to our Rental Customers. We have provided Superior Housing Alternatives now in our 5th Decade. Our available rental inventory changes daily. www.fbs-pm.com

As professional managers we must stay on top of local, state and federal laws, regulations and housing codes that are imperative to our clients and rental customers. We review and update our contracts, policies, forms and routines with the help of KTS (Kimball, Tirey and St. John)
Ted Kimball, Esq. weighs in:

  1. Question:  I have a renter who gave me a thirty-day notice and then left the following week. Can I re-key the door locks and enter the property?

Answer: If your resident has clearly vacated the unit and communicated the same to you, you do not have to wait until the thirty-day notice expires before you can relet the unit.  California law requires that you mitigate your potential loss of rent by attempting to rent the property as soon as possible. The former tenant is liable for any unpaid rent up to the time the premises are relet or the thirty-day notice expires.

2.   Question:  If we personally serve a tenant a notice to enter the unit and we mail them a copy of the notice, how long do I have to wait before entry?

Answer:  California law requires six days if the notice is mailed only. If served personally or posted on the usual entry door of the premises, a twenty-four hour notice of entry is presumed to be a reasonable time.

3.   Question:  Can residents sit outside their front door and drink beer? Other residents are complaining.

Answer: If the outside portion where they are drinking beer is part of the common area of the premises, you can restrict that activity as long as it is restricted for all residents. If it is part of their rented space, you cannot, unless they are causing unreasonable disturbances to other residents.

4.   Question: I purchased a rental property two years ago and the security deposits need to be increased. Most of the deposits are $600.00 and need to be increased to $900.00. What is the best way to do this?

Answer: If they are on a month-to-month agreement, you can serve a thirty-day notice changing the terms of the tenancy to increase the deposit amount.  You can charge up to twice the amount of the monthly rent if the unit is unfurnished.

5.   Question: Who is responsible for the expense of carpet cleaning and painting when a tenant vacates a unit? Is its lawful to pass on this expense to the departing tenant?

Answer:  Under California law, the carpet must be left in the same clean condition it was when the tenant first moved in.  Any necessary cleaning is the tenant’s responsibility and the cost may be deducted from his or her security deposit.  Painting may also be charged to the departing tenant if the need to paint arose out of extraordinary wear and tear while the tenant occupied  the apartment.

6.   Question: We rented to three roommates who all moved in at the same time. One moved out a couple of months ago and the other two moved out last month.  All three were on the rental agreement and one is demanding that we give the entire deposit refund to him because he was the one who paid it. What should we do?

Answer: Either require the roommate to produce a written, notarized statement from the other two roommates granting their permission and consent, or give him a check with all three names as the payee.

7.   Question:  I served a three-day notice to pay rent or quit to one of our tenants. I received a partial payment within the three-day period. Do I have to serve another notice for the remainder of the rent or is the notice still good?

Answer:  Under California law, a residential landlord who accepts partial payment of rent demanded on a three-day notice is required to serve a new notice for the balance owed.

8.   Question:  How do we get rid of tenants who have filthy units? They always pay on time. Answer: If the condition of a residential tenant’s apartment unit is creating a health or fire hazard, the landlord should take steps to require the hazard be removed, or if necessary, terminate the tenancy and evict.  If the condition does not amount to a health or fire hazard, you may elect to serve a thirty-day notice to terminate a month-to-month tenancy, or if the lease is a fixed term, do not renew.  If the tenant could have a disability called “hoarding,” you should seek legal advice before proceeding.

9.   Question: One of our tenants informed me that residential landlords have to replace carpeting every five years.  Is this true?

Answer: No. California does not have specific requirements for replacing carpets or any condition of the unit so long as it remains in a habitable condition, which means free from substantial health or safety hazards.

10.   Question:  How long should we retain old leases at our apartment complex?  I have heard two years, is this correct?

Answer: The statute of limitations (the time one has to bring a lawsuit) for written leases is four years. Therefore, leases should be retained a minimum of four years from the date of the vacancy.

11.   Question:  A tenant wants to move in with a companion dog.  Our property only allows cats as pets.  Can I tell the tenant to get a companion cat instead?

Answer:  No.  You cannot apply pet restrictions to assistive animals.  An assistive animal is not a pet.  You must allow the tenant to get the type of assistive animal that best meets his/her disability-related needs.

12.   Question: One of our tenants is buying a home and gave us a thirty-day notice.  Now they want to extend escrow fifteen more days beyond the thirty-day period. They are willing to pay for the additional rent.  Should we require a new thirty-day notice from the tenants?

Answer: If you are in agreement to the additional fifteen days, agree in writing to extend the thirty-day notice period to expire on midnight on the agreed extension.  Otherwise, the court may believe that you waived your right under the thirty-day notice by allowing the tenant to remain in possession and paying rent beyond the thirty-day notice period.

13.   Question: We just recently purchased a property with below market rents and intend on raising rents. Which is preferable: to send out a thirty-day notice to raise the rent first, or to have the residents sign a month-to-month agreement, then send out a thirty-day notice? Answer:  Legally, when you purchase rental property, you “step into the shoes” of the previous owner and you are bound by whatever lease agreement is in place.  If it is month-to-month, you can serve a thirty-day notice to change the terms, including rent increase. If the rent is increased more than 10% from what it was one year ago, a sixty-day notice must be served.

14.   Question:  I have rented an apartment to an unmarried couple. The boyfriend’s mom is the co-signor. The boyfriend is moving out and wants his and his mom’s name taken off the lease.

I don’t care if the boyfriend leaves, but I think his mom is still responsible.  Am I right?

Answer:  Most co-signor agreements, also known as guarantee contracts, provide that the guarantee of performance is through the term of the lease. If so, the mom would most likely remain responsible, even if her son moves out

Fences – Shared Fencing Costs

Posted: 16th November 2017 by Melissa in Legal Questions
Tags: , , ,
 

Fences – Shared Fencing Costs

Taylor Baumann, Esq.

October, 2017

Under California law, landowners and their adjoining neighbors are jointly responsible for constructing, maintaining, and replacing fences that divide their properties. While the legislature enacted some procedural changes to the law under the Good Neighbor Fence Act of 2013, the spirit of the original law remains the same.

Adjoining landowners share equal responsibility for “division fences”—fences on the boundary line between two properties that physically lie on both owners’ properties. The law does not apply to fences that are completely within the property of one of the two landowners.1  If a fence is located on the land of only one landowner, the neighbor is not legally responsible for any portion of the fence cost, unless the parties agree otherwise.

Note that if a fence is a “division fence”, neither adjoining owner can move or alter the division fence without the other owner’s consent.

Landowners include any private person or private entity that holds a possessory interest in real property. The law does not apply to any city, county, city and county, district, public corporation, or other political subdivision, public body, or public agency. Theoretically, the law applies to tenants in addition to the owner of the real property. However, most residential leases will require that the landlord bear financial responsibility for fence maintenance, construction, and replacement.

A landowner seeking contribution from the neighbor for a division fence must send 30 days’ written notice to each neighbor. The notice must include the following:

  • A  statement  regarding  the  presumption  that  landowners  share  equally  in  the construction, maintenance, and replacement of division fences2;
  • A description of the problem facing the fence, or the problem the two properties face due to the lack of a fence;
    • The proposed solution to the problem;
    • The estimated cost of the solution;
    • The proposed allocation of the cost; and
    • The proposed timeline for addressing the problem.3

1 Ingwersen v. Barry, 118 Cal. 342, 343 (1897); Western Granite & Marble Co. v. Knickerbocker, 103 Cal. 111, 116-117 (1894).

2 The following language may be used: “Under Cal. Civ. Code § 841(b)(1): ‘Adjoining landowners are presumed to share an equal benefit from any fence dividing their properties and, unless otherwise agreed to by the parties in a written agreement, shall be presumed to be equally responsible for the reasonable costs of construction, maintenance, or necessary replacement of the fence.’”

3 The timeline should begin after the expiration of the notice (30 days).

The statute does not specify a method to deliver the notice. However, the property owner sending the notice should use a method that keeps a record of delivery (e.g. prepare a proof of service, or send by registered mail, certified mail, or overnight delivery).

If the adjoining neighbor can establish that imposing equal responsibility for the fence cost would be unjust, a court may order that the neighbor pay less than their proportionate share of the costs or none of the costs.

When making this determination, the court will consider the following factors in addition to any other relevant information:

1)        The financial burden on the neighbor compared to the benefit the neighbor receives from the fence;

2)        Whether installation / maintenance of the fence results in a net increase in the value of the neighbor’s property;

3)        The fence’s financial burden on the neighbor given the neighbor’s financial circumstances; and

4)        The reasonableness and necessity of the costs associated with the project.

 

Unfortunately, some neighbors aren’t good neighbors. A neighbor may ignore / refuse to pay their share of the fence’s cost.

In preparing against a neighbor’s potential refusal, the fence builder should keep a paper trail as the fence project is contemplated and planned. Records should include photographs and a video of the problem with the fence (or the lack of a fence) that justify the proposed solution. The fence-building neighbor should keep copies of all cost estimates from contractors to prove they chose the contractor offering the best value4,5.

Work on the project should not begin, nor should costs be incurred, until the 30 day notice period expires. Upon completion of the project, the fence-building neighbor should pay the contractor (and any other expenses) in full and keep copies of invoices and receipts related to the project.

After completing the fence, the fence-building neighbor should make a final written demand for contribution to the neighbor. The demand letter should request the neighbor make payment. If the landowner chooses a higher-priced contractor, they should maintain evidence to prove that the selected contractor was a better choice. A contractor’s license is required if the person constructing the fence is charging the homeowner $500 or more.

Immediately and include the final cost of the originally-proposed project, copies of the invoices or receipts, and a copy of the original 30 day notice.

If the neighbor still refuses to pay, the fence-building neighbor can (after having conducted due diligence and armed with proper documentation), file suit for contribution from the neighbor for their share of the costs. If the amount at issue is less than the jurisdictional limits (generally

$10,000 for an individual, and $5,000 for an entity), small claims court may be the quickest and most cost effective way to pursue claims.

If the fence is a “division fence”, and a property owner wants to request contribution from a neighbor for a portion of the fence cost, Kimball, Tirey & St. John LLP has a package of four letters to request contribution from the neighbor. The letters are available for $350, and can be purchased by contacting Jamie Sternberg or Taylor Baumann at (619) 231-1422.

 

California Civil Code §841

 

(a)  Adjoining landowners shall share equally in the responsibility for maintaining the boundaries and monuments between them.

(b)  (1) Adjoining landowners are presumed to share an equal benefit from any fence dividing their properties and, unless otherwise agreed to by the parties in a written agreement, shall be presumed to be equally responsible for the reasonable costs of construction, maintenance, or necessary replacement of the fence.

(2)  Where a landowner intends to incur costs for a fence described in paragraph (1), the landowner shall give 30 days’ prior written notice to each affected adjoining landowner. The notice shall include notification of the presumption of equal responsibility for the reasonable costs of construction, maintenance, or necessary replacement of the fence. The notice shall include a description of the nature of the problem facing the shared fence, the proposed solution for addressing the problem, the estimated construction or maintenance costs involved to address the  problem, the proposed cost sharing approach, and the proposed timeline for getting the problem addressed.

(3)  The presumption in paragraph (1) may be overcome by a preponderance of the evidence demonstrating that imposing equal responsibility for the reasonable costs of construction, maintenance, or necessary replacement of the fence would be unjust. In determining whether equal responsibility for the reasonable costs would be unjust, the court shall consider all of the following:

(A)  Whether the financial burden to one landowner is substantially disproportionate to the benefit conferred upon that landowner by the fence in question.

(B)  Whether the cost of the fence would exceed the difference in the value of the real property before and after its installation.

(C)  Whether the financial burden to one landowner would impose an undue financial hardship given that party’s financial circumstances as demonstrated by reasonable proof.

(D)  The reasonableness of a particular construction or maintenance project, including all of the following:

(i)  The extent to which the costs of the project appear to be unnecessary or excessive.

(ii)  The extent to which the costs of the project appear to be the result of the landowner’s personal aesthetic, architectural, or other preferences.

(E)  Any other equitable factors appropriate under the circumstances.

(4)  Where a party rebuts the presumption in paragraph (1) by a preponderance of the evidence, the court shall, in its discretion, consistent with the party’s circumstances, order either a contribution of less than an equal share for the costs of construction, maintenance, or necessary replacement of the fence, or order no contribution.

(c)  For the purposes of this section, the following terms have the following meanings:

(1)  “Landowner” means a private person or entity that lawfully holds any possessory interest in real property, and does not include a city, county, city and county, district, public corporation, or other political subdivision, public body, or public agency.

(2)  “Adjoining” means contiguous to or in contact with.

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=CIV&sectionNum=841

 

neil

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Click the image to read the full article!

 

housing-by ll

Until very recently, the City of San Diego enforced several ordinances that threatened rental property in the City – primarily in the area surrounding San Diego State University.
Beginning in 2008, for any house that was occupied by six or more adults, a Residential High Occupancy Permit (RHOP) was required at a cost of $1,000 per year. In order to obtain the permit, parking plans were required to be submitted to the City that demonstrated enough off-street parking to accommodate all but one adult.

In 2017, another ordinance was passed to limit the number of bedrooms in the College Area and city-wide, change the definition of a bedroom, and place further limits on property owners to deter them from creating student housing. The need for these ordinances to address noise, parking, trash, and other nuisances in the College Area surrounding San Diego State, was frequently cited by college area neighbors. However, with minor exceptions, the ordinances address ALL houses in the City of San Diego – whether occupied by renters or by homeowners. With a quick phone call of complaint from an unhappy neighbor, the City would investigate the number of people residing in a house – by inspecting the interior of the home and counting beds and making other observations to attempt to determine if more than five adults were residing in the residence.

If the City deemed the house to be housing more than five adults, a fine of $1,000 was levied with threats of additional penalty if the number was not reduced to five adults only for extended non-compliance.

SDCAA and rental property owners frequently shared concerns with the ordinances with City Council. In addition to taking away the rights of property owners, this ordinance also threatened to create Fair Housing Violations in the rental of houses. With no “law” or “code” governing the number of people who can reside in a dwelling in the State of California, Landlords have typically adopted a guideline used by the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) which indicates a use of two people per bedroom plus one person. To limit the number of people in a four- bedroom house to five people would be a matter of consternation and could put the owner of the rental property in jeopardy. Moreover, the enforcement of the ordinance was heavily weighted on rental properties despite be applicable to all single-family homes.

The good news is that in July of this year, a temporary restraining order was placed preventing enforcement of the RHOP and the ordinance passed in 2017 – this after the College Area Renters and Landlords Association filed suit asking the City to rescind this unfair legislation. The judge in the case essentially stated that if the city wants to address problems associated with overcrowded detached homes, it should do so with a law that applies “evenly to all households.” A hearing is now scheduled for December of this year…and it is hoped that the injunction be made permanent.

In a time of scarce housing and rising costs, we are grateful to Judge Styn for placing the injunction and hope that the hearing in December permanently stops the City’s ability to force low occupancy in any rental. Controlling parking can be done with limited parking permits and appropriate patrol – other ordinances exist to help control trash and noise – whether renter or homeowner occupied. Whether multi-generational living or roommates, let’s provide property owners some dignity and support.

Save

1031?

Posted: 8th November 2017 by Melissa in Video
Tags:
 

FBS Property, AMO is not only your property management company but RE investment advisory as well. Earlier this year we conducted several FBS Open House Educational Presentations on the what, where, why and how of 1031 exchanges to “right-size” your rental property holdings. As with all our advice and management, this is founded on the FBS philosophy for individuals and families to grow your long-term wealth and retirement income. We introduced you to 1031- professionals like Randy Goodsell, CPA and Terry Moore, Certified Commercial & Investment Realtor. With this education and these key players in mind we will bring you from time-to-time some potential 1031 up-leg possibilities as concrete examples for consideration. Should you want to contact Terry directly you can. Should you have questions and concerns that you want to share with someone you already know from FBS please free to do so.” Please consider this your Rent Sense Message from Neil Fjellestad and Chris De Marco

Click the image below to view this listing!

terry moore

Save

Property Tax Calendar

Posted: 1st November 2017 by Melissa in Education
Tags:
 

property tax calendar

A message from the Executive Director of SDCAA

Posted: 26th October 2017 by Melissa in Rent Sense
 

Oct. 24, 2017

 

Alan Pentico, Executive Director of the San Diego County Apartment Association, released the following statement today:

 

“The San Diego County Apartment Association (SDCAA) is dedicated to maintaining a quality rental housing market for property owners and residents, many of whom are grappling with our ongoing housing crisis. The San Diego region and the state of California are experiencing a massive deficit of homes and apartments. This supply crisis has created affordability issues across the board.

 

“The expansion of rent control, however, would not increase the housing supply we so desperately need. That is why SDCAA is supportive of policy changes that help streamline construction, reduce regulatory barriers and decrease costly delays. Expanding rent control would deter new housing construction, create more supply issues and would not help those most in need.”

 

“A repeal of Costa-Hawkins, as proposed in a potential ballot measure, is a giant leap backward to a time when rent control laws in the state were unregulated and overreaching. Costa- Hawkins corrected unfettered regulation and provides a balance that is a must when regulating the free market. Repealing Costa-Hawkins means rent control could also apply to single-family homes and condos, properties that recently have increased rental housing supply. Rent control could cause some owners to pull their rental properties from the market.

 

“Economists universally agree that rent control is a failed policy that ultimately reduces the amount of available units for rent. Renters, community groups and legislators would be better served by joining with SDCAA and other organizations to advocate for more housing, of all types, at all price points. We must all look to the future and work to meet demand, which is estimated to be over 70,000 units by 2030 throughout the San Diego region alone.

 

“We are all members of the community and by working together toward a greater goal, we can make positive change.”

 

KTS Legal Questions- October 2017

Posted: 26th October 2017 by Melissa in Legal Questions
Tags: , , ,
 

FBS operates Rental Properties for Independent Owners utilizing Industry Best Practices which creates direct benefits to our Rental Customers. We have provided Superior Housing Alternatives now in our 5th Decade. Our available rental inventory changes daily. www.fbs-pm.com

As professional managers we must stay on top of local, state and federal laws, regulations and housing codes that are imperative to our clients and rental customers. We review and update our contracts, policies, forms and routines with the help of KTS (Kimball, Tirey and St. John)
Ted Kimball, Esq. weighs in:

Landlord/Tenant Questions & Answers
Ted Kimball, Esq. October, 2017

1. Question:
I rent out a three-bedroom home with a covered patio that I have turned into a fourth bedroom. There are four individual people renting. My question is, can I call it renting rooms or am I renting a house to four different people?
Answer:
It is better if you rent the house to all four under one lease with each tenant being “jointly and severally” liable, meaning they are individually responsible for the lease, as well as collectively.

2. Question:
The previous owner of an apartment building I recently purchased allowed the tenants to pay half a month’s rent on the first and the other half on the fifteenth of the month. The lease, however, says it is all due on the first and I want to enforce the lease. What, if any legal problems do I face?
Answer:
California judges may find that there has been a modification of the payment terms of the agreement by “mutual consent and execution” of the new payment terms. Many leases have a provision which states that one waiver of strict enforcement of the terms does not constitute a continuous waiver for subsequent breaches. If the agreement contains this clause, the court should rule that the rent is all due on the first of the month.

3. Question:
One of our tenants is complaining about the carpet and says it is California law that the carpeting must be changed every seven years. Have you heard of any law on this subject? Answer:
California law does not require landlord to replace carpeting, unless the condition of the carpet creates a health hazard or risk of injury.

4. Question:
When tenants give notice that they will be vacating the residence, is it permissible for me to give them a notice stating that I will be advertising the vacancy and will be showing their apartment? Answer:
Unless the tenant agrees to another arrangement, you would be required to give reasonable notice (24 hours) in writing for every entry.

5. Question:
I have a “Guarantee of Rental Agreement” from the mother of a tenant. The tenant is twelve days late with the rent. Do I have an obligation to notify the mother and give her the chance to pay? What is my recourse against her if she refuses to live up to the guarantee agreement?
Answer:
Notifying the guarantor may be a requirement depending upon the language of the guarantee agreement. You may want to advise the guarantor in any event and send her a courtesy copy of the three-day notice before taking action.

6. Question:
Is it necessary that a notice to perform or quit be for three days, or can I choose to give an otherwise good tenant more time to solve the problem?
Answer:
You can give the tenant more time to respond to a breach, but it should end with a three-day notice. You could write the tenant that you are going to allow them to cure the breach by a certain date and if not cured by then, a three-day notice to perform will be served.

7. Question:
How many protected classes are there in California?
Answer:
In addition to the seven federal protected classes (race, color, religion, national origin, sex, familial status and disability) California has thirteen protected classes, some of which are unique to California. They are: marital status, age, ancestry, sexual orientation, source of income, medical condition, gender, gender identity, gender expression, genetic information, citizenship, immigration status and primary language spoken. California also prohibits discrimination based on the perception that someone is from a protected class or is associated with someone from a protected class. Finally, it prohibits discrimination on any arbitrary basis.