Below are questions asked by rental property owners regarding California rent control laws, followed by answers provided by Attorney Richard Beckman
Question 1: I have a credit score requirement of 720+. How can it be worded to explain I require this credit score only from applicants whose income is being counted toward the household income requirement? I don’t want to inadvertently exclude household members such as high school students, non-working parents, or in-laws who may not have a credit history or credit score, but whose presence should not negatively affect the application.
Answer 1: The following language should meet your goal:
Credit Requirement: Applicants whose income is being counted toward the household income requirement must have a minimum FICO credit score of 720. Household members whose income is not being counted toward the household income requirement are not subject to this credit-score requirement. Household members whose income is not being counted – including, for example, students, non-working household members, or other dependents – are not subject to the minimum credit-score requirement and will not be disqualified solely because they have no credit history or credit score.
Question 2: I’m confused about how the security deposit should be returned when there are multiple individuals on the lease and one tenant (Tenant One) paid the full security deposit electronically at the beginning of the tenancy in 2023.
Specifically, how should the security deposit be returned in these situations?
1. After one year, one tenant chose not to renew the lease, while the other three tenants,
including Tenant One, renewed their leases and remained in the property.
2. When all three remaining tenants (including Tenant One) give notice and move out at the end of the lease term and tenancy has ended, which is the current situation.
The security deposit was paid by Tenant One electronically, at the beginning of the tenancy.
The lease states that any remaining portion of the security deposit shall be returned in the form of a single check made out to all residents listed above.
In the first situation, should I have written a check at the time to the tenant who moved out for his portion of the security deposit?
In the second, should I write one check payable to all four individuals? They do not share the same bank account. Should I write one check payable only to the three most recent tenants who were on the lease? If so, how should the tenant who moved out receive his share of the security deposit?
Answer 2: Generally, and unless the lease specifies otherwise, when multiple tenants are parties to one rental agreement, and only one tenant vacates the premises while the others remain in possession, the security deposit remains with the landlord until the tenancy ends and the landlord has recovered possession. This means that the landlord did not need to return one-quarter of the deposit to the departing tenant.
When all tenants vacate, the landlord has to return the remaining deposit, if any, and provide an itemized accounting after lawful deductions pursuant to Civil Code 1950.5, which every landlord should be familiar with. The contractual provision “Any remaining portion of the security deposit shall be returned in the form of a single check made out to all residents above” is an important provision. Even though Tenant One paid the entire security deposit, it is unknown if the other tenants paid Tenant One a share. That makes a single joint check addressed to all four tenants the safest approach, and allows all the tenants to apportion it amongst themselves, assuming they can realistically accomplish that.
While not specifically required by any lease or statutory provision, it is recommended that the departing tenant confirm that the security deposit will remain with the landlord, and the departing tenant need not be named in the final accounting, including any refund of the remaining balance. Once a tenant has moved out, he or she has concluded his or her month-to-month tenancy, and a check that includes that former tenant’s name may be very difficult to cash, as it requires all persons named on the check to endorse it.
Question 3: We are wondering if a no-fault eviction or the tenant move-out negotiation is the better approach for our Oakland rental unit. Due to an infestation of termites in the small backyard cottage, the termite company will treat the visible affected areas. According to the contractor, he will need to open up the walls to assess structural damages, eliminate the existing termite infestation as necessary, and make all the necessary repairs. Therefore, our long-time tenant must move out in order for the work to begin, as the contractor won’t know the extent of the damage until things are taken apart. The small cottage in the backyard is a stand-alone, single-family one-bedroom building. So we believe it is not under rent control, although we raise rent as if it’s a rent-controlled building. The yearly rental lease had expired years ago; we inherited the cottage and the tenant a few years ago.
Do we need to go through RAP or Oakland Rent Board to petition for the tenant to move? We believe we cannot ask him to move without going through some legal procedures or offering him compensation of some sort. We appreciate your advice and suggestions.
Answer 3: Generally speaking, if work necessary to bring the unit into habitable condition or other code compliance requires the tenant to vacate, the ‘legal’ process is initiating a temporary termination of tenancy, under Oakland’s Just Cause for Eviction Ordinance (Measure EE), specifically Section 8.22.360A.10. It will require a relocation payment based on the size of the rental unit, and requires the tenant be given the right to return when the work is completed, at the same rent, subject to a rent increase, which may or may not require a rent board petition, and which would depend on whether the unit is actually exempt as a single-family home. From your description, it sounds as if it may be a standalone unit on the same lot as another unit, which the rent board would consider a combined building, e.g. a duplex, and as such, subject to both eviction and rent control. This is a foundational issue that needs to be resolved.
As for a buyout, as long as you follow the Oakland Buyout Ordinance process, easily learned from the Rent Board website, there should be no downside to giving it a try before initiating the formal termination process.
Question 4: I have a tenant that has clogged their kitchen sink numerous times. It costs me a few hundred dollars each time to bring in a plumber to unclog it. As my lease does state that my tenant pays to unclog their sink, am I still required to pay the plumber, or can I have the tenant pay for it?
Answer 4: Tenants are responsible for damage they caused to the property, whether the lease says so or not. If the tenant is clearly the responsible party, and your plumber can testify to that, then sending a request/demand for reimbursement would be a start. Anything more aggressive, such as a three-day notice to cure or quit, might follow. However, consideration as to whether the amount at issue justifies such dramatic action as termination of the rental agreement and possibly an eviction lawsuit. It might be wiser to deduct the charges from the security deposit when the tenant moves out.
Question 5: I have a question regarding the just-cause eviction requirements for my rental property in Oakland. The rental unit is a newer ADU located on my owner-occupied property, and it is currently exempt from Oakland’s Rent Adjustment Program (RAP). I’d like to confirm whether the ADU is also exempt from Oakland’s Just Cause for Eviction Ordinance and California’s state just-cause requirements.
If I decide not to continue the tenancy, would I be able to terminate it by providing the required 30-day or 60-day notice without stating a just cause? Are there any additional notice, disclosure, relocation payment, or filing requirements I should be aware of?
Answer 5: California’s Just Cause Requirements, codified in Civil Code section 1946.2 (Tenant Protection Act of 2019), do NOT apply to accessory dwelling units (ADUs), provided that the owner-occupant rents or leases no more than two units or bedrooms, including, but not limited to, an ADU or junior ADU. (1946.2(e)(5)(A).)
Conversely, Oakland’s Just Cause Requirements apply depending on the construction and date of certificate of occupancy. The ADU is exempt if it was (1) newly constructed, and (2) received a certificate of occupancy on or after January 1, 1983. To qualify as newly-constructed, the unit must be entirely newly constructed or created from space that was formerly entirely nonresidential. (Oakland Code of Ordinances section 8.22.030).
The AOA lease, as well as most California leases professionally created, contains a section requiring you to indicate whether your unit is subject to, or exempt from, the California Tenant Protection Act (AB 1482). If you indicated within your lease that the unit is exempt, that satisfies the CA TPA notice requirement.
Richard Beckman, of Beckman Feller & Chang P.C., has been practicing landlord-tenant law for over 26 years, primarily in rent-controlled jurisdictions such as San Francisco, Oakland and Berkeley. He represents clients in a broad range of real estate-related disputes, including partition of co-ownership interests, purchase contract disputes, insurance coverage analysis and land use. Mr. Beckman also specializes in all aspects of landlord-tenant issues, representing landlords and tenants in residential and commercial matters. He can be reached at 510-548-7474; or by email at: [email protected]; or by visiting the website at www.bfc-legal.com.