Hello everybody.  My column this month will update AOA members on the REAP program administered by the City of Los Angeles.  This discussion will not be the typical “Los Angeles Housing Department bashing” articles you have undoubtedly read in various apartment trade publications during the past several years.  Rather, it will provide a matter-of-fact explanation of the Housing Department’s administration of the REAP program (it is here to stay, unfortunately) and make specific recommendations that owners and management companies may adopt to avoid REAP altogether, or at least improve their position within the program.

Fortunately, there are actions that owners and management companies can take to (1) lessen the likelihood that City will place a building into REAP, and (2) reduce REAP’s impact if, perish the thought, the property is placed into the program. 

The Nature of REAP

REAP is an acronym for Rent Escrow Account Program.  It is an administrative program codified in the Los Angeles Municipal Code and implemented pursuant to certain Regulations of the Los Angeles Housing and Community Investment Department (“HCIDLA”), formerly known as the Los Angeles Housing Department.

In general, HCIDLA has jurisdiction to place a building located in the City of Los Angeles and having two or more dwelling units into REAP following the landlord’s failure to repair habitability violations. REAP applies to all occupied apartment buildings located in the City whether or not rent controlled.  Its application extends to all sub-City areas which are a part of the City of Los Angeles, such as Venice, Encino, Van Nuys, Sherman Oaks, Hollywood, Chatsworth, etc.  It does not apply to independently incorporated cities, such as Santa Monica, Culver City, Inglewood, Beverly Hills and Burbank.  Nor does it apply to unincorporated areas of the County of Los Angeles.

When HCIDLA places a property into REAP, tenants are allowed to pay a reduced rent, which is typically 50% off their ordinary monthly (contract) rent.  During the pendency of the REAP Program against a specific apartment building, the tenants have the option to tender their curtailed rent directly to the landlord, or alternatively to HCIDLA.  In practice, nearly all tenants choose to pay it to HCIDLA, which then impounds the money into an escrow account that it maintains.  After the tenant pays into the escrow account, the landlord (or any of the tenants) may thereafter apply to the escrow account’s manager for funds to repair habitability violations in the apartment building. 

Disastrous Consequences of REAP

The most adverse consequence of REAP is that the building’s owner, being deprived of his rents, may not have the financial wherewithal to pay the monthly mortgage.  The catastrophic result is that upon HCIDLA’s mandated rent reduction and impound of the remaining rent into an escrow account, the lender forecloses on the Deed of Trust and the owner loses his building. 

But reduction of rents is just one of many adverse consequences that may befall an owner whose property has been placed into REAP.  Four other such consequences are (1) HCIDLA records a “Notice of REAP” with the Los Angeles County Recorder against the title to the property (thereby all but preventing the refinancing or sale of the property), (2) HCIDLA assesses a $50.00 per month administrative fee for each unit in the building which has been accepted into REAP, (3) the owner can be prosecuted criminally for the code violations, and (4) under California state law, the State Franchise Board Tax prohibits income tax deductions for interest, amortization, depreciation, and tax in connection with the property because it does not comply with local housing codes. 

REAP is Constitutional

There have been a number of recent Court challenges to the REAP program, but one of the most significant is the 2013 published opinion by the very liberal 9th Circuit of the United States Court of Appeals in Sylvia Landfield Trust v. City of Los Angeles.  There, four landlords who owned separate apartment buildings brought a consolidated action against the City of Los Angeles after HCIDLA placed their properties into REAP.  The Complaint alleged that the REAP program was unconstitutional and violated landlords’ substantive due process rights.  Unfortunately for the plaintiffs (and in turn, all apartment building landlords in the City of Los Angeles), the three judge appellate panel unanimously upheld the REAP program, ruled that it was “rationally related to a legitimate governmental purpose,” and affirmed the summary dismissal by the lower Court of the landlords’ case without a trial.

In reaching its determination, the Appeals Court explained that in response to a growing crisis of substandard housing, in the late 1980s the City of Los Angeles enacted REAP as part of the City’s “more vigorous stand against landlords of rental housing who allow their buildings to deteriorate to the point where tenants are living in substandard conditions.”       

The federal appellate Court opined that one of the most important and fundamental duties a city can perform is to protect its residents from unsafe housing conditions.  Relying on a 2001 finding of the California State Legislature, the Court observed that one in every eight dwelling units in the State was substandard and that unless health and safety problems are corrected, “habitability conditions generally deteriorate until the units become life threatening and uninhabitable and must be removed from the housing stock through closure or demolition.”

In rejecting the Complaint of the four owners, the federal judges commented that landlords may challenge the placement of their property into REAP through a hearing and appeals process. 

The Complaint also alleged that the LAHD (now known as HCIDLA) violated the landlords’ substantive due process rights by placing their properties into REAP without providing adequate notice of property inspections or adequate opportunity to object at a hearing.  The panel unanimously rejected that position by recognizing that there existed numerous communications between the City and the plaintiffs concerning the violations and that the REAP program was not arbitrarily or unreasonably applied to the four landlords before it.

The bottom line is that the REAP program, in general, is constitutional and it does not constitute a denial of an owner’s due process.  While landlords may want to dispute that determination, the Court of Appeal’s said decision is the law of the land and the REAP program is here to stay. 

Given that, there are affirmative actions that owners and management companies can take to (1) lessen the likelihood that HCIDLA will place a building into REAP, and (2)  reduce REAP’s impact if, perish the thought, the property is placed into the program.

Recommendations

Here is what I urge AOA members, management companies and owners to do relative to REAP issues:

1. More than anything else, residential landlords and property managers who receive an “Order to Comply” from the City of Los Angeles relative to health, safety, or habitability violations should use their absolute best efforts to promptly satisfy and comply with all of the requirements in the Order.  No property will be placed into REAP if the owner performs the required work by the stated compliance date or by any extended compliance date.

2. Be respectful to the City inspectors regardless of what his or her attitude may be toward you and no matter how much you might despise the inspectors.  As the saying goes, acting politely to the man with a whip may lessen the number of lashings. Over the four decades that I have practiced real estate law, I have found that most City code enforcement inspectors have integrity and try to be professional.  Hopefully, the inspectors of your buildings will be similar.

3. Stay in close communication with the housing inspector and call for frequent inspection approvals as work is completed.  If the usual inspector is unavailable, speak with his supervisor or the “Principal” inspector to advise of the status.

4. If you receive a letter from HCIDLA advising that your property has been placed into REAP, do the following:

A. File an Appeal on HCIDLA’s “Request Form” within 15 days after the REAP letter is dated.  Failure to do so (and show up at the hearing) ensures that your property will thereafter be subject to REAP.  That appeal will set in motion your right to contest the REAP referral before a Hearing Officer assigned by the General Manager of HCIDLA. The current Hearing Officer is Beth Rosen-Prinz.  She was appointed to the position a little over two years ago.  On each of the multiple appearances I have made before her, I have found Ms. Rosen-Prinz to take her assignment seriously (as indeed she should do) but listen with an open mind to the owner’s position and render a fair decision consistent with the evidence presented to her.  To her credit, I have also found Ms. Rosen-Prinz to be willing to continue a hearing upon an owner’s good faith request for more time to abate Code violations, rather than to be quick to refer the matter to the City Attorney for prosecution.

B. Clear up as many code violations as is possible between the time you receive the REAP referral letter and the initial REAP appeal hearing.  If you abate all violations before the hearing, the case will likely be dismissed.

C. Shortly after filing your initial REAP appeal, HCIDLA will notify you of your hearing date before the Hearing Officer (likely to be Ms. Rosen-Prinz).  At the hearing, you and your counsel should act professionally and cordially.  If you are fortunate, upon your request the Hearing Officer will continue the REAP hearing to allow you more time to abate the code violations.  If you are really, really lucky, the Hearing Officer will dismiss the case at that time, or at least following a re-inspection which demonstrates full compliance.           

In that regard, the principal options available to the Hearing Officer are (a) affirm the Department’s decision to place the property into REAP, (b) continue the hearing to a later date so as to allow you time to remedy the code violation (or at least establish that you are making satisfactory progress in doing so), (c) lessen the tenants’ rent reduction to, say, 25% rather than 50%, (d) refer the matter to the Los Angeles City Attorney for criminal prosecution arising from the various code violations (another disastrous consequence of REAP), and (e) dismiss the case.

5. Have your general contractor, job superintendent or civil engineer present at the hearing, together with your attorney or other REAP consultant.

6. At the REAP hearing, treat HCIDLA’s Code Enforcement Representative with respect.  He is the person the General Manager assigns to appear on the Department’s behalf to present the case to the Hearing Officer.  One very competent representative who frequently represents the Department is Senior Inspector Javier Melendez.  On the multiple occasions I have encountered him at a REAP hearing, I have found Mr. Melendez to be knowledgeable, professional and helpful.  Most importantly, he tries to educate the owner and contractor as to what needs to be performed in order to satisfy the Code requirements.

7. At the conclusion of the hearing ask the Hearing Officer for a continuance in order to obtain more time to comply with HCIDLA’s Orders.  If you are successful in obtaining a return for a follow-up hearing date (i.e., a continuance), consider it an interim victory.  Absent a continuance, you can expect the Hearing Officer to issue her final determination within 10 business days following the completion of the hearing.

8. If you are unsuccessful and receive a notice that the Hearing Officer affirms the Department’s decision to place your property into REAP, immediately file a (second) Appeal on HCIDLA’s form, stating the detailed grounds for the Appeal.  That Appeal must be submitted within 10 calendar days following the date of the Hearing Officer’s written determination, together with a $150.00 filing fee.  While it is unlikely that this second Appeal will overturn the Hearing Officer’s decision, owners and management companies would be wise to use the time to correct all code violations prior to the hearing on the second appeal.  That will at least limit the amount of time that an owner’s property will be in REAP. 

Concluding Remarks

Most owners maintain their property in good condition and never face a REAP situation.  But those who fail to care for their building in accordance with general health and safety standards may “REAP what they sow,” so to speak.

Let me make one final comment.  The purpose of this article is neither to praise nor bash HCIDLA.  Instead, it is to urge AOA members, owners and management companies to do your best to work within the system, rather than fight it. 

That is not to say that you should not attend landlord meetings which strategize against REAP or join political action committees.  But if and when a REAP proceeding is brought against you, it is essential that you comply with HCIDLA’s code violation orders to the extent possible and not antagonize the inspectors. 

POSTSCRIPT:  UPDATE ON RESIDENT MANAGERS

The new California “sick leave” law and “cell phone reimbursement” requirements pertaining to resident managers are now fully in effect.  If AOA owners and management companies have not done so already, they should immediately update their resident manager agreements to cover the new legislation and judicial mandate. 

Dale Alberstone is a prominent litigation and transactional real estate attorney who has specialized in real property law for the past 39 years.  He has been appointed to periodically serve as a judge pro tem of the Los Angeles Superior Court and is a former arbitrator for the American Arbitration Association.  He also testifies as an expert witness for and against other attorneys who have been accused of legal malpractice.

Mr. Alberstone has been awarded an AV rating from Martindale-Hubbell.  An AV rating reflects an attorney who has reached the heights of professional excellence and is recognized for the highest levels of skill and integrity. You may Google “Dale S. Alberstone” for further background.          

The foregoing article was authored on in August, 2015.  It is intended as a general overview of the law and may not apply to the reader’s particular case.  Readers are cautioned to consult an advisor of their own selection with respect to any particular situation.

Questions of a general nature are warmly invited.  Address correspondence to Dale S. Alberstone, Esq., ALBERSTONE & ALBERSTONE, 1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 650, Los Angeles, California 90067.  Phone:  (310) 277-7300.