Ventura Property Management Company

 

Are you in need of a Ventura property management company? We can help. We recently helped a landlord find a qualified renter in Ventura within one week of listing the property. The landlord received the deposit check from the tenant and signed a rental agreement at the landlord’s asking price, all within a week of having us list the property for the Ventura landlord!

Do you have a property for rent in Ventura? Our Ventura property management company can help you, too!

We offer different types of Ventura property management services to meet your needs. We can help you find a qualified renter, and then you take over from there with the monthly management. We can also manage your Ventura property on a monthly basis, collecting rents, responding to repair requests, and more. This option allows you to relax and collect a rent payment each month.

Want to learn more about our Ventura property management services? Or perhaps you need help with an eviction in Ventura. Contact us today and let us show you how we can help you.

 

Posted in Property Management | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Ventura Property Management Company

CCP 998 Offer to Compromise in an Unlawful Detainer Eviction Case in California

 

California Code of Civil Procedure 998, also known as CCP 998, can be a powerful tool for settling cases. This article discusses CCP 998 in the unlawful detainer (eviction) context.

Part of CCP 998 states:

…any party may serve an offer in writing upon any other party to the action to allow judgment to be taken or an award to be entered in accordance with the terms and conditions stated at that time… (CCP 998(b))

In the case of a landlord/plaintiff making the CCP 998 offer, the code says:

If an offer made by a plaintiff is not accepted and the defendant fails to obtain a more favorable judgment or award in any action or proceeding other than an eminent domain action, the court or arbitrator, in its discretion, may require the defendant to pay a reasonable sum to cover postoffer costs of the services of expert witnesses, who are not regular employees of any party, actually incurred and reasonably necessary in either, or both, preparation for trial or arbitration, or during trial or arbitration, of the case by the plaintiff, in addition to plaintiff’s costs. (CCP 998(d))

In other words, if the landlord/plaintiff makes an offer to the tenant/defendant, and if the tenant rejects the offer and the tenant fails to obtain a more favorable judgment, the tenant may have to pay the plaintiff’s postoffer costs (including attorney fees as costs), and possibly expert witness fees. CCP 998 can therefore be used as  a litigation fee-shifting tool in some unlawful detainer/eviction circumstances.

Important to mention is that CCP 998 goes both ways. Not discussed in this article are consequences to a landlord/plaintiff if the tenant/defendant is the party to make the 998 offer, that offer is rejected by the plaintiff, and the plaintiff fails to receive a more favorable outcome.

This article does not seek to define what terms should be included in a settlement offer, nor describe the items required to be in such an offer. Counsel should be consulted for your particular case.

California Code of Civil Procedure 998 is a powerful tool for parties to use in unlawful detainer eviction cases.

Read David Piotrowski’s “Landlord Best Practices and Eviction Overview” book. If you need help with an eviction, including possible settlements under CCP 998, contact us today. Also, be sure to check out our reviews! We look forward to helping you. We offer a free consultation on most cases.

Posted in Evictions | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on CCP 998 Offer to Compromise in an Unlawful Detainer Eviction Case in California

CCP 1161(4) Termination of Tenancy Based on Nuisance in California

 

California Code of Civil Procedure 1161(4) (also referred to as CCP 1161(4)) allows a landlord to evict a tenant if the tenant is causing a nuisance at the rental property.

CCP 1161(4) states that a person is guilty of unlawful detainer (and can be evicted) when:

4. Any tenant, subtenant, or executor or administrator of his or her estate heretofore qualified and now acting, or hereafter to be qualified and act, assigning or subletting or committing waste upon the demised premises, contrary to the conditions or covenants of his or her lease, or maintaining, committing, or permitting the maintenance or commission of a nuisance upon the demised premises or using the premises for an unlawful purpose, thereby terminates the lease, and the landlord, or his or her successor in estate, shall upon service of three days’ notice to quit upon the person or persons in possession, be entitled to restitution of possession of the demised premises under this chapter.  For purposes of this subdivision, a person who commits or maintains a public nuisance as described in Section 3482.8 of the Civil Code, or who commits an offense described in subdivision (c) of Section 3485 of the Civil Code, or subdivision (c) of Section 3486 of the Civil Code, or uses the premises to further the purpose of that offense shall be deemed to have committed a nuisance upon the premises.

The section of CCP 1161(4) dealing with nuisance is highlighted above. (CCP 1161(4) can also be used to evict a tenant who is participating in illegal activities at the property or assigning/subleasing without permission. These reasons for eviction under CCP 1161(4) are discussed elsewhere).

CCP 1161(4) is a powerful tool for the landlord because it allows the landlord to evict a tenant without providing the tenant an opportunity to “cure.” CCP 1161(4) is vastly different from CCP 1161(2) and CCP 1161(3) because both of those laws gives the tenant an opportunity to fix their violation. For example, CCP 1161(2) says the tenant must either pay the rent or move within 3 days. Similarly, CCP 1161(3) says the tenant must either cure their rental agreement violation or move within 3 days. Conversely, CCP 1161(4) says the tenant must move within 3 days (with no option to fix the violation).

Since an 1161(4) notice based on nuisance cannot be cured by the tenant, the notice should unequivocally state that the tenancy is being terminated and the tenant does not have an option to fix the violation. Because CCP 1161(4) is very strict, courts will analyze the landlord’s claim of nuisance to a relatively high level, asking the question whether or not the landlord’s issue really constitutes a nuisance to support an eviction under CCP 1161(4). So, what constitutes a nuisance to support an unlawful detainer under California Code of Civil Procedure 1161(4)?

A nuisance is an act that is injurious to health or indecent or offensive to the senses or that obstructs the free use of property so as to interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of life or property (Civil Code 3479). Some examples include unlawful controlled substances offenses, unlawful weapons or ammunition offenses, or using the property to further such an offense. Dogfighting and cockfighting is also deemed a nuisance. If the landlord is able to obtain a police report or arrest report showing any of these offenses, it will greatly assist with the CCP 1161(4) case.

Because of the relative high level of scrutiny applied by the courts in CCP 1161(4) nuisance cases, the landlord should not base his unlawful detainer off of a single nuisance occurrence or a relatively minor nuisance issue. The landlord is more likely to be successful if he first sends a warning notice to the tenant and then serves a 1161(4) nuisance 3 day notice if the tenant continues causing a nuisance at the property. Another question for the landlord to ask is whether or not the nuisance is “curable.” If it is, perhaps the landlord should utilize CCP 1161(3) instead, giving the tenant 3 days to cure his violation before commencing the unlawful detainer action.

This article does not discuss the contents of the 3 day notice under CCP 1161(4). The courts are very strict on the contents of the notice and the way it is served. Landlords are urged to hire competent legal counsel.

Read David Piotrowski’s “Landlord Best Practices and Eviction Overview” book. If you need help with an eviction, including drafting a valid CCP 1161(4) notice and serving the tenant, contact us today. Also, be sure to check out our reviews! We look forward to helping you. We offer a free consultation on most cases.

Posted in Code of Civil Procedure 1161(4), Evictions | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on CCP 1161(4) Termination of Tenancy Based on Nuisance in California

49 USC 13702 – Tariff Publishing for Household Goods Companies

 

49 USC 13702 requires all interstate household goods moving companies to create and publish a tariff.

…A carrier…may provide transportation or service that is for movement of household goods only if the rate for such transportation or service is contained in a tariff… 49 USC 13702(a)(2).

Furthermore, 49 USC 13702 requires that moving companies must only charge the rates that are listed in their tariff. This means the company cannot “discount” the rates in the tariff unless the tariff specifically outlines the discounts.

…The carrier may not charge or receive a different compensation for the transportation or service than the rate specified in the tariff, whether by returning a part of that rate to a person, giving a person a privilege, allowing the use of a facility that affects the value of that transportation or service, or another device. 49 USC 13702(a)(2).

This tariff must also be available for inspection upon request. 49 USC 13702(c)(1). The household goods carrier must provide notice that the tariff is available for inspection in its bill of lading or by other actual notice. 49 USC 13702(c)(2).

The failure to publish a household goods tariff as required by 49 USC 13702 can result in severe consequences to the carrier. The carrier can be issued a “Notice of Claim” and be subject to several types of penalties. If you are an interstate household goods carrier without a tariff, it is important that you create one as soon as possible. We can help you create a custom household goods tariff tailored to your individual needs.

If you have received a “Notice of Claim,” we may also be able to help with your official response. Based on the individual circumstances of your claim, we may be able to help negotiate a settlement and/or reduce the monetary penalty.

For more blog posts on household goods matters, click here. Receive a free consultation from the Law Office of David Piotrowski.

Posted in HHG, Tariff Publishing for Household Goods | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on 49 USC 13702 – Tariff Publishing for Household Goods Companies

RAC Regulation 310 – Adjustment of Rent for Additional Tenants Under LARSO

 

Los Angeles Rent Control RAC Regulation 310 discusses the adjustment of rent for additional tenants in rental units.

I have made my position regarding Los Angeles rent control clear in previous blog posts. I believe rent control should be repealed. However, for now, landlords subject to rent control must comply with the rules and regulations outlines in the rent control laws. One such regulation is known as RAC Regulation 310 and discusses when and how a landlord may adjust the rent for an additional tenant.

RAC Regulation 310 allows a landlord to increase the rent by up to 10% for each additional tenant if the additional tenant increases the number of tenants that existed at the inception of the tenancy. However, RAC Regulation 310 imposes several restrictions on this right to increase rent, including, but not limited to:

  • The landlord must serve the rent increase notice on the tenant within 60 days of receiving actual or constructive knowledge of the additional tenant.
  • This notice must be served on the tenant in accordance with Civil Code 827.
  • A new occupant does not become a tenant until living in the rental unit for at least 30 consecutive days (if less than 30 days, the occupant is considered a guest).
  • If the landlord has increased the rent pursuant to RAC Regulation 310 and then a tenant moves, the landlord may be required to reduce the rent accordingly. The tenant must provide written notice to the landlord stating the name and the move-out date. The rent reduction would become effective on the next rent due-date, provided at least 30 days have elapsed from the time the tenant gave the written notice to the landlord.
  • The landlord may not increase the rent under RAC Regulation 310 for the addition of the first minor dependent child.
  • When an original tenant vacates, the tenant may be replaced by a different tenant without an increase in rent. However, when all original tenants have vacated, the rent may be increased. See LAMC 151.06C.

One benefit to landlords under RAC Regulation 310 is that the landlord still has the right to approve or disapprove the new adult tenant, so long as the approval is not unreasonably withheld. See LAMC 151.09 A2b. The landlord may apply commonly accepted standards for screening tenants including the tenant’s rental history, ability to pay the monthly rent, creditworthiness and employment. The landlord and existing tenants may agree to enter into a revised rental agreement which includes the additional tenant. A landlord must also not approve additional tenants if the maximum number of tenants would exceed the permissible number allowed under state law.

If at the end of a lease term, an occupant who was not approved by the landlord is the sole person remaining in possession, RAC Regulation 310 allows the landlord to evict for this reason. See LAMC 151.09 A.7.

Read David Piotrowski’s “Landlord Best Practices and Eviction Overview” book. If you need help with an eviction in Southern California, including a LARSO rent control eviction, contact us today. We only represent landlords. Also, be sure to check out our reviews! We look forward to helping you. We offer a free consultation on most cases.

 

Posted in Evictions, Los Angeles Rent Control | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments Off on RAC Regulation 310 – Adjustment of Rent for Additional Tenants Under LARSO