New name, new location; same game, same motivation!
Posted: June 22, 2011 Filed under: Estate Planning, Family, Landlord-Tenant, Law, Practice | Tags: better, bigger, hell yeah, moving, practice Leave a comment »The Law Office of Matthew M. Shafae will be changing its name and location as of August 1, 2011. I am proud to announce that the practice is growing and the legal advice is flowing. Please update your contact information to reflect the following:
ShafaeLaw (formerly Law Office of Matthew M. Shafae)
1156 El Camino Real
San Carlos, CA 94070
T: 650-539-4044
F: 650- 521-5823
http://www.shafaelaw.com
I look forward to providing the same great legal services at our new location. Feel free to stop by and say hi!
-Matthew Shafae
Are You In… Or Do You Want Out?
Posted: February 21, 2010 Filed under: Landlord-Tenant, Law | Tags: goals, Landlord-Tenant, representation, strategy Leave a comment »Oftentimes, in a landlord-tenant case, the most important question a lawyer can ask his or her tenant client is for the client to state in simple terms the client’s overarching goal. Within the context of Landlord-Tenant disputes, that question posed to tenant clients is often, “Do you want to remain living in your current living situation or would you like to be released from your obligations, if any?” It sounds simple enough. However, commonly the tenant gets so deeply involved in his or her dispute with the landlord that the forest gets lost for the trees.
Let’s face it, tenants enter any landlord-tenant dispute with considerably less leverage than the landlord in terms of bargaining chips. The subject of the dispute is the tenant’s living quarters, not the landlord’s. Should the tenant become evicted, the tenant lost her house while the landlord simply needs to fill a vacant rental unit. Unless the tenant lives in one of the “rent control” jurisdictions around the state (e.g., San Francisco, Oakland, Santa Monica, etc.) the tenant does not have many tools in her toolbox in order to compel any sympathy (i.e., action) from the landlord. Thus, it is imperative at the outset of any conflict to determine if the current housing arrangement is even something the tenant considers to continue.
If the tenant wants to stay in her current position (e.g., her building is close to work, this conflict has a low likelihood of repeating, the lease term is about to expire, etc.) then all strategy should be focused toward somehow settling with the landlord with the least amount of collateral damage (i.e., no litigation). If the tenant wants out of there by any and all means, then the lawyer should strap on his or her helmet and prepare for battle in order to secure the tenant’s release from any obligation she or he may have to the landlord.
Again, this may seem elementary, but a good discussion with the tenant client at the outset of representation allows the lawyer and client to be on the same page with respect to strategy and approach, not to mention costs.
Keep up with the Jones’, please
Posted: September 17, 2009 Filed under: Landlord-Tenant, Law, Practice | Tags: local rules, procedure Leave a comment »A significant part of practicing law in state court in California is keeping track of all the rules, where they intersect, where they refer to each other, and where they apply, if at all. Everything from federal law to state law to California Rules of Court to local ordinances apply. One tiny set of rules, though, plays a particularly integral part: local rules. Different counties prefer slightly different procedures from each other. Some have local forms they want parties to use and some require certain information before accepting a filing. It really helps when counties have a clear set of local rules, properly indexed, and available online. Most counties do.
Today I went down to Alameda County Superior Court in Oakland to file a request for default, an accompanying declaration, and a default judgment in an unlawful detainer case. I don’t practice too often in Alameda County, so I wanted to be sure I was complying with local rules when requesting a default judgment. I couldn’t find anything in the online version of their local rules that would indicate any variance from typical procedure. I called the clerk’s office to make sure I was reading the rules right. The clerk on the phone seemed like she was taking cues from me rather than the other way around. In the end, I was taking a shot in the dark much like before I checked the rules and called the clerk’s office.
Note to Alameda County: please revise your local rules to be clear, concise, and informative. Most other counties have solid local rules. We can only expect as much from you, AC.
Socialists rejoice; Free Marketers… well, this ain’t your year
Posted: March 3, 2009 Filed under: Landlord-Tenant | Tags: legislation, rent, san francisco Leave a comment »As reported in SF Gate and SocketSite, SF Supervisor Chris Daly plans to introduce a series of laws that are intended to help tenants in this time of economic crisis, and accordingly will anger landlords.
The proposals include the suspension of any rent increases that would cause a tenant’s rent to exceed one-third of their income; expansion of the rights of tenants who want to add roommates to help pay their rent; and limiting the amount of “banked” rent increases — where annual rent increases allowed under city laws are saved up and then imposed at one time — to 8 percent.
(source)
With our country nationalizing a piece (or more) of just about every bank, it should be anticipated that this type of legislation would at least be discussed. However, I can see landlords’ angry resistance to this type of maternal/paternal legislation, since the free market is such a big part of our economy, and let’s be honest, our culture. As counterpoint to Supervisor Daly’s planned legislation, arguments can be made (here and here) that the market will work itself out if allowed.
Stay of Enforcement on Some Provisions of Prop “M”
Posted: February 5, 2009 Filed under: Landlord-Tenant | Tags: Landlord-Tenant, prop M, san francisco Leave a comment »On January 21, 2009, a group of individuals and housing industry organizations were successful in obtaining a Stay of Enforcement from the Superior Court of San Francisco Judge Paul H. Alvarado. The judge “granted the Petitioners’ ex parte application and ordered that Sections 37.2 and 37.10B(a)(6), (7) and (8), all related to a landlords right to free speech, be stayed until a final determination on the merits of Petitioners’ writ of mandate.” (source)
Judge Alvarado ordered the following sections of Proposition M, relating to the curtailment of free speech, be stayed:
* Section 37.2 is the new provision of the Rent Ordinance that defines housing service to include “quiet enjoyment of the premises, without harassment by the landlord as provided in Section 10B”.
* Section 37.10B(a)(6) prohibits “attempts to coerce the tenant to vacate with offer(s) of payments to vacate which are accompanied with threats or intimidation”.
* Section 37.10B(a)(7) prohibits “continuing to offer payments to vacate after tenant has notified the landlord in writing that they no longer wish to receive further offers of payments to vacate”.
* Section 37.10B(a)(6) prohibits landlords from “threatening the tenant, by words or gesture, with physical harm”.
(source)
San Francisco, Proposition “M”
Posted: February 3, 2009 Filed under: Landlord-Tenant Leave a comment »The San Francisco voter initiative, Proposition “M”, placed on last November’s ballot has passed. Among other things, this initiative has spelled out a long list of situations that constitute “tenant harassment.” But what does it all really mean for tenants and landlords? Here is my take…
At first sight, the new ordinance seems redundant. Already in place is the San Francisco Rent Ordinance which prohibits tenant harassment. This proposition merely lists out various situations that constitute what a court may find to be tenant harassment. However, there are bigger implications.
Tenants may take a complaint straight to the Rent Board. Tenants no longer need to wait on the City Attorney or other attorney to file a law suit in court. Although this may have taken some lawsuits out of court, it will probably flood the Rent Board with harassment complaints. On the one hand, it’s “quicker” than filing a lawsuit, but there’s no way to tell how long, or to what end, the Rent Board will enforce such a complaint.
There are also First Amendment implications as far as limiting a landlord’s verbal and written communication and conduct around tenants. I’m not sure if there will be many FA challenges brought against this law, but the challenger would likely have to show how one of the proscribed situations defined as harassment under this new ordinance somehow infringes on non-harassing speech.
However you slice it, harassment is still bad and it should not be encouraged. This new legislation adds a new way to enforce violations of the Rent Ordinance as well as specifically defines harassment. This proposition is another chapter in the age-old battle between a group of people who want control of the use and value of their property (landlords) and a group of people who are using other peoples’ property for shelter–a fundamental necessity (tenants).
Pleasure Reading
Posted: February 3, 2009 Filed under: Landlord-Tenant Leave a comment »The California Department of Consumer Affairs offers an informative landlord-tenant booklet, in both paper and digital format, on their website. It’s a great resource to learn the basic rights of landlords and tenants.
More information can be found here: http://www.dca.ca.gov/publications/landlordbook/index.shtml
