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.
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)
