BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 588
Page 1
Date of Hearing: March 22, 2011
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
Mike Feuer, Chair
AB 588 (V. Manuel Perez) - As Introduced: February 16, 2011
SUBJECT : Tenancy: Victims of Domestic Violence
KEY ISSUE : Should the time frame within which a victim of
domestic violence may notify a landlord of his or her intent to
terminate a lease, as provided by existing law, be increased
from 60 to 180 days?
FISCAL EFFECT : As currently in print this bill is keyed
non-fiscal.
Synopsis
Tenants who are victims of domestic violence often face special
problems relating to their tenancy. On the one hand, to protect
the safety of themselves or family members, tenants may need to
vacate a residence but cannot easily do so because they are
locked into a long-term lease. On the other hand, some innocent
victims of domestic violence have been evicted due to the
nuisance created by the behavior of the violent abuser. The
last two legislative sessions enacted laws to address each of
these problems. AB 2052 (Chapter 440, Stats of 2008) allows a
victim of domestic violence to terminate a lease early, without
being obligated for rent for the entire term, so long as the
victim documents the domestic violence by means of a court order
or police report. Existing law requires that the court order or
police report has been issued within the last 60 days. AB 782
(Chapter 626, Stats of 2010) prohibits a landlord, under certain
circumstances, from evicting a tenant solely because of the
behavior of the abuser and generally requires the landlord to
change locks if a victim does not move. Existing law under this
provision requires the substantiating court order or police
report to have been issued or made within the last 180 days. By
extending the 180-day time frame to the early termination
statute, the bill now under consideration would make these
corollary provisions of existing law consistent. More
important, persons who work with domestic violence victims
report that 60 days is an insufficient amount of time for a
victim to determine whether or not his or her situation requires
moving. For example, a victim may assume that he or she is safe
AB 588
Page 2
because the abuser is incarcerated or respects a stay away
order, but then is subsequently released or stops respecting the
stay away order and the 60-day window has expired. This bill,
the author contends, will better protect victims of domestic
violence and give them more time to evaluate whether or not
their situation requires taking the drastic step of vacating
their home. The bill is supported by the California Partnership
to End Domestic Violence, Crime Victims United of California,
the Western Center on Law and Poverty, and the California Rural
Legal Assistance Foundation. There is no known opposition to
the bill.
SUMMARY : Amends an existing law so that a tenant who is a
victim of domestic violence has more time to provide notice of
intent to terminate a lease early. Specifically this bill
provides that upon informing the landlord of intent to terminate
a tenancy because he or she is a victim of domestic violence,
sexual assault, or stalking, the tenant must also provide the
landlord with a substantiating court order or police report, as
specified, that was issued or written within the last 180 days.
(Existing law requires the order or report to have been issued
or written within the last 60 days.)
EXISTING LAW :
1)Defines the rights and duties of landlords and tenants,
including presumptions regarding the terms of the hiring, the
lawful means of terminating a lease or rental agreements, and
the remedies available to the respective parties in the event
of a breach of a lease or rental agreement. (Civil Code
Sections 1940 to 1954.1.)
2)Provides that if a tenant or lessee of real property breaches
the lease and abandons the property before the end of the
term, the landlord has two remedies: deem the lease terminated
and seek damages, or continue to perform under the lease and
seek rent as it comes due. (Civil Code Section 1951.2; 250
LLC v. Photopoint Corp, USA 131 Cal. App. 4th 703.)
3)Permits a tenant or a tenant's household member who was a
victim of domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking to
terminate a rental agreement and be discharged from rental
payments due, as specified. The tenant must provide the
landlord with a copy of a temporary restraining order,
emergency protective order, or a written report by a peace
AB 588
Page 3
officer stating that the tenant or household member has filed
a police report alleging that the tenant or household member
is a victim of domestic violence, sexual assault, or
stalking. Specifies that the notice to terminate the tenancy
shall be given within 60 days of the date that the order was
issued or the police report made. (Civil Code Section
1946.7.)
4)Requires a landlord to change the locks of a tenant's
dwelling, under specified circumstances, where the tenet or a
member of the tenant's household is a victim of domestic
violence, sexual assault, or stalking and provides the
landlord with copies of a court order or police report, as
specified, that has been issued or made within the last 180
days. (Civil Code Section 1941.5 and 1951.6.)
5)Prohibits a landlord, under certain circumstances, from
terminating or failing to renew a tenancy against a tenant
based on acts of domestic violence, sexual assault, or
stalking against the tenant or household member. Provides
that the act or acts domestic violence, sexual assault, or
stalking must be documented by a court order or police report
that was issued or created within the last 180 days. (Code of
Civil Procedure Section 1161.3.)
COMMENTS : Tenants who are victims of domestic violence often
face special problems relating to their tenancy. On the one
hand, as a matter of self- or family protection, a tenant may
need to vacate a residence but discovers that he or she cannot
easily do so because of obligations under a long-term lease. On
the other hand, some innocent victims of domestic violence have
been evicted due to the nuisance created by the behavior of the
violent abuser. Existing law addresses both of these issues.
This bill would extend the time frame within which a victim of
domestic violence may take advantage of the early termination
provisions of existing law.
This straight-forward bill amends an existing law that protects
tenants who have been victims of domestic violence by allowing
for early termination of a lease when their safety depends upon
it. Civil Code Section 1946.7, which became effective in
September of 2008, permits a tenant to notify a landlord that
the tenant or a member of the tenant's household was a victim of
domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking, and that the
tenant intends to terminate the tenancy because of this. If
AB 588
Page 4
there is a long-term rather than a month-to-month lease, the
tenant is only responsible for payment of rent for 30 days
following the giving of the notice of intent. Without such
protection, a victim of domestic violence in a long term lease
would be forced to choose between remaining until the lease runs
out, which may put the victim and victim's family at risk, or be
obligated to pay rent for the entire term of the lease. In
order to take advantage of this law, the notice to terminate the
tenancy must be accompanied by a copy of a court order or police
report showing that the tenant has been a victim of domestic
violence, sexual assault, or stalking. However, under this
existing law, the court order or police report must have been
issued or written within the past 60 days.
A parallel provision in existing law, which seeks to protect
victims of domestic violence from being unfairly evicted because
of the actions of an abuser, requires that court orders or
police reports have been issued or written with the last 180
days. (Civil Code Sections 1941.5 and 1941.6.) Not only will
this proposed bill make these parallel provisions in existing
law consistent, the author and supporters point out that
extending the time frame will give victims more flexibility in
determining whether the threat to themselves and their families
is so great that they must make the difficult decision to give
up their homes.
In addition, because the purpose of the court order or police
report is simply to provide evidence of a pattern and history of
domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking - not to show
that there is an existing or effective order in place - the 60
day limitation seems rather arbitrary. For example, the author
cites statutes in about a dozen other states that have similar
protections but do not impose any time limit on the supporting
documentation. Finally, it is difficult to see how the
extension of the time frame will impose any increased burden on
the landlord. Whether the order issued two months earlier or
six month earlier, the landlord is only entitled to rent for the
30 days following receipt of notice. The landlord's obligation
is determined from the time that notice is given, not from the
time that supporting documents were issued. In short, the
extension of the notice period from 60 to 180 days appears to be
a reasonable change that will afford greater protection and
flexibility to survivors of domestic abuse without imposing any
greater burden on the landlord. This probably explains why the
landlord associations, who were very involved in negotiations on
AB 588
Page 5
the previous two bills, have not yet weighed in on this measure.
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : Crime Victims United of California
supports this bill because "victims of domestic violence do not
always petition to be released from their leases within the
current 60 day time frame because their offender has been
arrested" and, the victim hopes, the offender "will be in
custody for long periods of time." However, if the offender is
later released and continues to harass, stalk, abuse, or
otherwise pose a threat to the victim, the 60 days may have
passed and "the victim would have to then break the lease and
face financial hardship or wait out the term of the lease
agreement, compromising her safety."
According to the California Partnership to End Domestic Violence
(CPEDV), this measure will "allow considerably more Ýdomestic
violence] survivors to use the life-saving protections that
Civil Code Section 1946.7 offers." CPEDV reports that they have
conducted several trainings for staff on how to help survivors
move safely with the help of existing law. CPEDV contends that
giving the victim added flexibility is critical, especially in
light of budget cuts and an economic recession that have
decreased the availability of domestic violence shelters and
affordable housing alternatives.
The Western Center on Law & Poverty and the California Rural
Legal Assistance Foundation argue that this bill makes "a simple
but important change in the law for survivors of domestic
violence." WCLP and CRLA note that, in many cases, "the
perpetrator may be absent from the property for more than 60
days, then return." Because the tenant-survivor is reluctant to
move from his or her home unless it is absolutely necessary,
this absolute necessity may not become apparent until more than
60 days after the initial court order was issued or the police
report prepared. WCLP and CRLA add that "this modest change
will impose no undue hardship on landlords," especially given
that even before this protection was enacted landlords often
granted a victim's request to terminate a lease for reasons both
humane and practical, such as to avoid damage to property or
preserve the quiet enjoyment of other tenants. "The same logic
applies to the extension of time proposed" in this bill, WCLP
and CRLA conclude.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
AB 588
Page 6
Support
American Civil Liberties Union
California Partnership to End Domestic Violence
California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation
Crime Victims United of California
Western Center on Law & Poverty
Opposition
None on file
Analysis Prepared by : Thomas Clark / JUD. / (916) 319-2334