BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
Senator Ellen M. Corbett, Chair
2009-2010 Regular Session
SB 290 S
Senator Leno B
As Introduced
Hearing Date: March 31, 2009 2
Civil Code 9
SIK:jd 0
SUBJECT
Landlord-Tenant: Extension of 60-Day Notice of Termination Law
DESCRIPTION
This bill would repeal the sunset date for a law requiring the
owner of a residential rental property to give at least 60-days
notice prior to terminating the periodic tenancy of a tenant who
has lived in the unit for one year or more.
BACKGROUND
In 2001, a pilot program was established for three low-vacancy
rental markets in the Los Angeles area (SB 985 (Kuehl), Chapter
729, Statutes of 2001). The program required landlords in those
regions to give 60-days notice before terminating a
month-to-month or other periodic tenancy if the tenant had lived
in the dwelling for one year or longer. This notice
requirement was expanded to the entire state in 2002, subject to
a three-year sunset provision (SB 1403 (Kuehl), Chapter 301,
Statutes of 2002). Attempts were made in 2004 (SB 1145, Burton)
and 2005 (SB 51, Kuehl) to repeal or extend the sunset
provision, but the relevant language was amended out of SB 1145
and SB 51 failed passage on the Assembly Floor. The sunset
period expired on January 1, 2006, and the 60-day notice
provision was repealed.
In 2006, AB 1169 (Torrico, Chapter 842, Statutes of 2006)
reenacted the 60-day notice provision with some additional
limitations including that an owner is required to give a 60-day
notice only when every tenant and resident in the dwelling has
lived there for one year or longer. If any tenant or resident
SB 290 (Leno)
Page 2 of ?
has resided in the dwelling for less than one year, then the
owner need only give a 30-day notice. The provisions of the
60-day notice law sunset on January 1, 2010. This bill would
repeal this sunset date, thereby extending the law indefinitely.
CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW
Existing law , until January 1, 2010, requires an owner of a
residential rental to provide at least 60 days' notice of the
owner's intent to terminate a periodic tenancy when the tenant
has resided in the unit for one year or more. If any tenant or
resident has resided in the unit for less than one year, then an
owner may give a 30-day notice. (Civil Code Section 1946.1.)
Existing law , until January 1, 2010, requires an owner to give a
30-day notice of termination for tenancies in a single-family
structure that is sold not through foreclosure to a bona fide
purchaser who intends to reside in the premises for at least one
year. (Civil Code Section 1946.1.)
Existing law , until January 1, 2010, provides that a tenant may
give a 30-day notice to terminate a tenancy after receiving a
60-day notice to terminate from the landlord, provided that the
tenant's proposed date of termination is earlier than the
landlord's proposed date of termination. (Civil Code Section
1946.1.)
This bill would delete the sunset date on the above-described
provisions, thereby extending them indefinitely.
COMMENT
1.Stated need for the bill
The author writes:
Current law recognizes the near impossibility of finding
another rental in 30 days. Longer notice helps tenants, many
of whom work several jobs and must search for rentals at night
and on weekends, find replacement housing. It eases the
burden of amassing funds for a new security deposit (since the
evicting landlord is allowed to keep the deposit for 21 days
after the tenant moves out), application fees, utility
SB 290 (Leno)
Page 3 of ?
connection fees, and other moving expenses.
Western Center on Law and Poverty, the sponsor of this bill,
writes "Legal aid organizations throughout the state have
reported that the extended notice period remains a vital tenant
protection, for the basic reason that 30 days is simply not
enough time to move in today's society . . . The 60-day notice
is a significant benefit to renters and with the exceptions
included (e.g., a 1-year probationary period with 30-day notice
for all new tenants and occupants), has little or no detrimental
effect on landlords."
Other supporters such as the California Rural Legal Assistance
Foundation write that the bill would "keep giving low-income
families a reasonable chance of securing new housing."
2.Long Beach study of eviction filings
The sponsor points to a study of eviction filings in Long Beach
and argues that its results help to show that the 60-day notice
law has demonstrated its value during the time that it has been
in effect. The sponsor writes:
A study of eviction filings at the Long Beach branch of the
Los Angeles County Superior Court undertaken in conjunction
with an earlier 60-day bill showed that filings of eviction
lawsuits against tenants "holding over" after notice, dropped
69% after the 60-day notice became law. Filings were compared
during periods when the vacancy rate was virtually the same.
When tenants have a reasonable amount of time to move, they do
so and have no reason to hold over and force the landlord to
go to court.
3.Whether the existing 60-day notice law adequately protects a
landlord's ability to evict a "problem tenant"
When California's 60-day notice law was first considered by the
Legislature in 2001, concerns were raised that the additional
time provided by the bill (SB 985 (Kuehl)) might inadvertently
have unintended consequences by taking away a tool that had been
useful to those dealing with neighborhood nuisance problems.
Specifically, the concern was raised that the additional notice
period would subject law-abiding, rent-paying tenants, for a
longer period of time, to troublesome tenants who might
otherwise receive a 30-day notice to vacate.
SB 290 (Leno)
Page 4 of ?
Supporters noted that existing law provides owners with an
expedited process for seeking the eviction of a problem tenant
who has failed to pay rent, sold drugs, caused a nuisance to
other tenants, or otherwise violated the rental agreement.
Under the "for cause" legal process-specifically designed for
the eviction of problem tenants-the landlord may serve the
tenant with a three-day notice to rectify the violation or quit
the premises. If the breach is not cured within three days, or
if the tenant commits the same violation after the end of the
three-day period, the landlord may seek eviction of the tenant
through an unlawful detainer action. Landlord groups explained,
however, that owners often use the 30-day notice rather than the
"for cause" legal process when they wish to evict a problem
tenant. In these cases, the 30-day notice is used when the
owner does not want to use a three-day notice to quit, often
because the owner and other tenants are fearful of the
troublesome tenant.
In response to these concerns, SB 985 was amended to impose
additional restrictions designed to restrict the number of
situations in which the 60-day notice provisions would be
available to "problem tenants." For example, the longer notice
requirement applies only to tenants who have been living in a
unit for one year or more. As a result, owners only have to
give a 30-day notice to those tenants who have been living in a
unit for less than one year. The theory behind this restriction
is that it imposes a "probationary period" before the longer
notice would apply, thus permitting owners to remove
troublemaking tenants within the first year and allowing
demonstrated good tenants the additional notice period. In
addition, SB 985 did not affect the ability of a landlord to use
the three-day notice process to evict a tenant for cause.
In 2006, the 60-day notice period was further restricted when it
was amended to provide that any new resident in the unit would
trigger a new, one-year probationary period. This change was
made to address landlords' concern that a new roommate or family
member might move in and cause problems. As a result, an owner
is required to give a 60-day notice only when every tenant and
resident in the dwelling has lived there for one year or longer.
If any tenant or resident has resided in the dwelling for less
than one year, then the owner need only give a 30-day notice.
Furthermore, in response to Committee staff inquiries regarding
whether the sponsor has received complaints from law-abiding
tenants that they have been subjected to problem tenants for an
SB 290 (Leno)
Page 5 of ?
extended period of time under the 60-day notice law, the sponsor
indicated that it has never had a report from any legal aid
office of a tenant complaint of this nature.
In addition, the California Apartment Association (CAA)
indicates that it is neutral on the bill and writes:
Within the current statute, there are two important provisions
that have made the law workable for the rental property owners
and managers: (1) the 60-day notice provisions apply only in
those instances where a tenant has lived in the unit for one
year or longer and (2) if a new tenant (roommate) moves into
the unit, the 30-day provisions start anew for another full
year.
Because of these two provisions within the current statute,
the members of the California Apartment Association have
reported few problems with its implementation, and for these
reasons, CAA has elected to maintain a neutral position on SB
290.
4.Other revisions to 60-day notice period to address concerns
Other amendments were made to the 60-day notice period in order
to address concerns raised. For example, at the time the
original bill, SB 985, was considered, concerns were raised that
a buyer of a single-family home who intended to occupy the
property would have to wait an unduly long time to move in
following the purchase. In order to address this concern, SB
985 was amended to provide that the longer notice period does
not apply when the owner has sold the home to a bona fide
purchaser who intends to reside in the premises for at least one
year. In this case, the owner need only provide the tenant with
a 30-day notice. These provisions apply only when the home is
sold not through foreclosure, however. In that case, as added
recently by SB 1137 (Perata, Corbett, and Machado, Chapter 69,
Statutes of 2008) an owner must, until January 1, 2013, give a
tenant 60 days notice prior to eviction due to foreclosure.
When the 60-day notice law was reenacted in 2006 by AB 1169
(Torrico), it was also amended to address concerns that a tenant
might be harmed by the 60-day notice requirement if he or she is
able to quickly find replacement housing but still remains
obligated to pay for the existing rental unit for the entire
60-day period. As a result, the law provides that a tenant may
give a 30-day notice to terminate a tenancy after receiving a
60-day notice from the landlord as long as the 30-day notice
SB 290 (Leno)
Page 6 of ?
sets a termination date for the tenancy that is earlier than the
date set by the 60-day notice.
5.Opponents' concerns
The California Association of Realtors (CAR) opposes this bill
unless it is amended to provide that tenants and landlords give
the same notice when terminating a tenancy. CAR writes, "While
landlords are required to provide a 60-day notice to terminate a
tenancy in excess of 1 year, tenants are permitted to terminate
a tenancy with only 30 days notice. This creates an unequal
environment at a time when the number of vacancies in rental
properties is on the rise." As a result, CAR requests that the
bill be amended to "make the notice requirement the same for
landlords and tenants alike: either 60 days for both or 30 days
for both."
Western Center on Law and Poverty responds that such a "strict
mathematical equality does not take into account the relative
burdens on the parties. A tenant without enough time to move
runs the risk of homelessness, of having to relocate children to
a different
school because he/she has to find something quickly in order to
move, and other consequences. A tenant's entire life is
disrupted. A landlord with less notice of an impending move
suffers little or no harm, as the landlord simply re-lets the
unit sooner than she or he may have done otherwise. It's
possible that a unit might go vacant, but
there's no evidence that landlords are having any trouble
re-letting units."
The Apartment Association of Greater Los Angeles (AAGLA) and the
Santa Barbara Rental Property Association (SBRPA) oppose this
bill unless it is amended with a sunset date of three years or
less. The groups argue that it is "unusual in the extreme for
an owner to terminate the tenancy of a good, rent paying tenant,
especially in today's rental markets where owners are offering
concessions of free rent because of a plethora of vacancies."
In response, Western Center on Law and Poverty writes,
"Landlords assert that good tenants are never evicted. But
thousands of good tenants are evicted every year in California -
for condo conversions, sales (especially single family rentals,
where the landlord wants to show the property vacant), owner or
relative move-ins, and evictions to facilitate major upgrades
and rehabs."
SB 290 (Leno)
Page 7 of ?
AAGLA argues that a 60-day eviction notice will further injure
landlords, stating "it is a given that the tenant will cease
paying rent as soon as the notice is given, causing the owner to
lose money that will be made up by good tenants in the form of
higher rents. It also provides additional time for the tenant
to do damage to the property that will not be compensated by the
security deposit."
It is not apparent that AAGLA's assertion is correct, that all
tenants will cease paying rent once a notice to terminate the
tenancy is received. Indeed, the sponsor notes that procedures
are available for landlords to place such tenants on a
"blacklist" which can hurt that tenant's ability to rent a new
unit in the future. Further, a landlord can issue a three-day
notice to pay the late rent, which can lead to an eviction
within less than 60 days if the rent is not paid. Tenants would
therefore have to continue paying rent during the 60-day notice
period or face an even earlier eviction action. It is also not
apparent how the damage caused by a tenant during a 60-day
termination period would be likely to exceed the security
deposit amount while damage caused during a 30-day termination
period would not.
Support : American Federation of State, County, and Municipal
Employees (AFSCME), AFL-CIO; Asian Americans for Civil Rights
and Equality; California Alliance for Retired Americans;
California Communities United Institute; California Rural Legal
Assistance Foundation; Families First; Shelter Partnership;
Stone Soup; Tenants Together
Opposition : California Association of Realtors; Apartment
Association of Greater Los Angeles; Santa Barbara Rental
Property Association
HISTORY
Source : Western Center on Law and Poverty
Related Pending Legislation : None Known
Prior Legislation :
AB 1169 (Torrico, Chapter 842, Statutes of 2006), reenacted the
60-day notice law after it sunsetted on January 1, 2006.
SB 290 (Leno)
Page 8 of ?
SB 51 (Kuehl of 2005) would have repealed the sunset date on the
60-day notice law. This bill failed passage on the Assembly
Floor.
SB 1145 (Burton, Chapter 568, Statutes of 2004), would have
repealed the sunset date on the 60-day notice law. This
provision was deleted from the bill before it passed the
Legislature.
SB 1403 (Kuehl, Chapter 301, Statutes of 2002), extended the
60-day notice requirement pilot program established by SB 985 to
the entire state.
SB 985 (Kuehl, Chapter 729, Statutes of 2001), created a pilot
program providing for a 60-day notice requirement for tenants in
three rental markets in the Los Angeles area.
**************