BILL ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 290|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: SB 290
Author: Leno (D), et al
Amended: As introduced
Vote: 21
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE : 3-2, 3/31/09
AYES: Corbett, Florez, Leno
NOES: Harman, Walters
SUBJECT : Landlord-tenant: extension of 60-Day Notice of
Termination
Law
SOURCE : Western Center on Law and Poverty
DIGEST : This bill repeals the sunset date for a law
requiring the owner of a residential rental property to
give at least 60-day notice prior to terminating the
periodic tenancy of a tenant who has lived in the unit for
one year or more.
ANALYSIS : 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 u nit 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
CONTINUED
SB 290
Page
2
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 deletes the sunset date on the above described
provisions, thereby extending them indefinitely.
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 has 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 by SB 1145 (Burton) and 2005 by
SB 51 (Kuehl) to repeal or extend the sunset provision, but
the relevant language was amended out of SB 11455 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 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 repeals the sunset date,
thereby extending the law indefinitely.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No
SB 290
Page
3
Local: No
SUPPORT : (Verified 4/1/09)
Western Center on Law and Poverty (source)
American Federation of State, County and Municipal
Employees, 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 : (Verified 4/1/09)
California Association of Realtors
Apartment Association of Greater Los Angeles
Santa Barbara Rental Property Association
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : The author's office 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 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), ahs
little or no detrimental effect on landlords."
Other supporters such as the California Rural Legal
SB 290
Page
4
Assistance Foundation write that the bill will "keep giving
low-income families a reasonable chance of securing new
housing."
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 shoed that filings of eviction
lawsuits against tenants 'holding over' after notice,
dropped 69% after the 6-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, the do so and have no reason to hold over
and force the landlord to go to court."
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : 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 one 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."
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."
AAG:A 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
SB 290
Page
5
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."
RJG:cm 4/1/09 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****