BILL ANALYSIS
SB 290
Page 1
SENATE THIRD READING
SB 290 (Leno)
As Introduced February 24, 2009
Majority vote
SENATE VOTE :21-15
JUDICIARY 6-3
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Feuer, Brownley, Evans, | | |
| |Jones, Lieu, Monning | | |
| | | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
|Nays:|Tran, Knight, Silva | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Deletes the sunset date on the law requiring a
landlord to provide a 60-day prior notice to terminate a
residential tenancy if the tenant has resided in the unit for a
year or more, thereby extending the required 60-day notice
requirement indefinitely.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Requires, until January 1, 2010, an owner of residential
property to provide 60-day notice of the owner's intent to
terminate a periodic residential tenancy if the tenant has
resided in the unit for more than one year, and to provide
30-day notice of intent to terminate the tenancy if the tenant
has resided in the unit for less than one year.
2)Notwithstanding the above provisions, permits the owner to
provide 30-day notice of intent to terminate a residential
tenancy if the owner has contracted to sell the residential
unit to a bona fide purchaser, as specified.
3)Notwithstanding the above provisions, requires, until January
1, 2013, an owner who has acquired residential rental property
as a result of foreclosure to provide the tenant with a 60-day
prior notice of intent to terminate the tenancy.
4)Provides, under the federal "Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure
Act of 2009," signed by President Obama on May 20, 2009, that,
in the case of foreclose on a federally-backed mortgage loan,
SB 290
Page 2
the successor in interest shall give any bona fide tenant on
the affected property at least 90-days notice to vacate. This
provision will sunset on December 31, 2012.
FISCAL EFFECT : None
COMMENTS : Historically, landlords in California could terminate
a residential periodic tenancy by providing the tenant with only
30-days notice; and, outside of certain "just cause"
jurisdictions, this notice can be given without cause. In 2001,
recognizing the extreme difficulty that displaced tenants
sometimes have in finding suitable housing within 30 days, SB
985 (Kuehl), Chapter 729, Statutes of 2001, created a pilot
project that increased the notice period to 60 days for a tenant
who had resided in the property for one year or longer. This
requirement was extended state-wide in 2002, albeit with a
three-year sunset provision. In 2006, AB 1169 (Torrico),
Chapter 842, Statutes of 2006, re-enacted the 60-day provision
with a sunset date of January 1, 2010. This bill would
eliminate the sunset provision altogether, making the 60-day
notice period for long-term tenants a permanent part of
California landlord-tenant law.
A study drawn from the earlier pilot project area suggested that
increasing the notice period not only made it easier for the
tenant; it apparently had the added benefit of reducing the
burden on the courts as well, as landlord lawsuits against
tenants for "holding over" decreased by 69% after the law went
into effect. The author points to this study as evidence that
given adequate time to move tenants will do so, and the need for
an unlawful detainer action is eliminated.
Since the time that the original pilot project went into effect,
the opponents of an extended notice period - typically landlord
associations - claimed that the 60-day notice would make it much
more difficult to remove "problem tenants" who not only create a
problem for landlords, but who also potentially become a
nuisance to neighbors and other tenants. It is unclear,
however, whether the expanded notice would necessarily have this
effect; indeed the Assembly Judiciary Committee is not aware of
any evidence that the prior landlord associations' concerns have
actually arisen. On the one hand, if a tenant is truly creating
a nuisance or disturbing the quiet enjoyment of other tenants,
existing law already provides means for removing that tenant.
On the other hand, it appears that landlords sometimes use the
SB 290
Page 3
30-day notice provision to remove tenants that could conceivably
be evicted for cause by issuing a three-day notice to quit. But
because the three-day notice to quit is necessarily more
contentious and often leads to the time and expense of an
unlawful detainer action, the 30-day notice is not only better
for the landlord, but sometimes for the targeted tenant and
other tenants as well.
Yet, the existing 60-day notice provision arguably already takes
into account the "problem tenant," insofar as it only applies to
tenants who have resided in the property for one year or more,
while still permitting the standard 30-day notice for tenants
who have resided in the property for less than one year.
Indeed, the legislative history of prior legislation suggests
that limiting the 60-day notice requirement to tenants who had
resided in the units for a year or more was precisely to address
this issue: that is, because problematic behavior will usually
manifest itself in the first year, the distinction creates what
is in effect a "one year probationary period" before a tenant is
entitled to the 60-day notice. (See e.g., Senate Judiciary
Committee, Analysis of AB 1169. June 13, 2006.) Also, the
60-day notice requirement only applies where all of the tenants
have resided in the premises for one year or more; the 30-day
requirement applies "if any tenant or resident has resided in
the dwelling for less than a year." In short, if a new tenant
or roommate moves in, the 30-day notice applies to the entire
unit for another full year. Because of this provision, the
California Apartment Association has taken a neutral position on
the bill.
Despite opponents' claim that a 60-day notice will make it
difficult to remove "problem tenants, this policy has been in
effect for about eight years and there is no evidence that that
expected problems have come to pass. Indeed, the only study
cited by either side suggests, as noted above, that the 60-day
notice has actually led to fewer contentious evictions. The
original three-year sunset on the statewide bill has been
extended once already. The purpose of a sunset provision is to
permit the Legislature to revisit the policy and to determine if
there have been unwanted, unintended consequences. Since no
evidence has been provided that any such unwanted, unintended
consequences have come to pass, it may be concluded that it is
reasonable to remove the sunset.
SB 290
Page 4
Analysis Prepared by : Thomas Clark / JUD. / (916) 319-2334
FN: 0001563