You've got questions. We've got answers.

Here's a sampling of what's on the minds of rental housing providers. For informational purposes only and not a substitute for legal advice.

There is a property in escrow and the seller gave a 90-day notice for a rent increase which goes into effect in January. Does that impact the sale? Should they close escrow beforehand or just wait it out?

If the property is in escrow and the current landlord has served a 90-day notice to raise rents, it is still in effect. The new owner has stepped into the shoes of the previous owner, so the rent increase is still enforceable.

Whenever there is a change in ownership, however, the tenant needs to be notified, but do not fret - our office has this notice prepared. Many new owners are under the false impression that another lease has to be signed and this is not the case. The new owner essentially inherits the existing lease agreements upon purchasing the rental property.

If the tenants are on a fixed-term lease, the new owner must honor the terms of that lease until it expires. For month-to-month tenancies, the new owner inherits the tenancy as is and can only make changes by giving proper notice.

Nothing prohibits the new owner from reaching out to tenants in a heart-to-heart conversation about a new lease or modifications, but tenants are not obligated to agree.

One of the worst transgressions we have seen by real estate agents is that they promise the unit to be vacant at the time of the sale, and the buyer is horrified to learn that there are either just cause eviction protections in place, or that certain tenants cannot be displaced through no fault of their own because the occupants fall into the category of a protected status.

Whenever there are any quandaries about what a new owner is taking on by buying a tenant-occupied property, contact our office for guidance.

Unresponsive tenant refuses to vacate after agreeing in a stipulated judgment to go on a payment payment plan in exchange for moving out and sealing their eviction record. Can I unseal the record to alert future landlords?

There are a lot of times when cases do not settle unless the landlord agrees to seal the record, which means that other landlords will not know that the tenant was the subject of an eviction when they do a check.

A lot of times, what our office will do is put a provision in the stipulated judgment that if the tenant doesn’t timely vacate as agreed upon, the landlord can motion the court to have the judgment unsealed.

Keep in mind that there is a California law enacted in 2017 (Senate Bill 2819) that automatically seals eviction records if the landlord fails to obtain a judgment within 60 days of filing.

It’s entirely possible that tenants can evade service and resort to stalling tactics to cross that 60-day window and have an eviction not show up on a tenant screening report. Indeed, we have evicted tenants several times for different landlords who were not privy to the eviction history because that stain on their record is sealed.

This makes it all the more important to request references and do other due diligence in vetting rental applicants without using technology as a crutch.

My question relates to the UD 105 form. If the tenant doesn’t initially request a jury trial on the form, can a tenant later show up at court to request a jury trial?

There is a carefully choreographed series of steps in California’s eviction process and the visual types can download a one-page infographic here.

One step in this cycle of events is for the defendant/tenant to initially respond to the unlawful detainer (eviction) action, and Form UD-105 is the vehicle for doing so.

The defendant can deny all allegations in the complaint or raise specific reasons or defenses against the eviction. Stubborn Tenants’ attorneys have become increasingly inventive in delaying evictions by raising any number of defenses, many of them frivolous.

Under current law, tenants have five days to respond to eviction actions, excluding weekends and judicial holidays. 2025 will usher in a new law, however, that gives tenants ten days to contest the eviction action, a topic we discussed here.

The form does in fact allow the tenant to state that he or she wants a jury trial but it’s not a prerequisite for a jury trial. Under California law, a jury trial can also be requested after the initial response but in advance of the trial date.

For demanding a jury trial, the tenant must pay a jury fee that is typically $150 per day, but we’ve found that most defendants can have this fee waived.

The request for jury trials is often a tactic used by tenants or their attorneys to ratchet up the legal costs of housing providers, forcing landlords into a settlement and affording the outgoing tenant more time to find alternative housing.

We know that some lease agreements have the verbiage that the tenant waives the right to a jury trial, but this right cannot be abdicated under the law; every Californian has a right to a jury trial. Sometimes, this lease provision is included to get tenants into the mindset of acquiescing to demands.

If the tenant decides not to initially request a jury trial promptly,  the court typically gives latitude to correct the failure.

Is it legal to ask for a non-refundable deposit and if so, is there any limit on that? I’m finding that prospective tenants are applying for apartments further into the future. For example, rental applicants want a December 1st move-in date, when it’s now October. While I don’t have an issue with that, some tenants change their minds, leaving us with a pickle. We have to re-market the property.

Deposits are generally governed by California Civil Code Section 1950.7, and your question exposes a grey area.

Our industry partners have prepared a holding deposit form agreement, with the condition that the deposit can only be retained to absorb the landlord’s reasonably necessary costs.

We have seen similar issues in a couple of other instances. One is when the tenant breaks the lease, in which case the tenant who left prematurely is responsible for reasonable costs in marketing the vacant property until such time it is re-rented.

Another unfortunate circumstance is when a tenant tells their landlord of their intention to move out. After serving proper notice, the tenant changes their mind and decides to stay.

Even worse, expecting a vacant unit, the landlord has inked a lease with a new incoming tenant and has taken their security deposit. In some jurisdictions, the landlord cannot do much because this flip-flop by the current tenant who wants to stay implanted is not a “just cause” reason to evict.

For this reason, we recommend not marketing the rental unit until it is vacant.

Our office can prepare an ironclad agreement that spells out the reasons for which it may be retained or returned and ensures that mere second thoughts are not one of them.

I have an ongoing problem with a tenant who is always drunk. He purposely damaged his car. Another resident parked in the problematic tenant’s parking space, so the problematic tenant proceeded to have a gathering of people in his parking spot. The tenant also has an unauthorized dog in the unit and although he is paying rent, I am fed up. Another issue is half of the tenants complain about the individual, and the other half are in support of him and party with him. What do you recommend?

First off, being intoxicated in itself is not a just cause reason to evict. We live in a free society where people can drink.

The question we have is what behavior does the tenant display when they are drunk? Are they being violent, threatening other residents, damaging the building, or having parties late at night, for example?

The essential question is how this person is interfering with the quiet enjoyment of others.

When someone damages their own vehicle, it’s not so much a concern. But when another tenant improperly parks in the gentleman’s parking lot, how does the aggrieved tenant handle it? Even if the other tenant is in the wrong by parking in someone else’s space, they cannot be accosted with a baseball bat. So, fundamentally, we’ll need to understand what the underlying behavior is.

As far as proceeding with an eviction on the grounds of a nuisance, we’ll need to document these acts and have credible evidence, including witnesses if the case proceeds to trial, but this may not be necessary if the case settles, of which many do.

We can proceed with an eviction action by serving a 3-day notice to cure or quit based on the unauthorized pet, and this brings up a larger point. There are several theories for transitioning out a tenant, but many clients complicate the matter by looking for other reasons to evict. We'd like to take the path of least resistance and find the easiest way to remove a problematic tenant - never is our goal to elongate a matter but resolve it as inexpensively as possible, taking into account time, risk, and attorneys' fees.

Keep in mind that some behavior is so egregious, it is not curable, including violence or threats of violence. The foremost obligation of housing providers is to provide a safe environment and whenever there is a tenant who poses a threat, they should be served a 3-day notice to quit.