Owner move-in and relative move-in evictions
The Bay Area has some of the most tenant protection laws anywhere, but property owners still retain certain rights when it comes to reclaiming their property to use as their own primary residence or for the use of a close family member through an owner move-in or relative move-in eviction (OMI/RMI) under specific circumstances.
Owner move-in (OMI) evictions occur when a property owner (or their close family member) seeks to recover a rental unit for their personal use, but a word of caution is in order. Tenants can only be evicted by way of an OMI/RMI when the owner acts in good faith without ulterior motive, meaning that the landlord must genuinely intend to move into the unit and live there for a continuous period and not use these vehicles as a pretext for forcing a tenant out to re-rent the premises at a higher rent.
Lawmakers have expressed distrust of these types of no-fault evictions and have enacted stringent requirements to prevent displacement abuses. Wrongful eviction lawsuits are proliferating throughout the Bay Area with disgruntled tenants prone to sue for damages, including emotional distress and punitive damages. There is no shortage of enterprising tenants’ attorneys willing to prosecute these lawsuits and in some cases, massive settlements can cost more than the property itself.
Additionally, violating tenant protections can result in civil penalties and mandatory reinstatement; if the owner or an eligible family member fails to occupy the unit as required, they may be ordered to allow the evicted tenant to return to the unit under the same rental terms.
One of the first questions is what law applies to landlords endeavoring to recover possession of a unit through an owner move-in or relative move-in eviction. Let’s begin with the state law of AB 1482, with tenant protections later strengthened by SB 567.
Owner move-in eviction requirements under state law
State law is more generous to landlords looking to move themselves or a close relative into a property they own than certain jurisdictions that impose more cumbersome regulations and higher relocation payments due to displaced tenants.
If the property is not subject to more restrictive local laws but subject to state law, owners must give 60 days written notice when the tenant has resided in the unit for over a year. When a tenant has occupied the unit for less than a year, 30 days written notice will suffice. The notice must state the reason for eviction and, if applicable, identify the family member moving in, be it a spouse, domestic partner, children, parents, or grandparents. The outgoing tenant must also be apprised of their rights.
Let’s assume that all of these boxes are checked. The owner or qualifying relative must move in within 90 days of the tenant vacating.
For the time and trouble of being uprooted through an OMI/RMI, tenants are entitled to relocation assistance equivalent to one month’s rent or a waiver of the last month’s rent. Contrast with some jurisdictions that require much more money to be paid out to displaced tenants and even more compensation owed to certain vulnerable tenants in the household.
After that overview of state law, let’s pivot to other municipalities that mandate higher relocation payments, registration of the eviction, and proof of move-in.
Owner move-in evictions in San Francisco
The landlord and close family members (spouse, domestic partner, children, parent, grandparents, or siblings) can move into the rental unit provided that the owner has at least a 25% equity stake in the property if the ownership was recorded after February 21, 1991, but let's go back in time. If the ownership interest was recorded on or before February 21, 1991, the owner only needs a 10% ownership state. Note that domestic partners can combine their interests to reach the 10% or 25% interest to reclaim their property.
When the property is owned by an LLC, we can temporarily change the ownership structure to satisfy this requirement - however, an owner should consult with an accountant and understand the repercussions of changing title prior to commencing a change to ownership structure.
Under San Francisco’s rules, the owner or close relatives must live in the unit as their primary residence for 36 continuous months, but regulators need more than a promise. A Statement of Occupancy accompanied by two forms of supporting documentation following the recovery of possession of the unit must be filed with the Rent Board.
The bottom line is that the Rent Board wants to ensure that the owner or close relatives are maintaining the unit as their primary place of residence. Note that the landlord cannot re-rent the original unit at a higher rent for at least five years unless offering it back to the displaced tenant at the prior controlled rate. So, it is a matter of longevity. Generally speaking, our office can effectuate an OMI/RMI eviction when the owner or an eligible relative intends to make the rental unit their home and there is prior acrimony in the rental relationship. We want the optics to be squeaky clean and make sure that the eviction does not look retaliatory.
Relocation payments will be hefty for landlords seeking to recover possession through an owner move-in or relative move-in evictions and you can check here for current relocation payment amounts.
While there are baseline amounts to be paid to each tenant in the household with a cap on relocation payments due per unit, we are not done yet. Is there an elderly (60+ years or older) tenant, a disabled tenant, or minor children in the household? These vulnerable groups are entitled to even more relocation payments.
Also be aware that under San Francisco Rent Ordinance Section 37.9(j), owners cannot proceed with a no-fault eviction during the school year when the household is composed of minor children or the tenant is a teacher or school staff member. The eviction can still happen, but it must be delayed until the summer break.
Read more on the Rent Board's website →
Owner move-in evictions in Oakland
Oakland’s rules surrounding owner and relative move-in evictions are similar to those of San Francisco but there are nuances. We’ll need to first ascertain whether the property is subject to the Oakland Just Cause for Eviction Ordinance.
If so, landlords can avail owner or relative move-in evictions to recover possession of the property, provided that they have a 33% equity stake in the building. Tenants must be provided a proper sixty-day notice not only signaling the intent of the owner or a close relative to move in, but other information needs to be conveyed to satisfy legal requirements:
-
A list of all property owned by the owner or relative, not only in Oakland but elsewhere
-
A list of any property for which the owner/relative enjoys a homeowner’s property tax exemption
-
What the lawful rent is as of the date of the notice
-
A statement that the tenant is entitled to relocation payments and the dollar amount of those payments
-
Notification that the tenant can seek advice from the Oakland Rent Board
If the notice does not check all of these boxes, it is considered an illegal notice and carries consequences for owners endeavoring to move into the property they own.
Like San Francisco, Oakland bans "no-fault" evictions during the school year. Owners need to be aware that households with school-age children or educators employed by the Oakland Unified School District cannot be evicted through an OMI/RMI when school is in session.
Relocation payments are tiered on the number of bedrooms in the rental unit and those amounts can be found here. When the Oakland tenant agrees to vacate, the owner must pay half of the money upfront, with the balance due after the tenant moves out.
Let’s say that the tenant wants to contest the owner or relative move-in eviction. The full amount of relocation payments is owed once the landlord prevails in court. Importantly, the tenant’s acceptance of relocation payments does not waive their right to sue their landlord down the road if they claim that they were wrongfully evicted.
For this reason and others, our office welcomes a dialogue on whether tenant buyout agreements may be a good alternative to transition tenants out of the rental unit because more than "cash for keys," these contracts remove any legal residue that may arise from the tenancy.
e welcomes a dialogue on whether tenant buyout agreements may be a good alternative to transition tenants out of the rental unit because more than "cash for keys," these contracts remove any legal residue that may arise from the tenancy.
Get a 360-degree view of Oakland's no-fault evictions →
Owner move-in evictions in Berkeley
As a bastion of tenant protections, it’s no surprise that Berkeley has many rules to follow for owners who endeavor to recover possession of a rental unit through an OMI/RMI. The city has a higher threshold for an equity stake to avail these types of evictions - the landlord must be at least a 50% owner-of-record of the unit.
While on the subject of equity, it’s important to note that at the time of giving notice terminating the tenancy, the landlord must divulge their ownership interest in any other residential properties in Berkeley where their interest is 10% or greater. Why? The tenant has to be offered any other unit in the city before they vacate the unit if the owner has other units that could be rented out.
As in other locales, the tenant must be notified of the availability of relocation assistance, and Berekely lawmakers were rather generous. Tenant households that have lived in the unit for a year or more will be entitled to $19,126. This payment must be deposited with the Rent Board within 10 days of service of the notice upon the tenant.
Yet we’re not done yet. The landlord may be in for more sticker shock.
Does the household qualify as low-income? Are there disabled or elderly tenants, minor children, or long-term tenants whose tenancies began before January 1, 1999? If so, the owner may be required to pay an additional $6,375 in relocation assistance. Keep in mind that these relocation payments are adjusted for inflation, so be sure to stay up to date.
Once everything is buttoned up, the landlord or qualifying relative must move into the unit within three months of termination and they will have to live in the unit for at least 36 continuous months. Interestingly, the evicted tenant will have the right to reoccupy the unit when the owner or their close relative moves out, and there is no time limit on this requirement.
It’s important to note that there is a limited window of opportunity for Berkeley landlords to use an owner move-in or relative move-in eviction when there is a minor child in the household. We will have to work around the school year because owners are not able to uproot a household with minor children if, at the time the notice expires, the Berkeley Unified School District year is in session.
Download Berkeley's OMI Packet →
Owner move-in evictions in East Palo Alto
Like Berkeley, owners in East Palo Alto must have at least 50% ownership in the property before commencing an OMI/RMI eviction, but the owner or the eligible family member need only maintain the unit as their principal place of residence for one year, which mirrors state law and is a shorter residency requirement than other jurisdictions with eviction controls.
Let’s put an asterisk on relative move-in evictions.
The owner must already live in the building to do an RMI eviction, or the owner will have to do a simultaneous owner move-in and relative move-in eviction. In other words, the owner will have to live in a unit to move in a close relative.
At any rate, the owner or their relative has two months to move into the property and the clock starts ticking when the tenant vacates.
A recurring theme with OMI/RMI laws is that owners should first be a matchmaker to welcome tenants into a vacant, comparable unit available on the property and East Palo Alto shares this sentiment. If a comparable vacant unit is available on the property, the owner cannot evict a tenant from an occupied unit for personal occupancy.
Notably, East Palo Alto’s Rent Stabilization and Just Cause for Eviction Ordinance does not explicitly require landlords to provide relocation payments for OMI/RMI evictions. While the city is silent on this matter, statewide rent control mandates that landlords provide relocation assistance or a rent waiver equivalent to one month’s rent for no-fault evictions, including owner and relative move-ins.
In contrast to other locales, East Palo Alto regulations do not afford additional protections to tenants based on the perceived vulnerability of the tenant, be it age or disability status, illness, the number of years they have stayed implanted, the presence of children, and the like. All tenants are considered equal.
Learn the city's regulatory regime →
Proper counsel can ensure the owner or relative move-in process is handled correctly, legally, and efficiently.
Navigate varied regulations, cauterize risk, and avoid costly delays. Ensure legal compliance and transparency throughout the carefully choreographed steps of an OMI/RMI eviction, and avoid tenant claims of retaliation.
Reach out to the firm built for rental housing providers and the real estate professionals who serve them.