Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: Notesfiles $Revision: 1.6.2.16 $; site ISM780B.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!think!ISM780B!gary From: gary@ISM780B.UUCP Newsgroups: net.legal Subject: Landlord-tenant dispute Message-ID: <25600002@ISM780B.UUCP> Date: Thu, 19-Sep-85 02:50:00 EDT Article-I.D.: ISM780B.25600002 Posted: Thu Sep 19 02:50:00 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 21-Sep-85 04:55:56 EDT Lines: 181 Nf-ID: #N:ISM780B:25600002:000:10090 Nf-From: ISM780B!gary Sep 19 02:50:00 1985 -------- This note involves a real-life landlord-tenant dispute. Due to its complexity it is rather lengthy and contains two parts, a BACKGROUND and a list of 10 QUESTIONS. The dispute involves a triple net lease (tenant pays a proration of utilities, insurance and taxes) for a live-in artist loft studio in a warehouse. The locale is L.A. Please reply by e-mail or notes. (There may be disenting opinions so notes may be the best forum.) Thank you very much in advance for your advice. BACKGROUND: On June 26, a tenant signs two copies of a month-to-month "lease agreement" to commence on July 1, pending negotiations for a long-term lease, and returns them to the landlord expecting both to be signed and one of them to be returned to him. Factors involved in the upcoming negotiations include (1) a number of building and safety code violations; (2) a number of needed repairs which include replacing broken glass and fixing a leak in the roof; and (3) water damage to the tenant's possessions which occurred while the previous lease was in effect, and for which the tenant considers the landlord responsible. On August 16 the tenant receives a letter stating that (1) the building had been sold and closed escrow August 9; (2) there would be extensively remodeling; and (3) fumigation is "tentatively" scheduled to commence on August 29 (at which point the tenant would have to vacate the premises for two days). This letter is from the new owner/landlord and is the first information the tenant had received about the sale. The tenant decides to bail out and rents another place. On August 23 he telephones the new landlord to inform him that he will be moving out by September 1. The tenant has not yet received back a fully executed copy of the month-to-month agreement which he signed and sent to the previous owner. (Having returned both originals, he has no copy.) However, the previous lease included under "Rent" a deposit equal to one month's rent (a Security Deposit clause indicated a sum of "$NONE"), and the tenant increased his deposit to equal the new rent when he signed the new month-to-month agreement. (In fact the original lease termed this deposit "last month's rent".) Thus, he assumes that the last month's rent is already covered by the deposit, expects it to apply to August rent (which he had not yet paid), and so informs the new landlord. The new landlord claims that the tenant is obligated to give 30-days notice, and that he therefore must pay rent for September. This is contrary to what the tenant had been told, namely, that (1) even though it is written in the lease, the requirement for 30-days notice is not enforceable for month-to-month rental; and (2) legally there is no such thing as a "month-to-month lease" -- a "lease" can only apply to a term longer than one month. On August 24, the tenant receives a hand-delivered letter from the new landlord which (1) says a 30-day notice must be given; (2) says the ``Security deposit ... is not a "last month's" rent and cannot be credited as same''; and (3) confirms the fumigation date of August 29-30. On August 26 the tenant sends the new landlord a letter reiterating his intention to leave and disputing the 30-day's notice requirement and deposit issues. The letter also explains his reasons for leaving, including (1) the fact that he had not yet received his copy of the month-to-month agreement (thus affirming that it was in effect); (2) that he was not informed the building was being sold or in escrow when he signed the monthly agreement; (3) the short notice for remodeling and fumigation (less than 5 day's confirmation); and (4) the existence of building and safety code violations. On August 27 the tenant receives a letter from the previous owner demanding rent for August. Enclosed is one of the original copies of the monthly agreement which the tenant had signed; neither the previous nor the new landlord had signed it. On August 28 the tenant receives a certified letter from the new landlord which is a duplicate of the one hand delivered August 24 (saying the "Security Deposit" is not "last month's rent" and confirming that fumigation is to commence the next day). The tenant vacates the premises on August 29 and 30 for fumigation services. A hand-delivered letter from the new landlord is left in the premises which threatens "inconvenience" if August rent is not paid, and points out that the increased deposit is (now) under a clause labeled "Security Deposit". Enclosed is a copy of the letter from the old landlord (received August 27) and a photocopy of the month-to-month agreement with the old landlord's signature. (Although the lease is signed, the signature is not dated and as far as the tenant knows, it could have been signed after he gave the new landlord notice.) Reading the agreement carefully the tenant discovers that what began as "last month's rent" in the original lease, and changed to "rent deposit" in the next lease, had indeed now become a general purpose "Security Deposit" (which includes but is not limited to rent) in this new monthly lease agreement, reimbursable 10 days after the lease expires. On August 31 the tenant begins to move. While he is away, a friend who is helping him move is given a summons (intended for him) -- he is being sued for August's rent in small claims court. (In the confusion of the move the summons is lost.) That evening, he himself is served with a photocopy of the summons. The landlord asks the tenant if he is moving and implies that September's rent will be owed (not covered by the "Security Deposit") because less than 30-day's notice was given. Shortly thereafter the landlord begins remodeling the premises vacated by the tenant, including tearing down the under-code loft and stairs. (The tenant has slides of the code violations and evidence of water damage.) In summary, the landlord thinks that both August and September rent must be paid, and that the "Security Deposit" minus whatever deductions will be returned to the tenant on (or about) October 10. The tenant thinks that the deposit in question is a "last month's rent" which applies to August, that under the circumstances a full 30 day's notice was not required, and that therefore nothing is owed for September. QUESTIONS: 1. Is a lease of any sort effective and binding before both parties receive a fully executed copy, i.e., a copy with both lessee's and lessor's signature on it thus affirming the agreement? 2. While a building is in escrow, is it legal for the old owner to enter a lease agreement with a prospective tenant without at least informing the tenant that the building is being sold? E.g., is a lease signed under such conditions binding? 3. Legally is there such a thing as a "month-to-month lease"; i.e., even though such an agreement is signed, is anything in it enforceable? Two people have advised the tenant that a month-to-month rental means that you pay for a month then you stay for a month, and that a lease -- a contract in effect -- is irrelevant. 4. Specifically is a clause which requires 30-day's notice enforceable in a month-to-month lease agreement? (The landlord claims that there is even a law which requires a month's notice for monthly rentals.) 5. When a building contains numerous building and safety code violations (e.g., loft and staircase poorly constructed and without safety railings; electrical wiring not enclosed in conduit and stapled along a leaking wall; sink drains connected to the same sewer pipe as toilets but not separately vented; etc.) does the tenant have the legal right to vacate on short notice reguardless of what a lease might say? 6. The tenant paid first and last month's rent as stipulated in his first lease, then paid more money to "increase deposit to accomodate [sic] new rent" under a second lease ("Security Deposit. ... $NONE ..."), and then paid an increase to equal the new rent under a general purpose "Security Deposit" clause in a third (month-to-month) lease. It was not pointed out that the deposit money had been redefined between leases, and the tenant, having failed to find another rental and signing lease under stress "at the last minute", didn't notice the redefinition. Can the tenant legitimately claim that the money is and always had been understood to cover last month's rent and nothing else (i.e., that the (old) landlord "conned" him with respect to the deposit money)? 7. How much confirmed notice must a landlord give a tenant before must vacate the premises for fumigation services? Is 13 day's tentative and 5 day's confirmed notice adequate by law? (The lease doesn't seem to mention such a situation specifically.) 8. During fumigation, the tenant(s) are required to vacate the premises from 8 am one day to 6 pm the next day; the landlord offers two day's reimbursement on the rent. Are the tenants entitled to more than this, considering (1) the inconvenience (plants and animals must be removed and food must be bagged); (2) the fact that hotel costs (e.g.) would be more than two day's rent; and (3) that the premises in question are partially used for commercial purposes resulting in potential loss of income? 9. Is a photocopy of a summons to appear in small claims court (the "PLAINTIFF'S CLAIM AND ORDER TO DEFENDANT") binding? In other words, is it necessary to serve the defendant the original or (pink) carbon copy of the official summons received from the court before he must comply? 10. The small claims court summons indicates a certain sum for rent and utilities "7/85 to 8/85". Can this be taken as meaning "July"? The sum in question actually applies to August. Can this be argued as a technical error that invalidates the plaintiff's claim? Whew! Thanks again for your time and reponses. Gary Swift, INTERACTIVE Systems Corp., Santa Monica, Ca., (213) 453 8649 {decvax!cca | yale | bbncca | allegra | cbosgd | ihnp4}!ima!ism780!gary Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com