San Francisco Rent Board News Archive: 2008

The voters of San Francisco passed Proposition M concerning "Tenant Harassment" on November 4, 2008. The Proposition is effective on December 19, 2008. The proposition defines "quiet enjoyment, without harassment by the landlord as provided in Section 10B" as a housing service included in a tenant's base rent. Section 10B prohibits a landlord from doing specified acts, such as abusing the right of entry to the unit, threatening or attempting to coerce a tenant to move, or interfering with the tenant's right of privacy, "in bad faith or with ulterior motive or without honest intent". Remedies for violation of the section include filing a tenant petition at the Rent Board for decreased housing services, a civil action in court for actual and punitive damages or injunctive relief, or criminal prosecution as a misdemeanor offense. The full text of Section 10B is set forth below.

It is up to the Administrative Law Judge or the courts to interpret the provisions of Proposition M and to decide if any particular conduct constitutes "tenant harassment" under Section 10B.

Sec. 37.10B Tenant Harassment.

(a) No landlord, and no agent, contractor, subcontractor or employee of the landlord shall do any of the following in bad faith or with ulterior motive or without honest intent:

(1) Interrupt, terminate or fail to provide housing services required by contract or by State, County or local housing, health or safety laws;

(2) Fail to perform repairs and maintenance required by contract or by State, County or local housing, health or safety laws;

(3) Fail to exercise due diligence in completing repairs and maintenance once undertaken or fail to follow appropriate industry repair, containment or remediation protocols designed to minimize exposure to noise, dust, lead, paint, mold, asbestos, or other building materials with potentially harmful health impacts;

(4) Abuse the landlord's right of access into a rental housing unit as that right is provided by law;

(5) Influence or attempt to influence a tenant to vacate a rental housing unit through fraud, intimidation or coercion;

(6) Attempt to coerce the tenant to vacate with offer(s) of payments to vacate which are accompanied with threats or intimidation;

(7) Continue to offer payments to vacate after tenant has notified the landlord in writing that they no longer wish to receive further offers of payments to vacate;

(8) Threaten the tenant, by word or gesture, with physical harm;

(9) Violate any law which prohibits discrimination based on actual or perceived race, gender, sexual preference, sexual orientation, ethnic background, nationality, place of birth, immigration or citizenship status, religion, age, parenthood, marriage, pregnancy, disability, AIDS or occupancy by a minor child;

(10) Interfere with a tenants right to quiet use and enjoyment of a rental housing unit as that right is defined by California law;

(11) Refuse to accept or acknowledge receipt of a tenant's lawful rent payment;

(12) Refuse to cash a rent check for over 30 days;

(13) Interfere with a tenant's right to privacy;

(14) Request information that violates a tenant's right to privacy, including but not limited to residence or citizenship status or social security number;

(15) Other repeated acts or omissions of such significance as to substantially interfere with or disturb the comfort, repose, peace or quiet of any person lawfully entitled to occupancy of such dwelling unit and that cause, are likely to cause, or are intended to cause any person lawfully entitled to occupancy of a dwelling unit to vacate such dwelling unit or to surrender or waive any rights in relation to such occupancy.

(b) Nothing in this Section 37.10B shall be construed as to prevent the lawful eviction of a tenant by appropriate legal means.

(c) Enforcement and penalties.

(1) Rent Board. Violation of this Section 37.10B is a substantial and significant decrease in services as defined in Section 37.2(g) and tenants may file a petition with the Rent Board for a reduction in rent.

(2) Criminal Penalty. Any person who is convicted of violating this Section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction shall be punished by a fine of not greater than one thousand dollars or by imprisonment in the County Jail for not more than six months, or by both such fine and imprisonment.

(3) Civil Action. Any person, including the City, may enforce the provisions of this Section by means of a civil action. The burden of proof in such cases shall be preponderance of the evidence. A violation of this Chapter may be asserted as an affirmative defense in an unlawful detainer action.

(4) Injunction. Any person who commits an act, proposes to commit an act, or engages in any pattern and practice which violates this Section 37.10B may be enjoined therefrom by any court of competent jurisdiction. An action for injunction under this subsection may be brought by an aggrieved person, by the City Attorney, or by any person or entity who will fairly and adequately represent the interest of the protected class.

(5) Penalties and Other Monetary Awards. Any person who violates or aids or incites another person to violate the provisions of this Section is liable for each and every such offense for money damages of not less than three times actual damages suffered by an aggrieved party (including damages for mental or emotional distress) or for statutory damages in the sum of one thousand dollars, whichever is greater, and whatever other relief the court deems appropriate. In the case of an award of damages for mental or emotional distress, said award shall only be trebled if the trier of fact finds that the landlord acted in knowing violation of or in reckless disregard of Section 37.9, 37.10A, or 37.10B herein. In addition, a prevailing plaintiff shall be entitled to reasonable attorney's fees and costs pursuant to order of the court. The trier of fact may also award punitive damages to any plaintiff, including the City, in a proper case as defined by Civil Code Section 3294. The remedies available under this Section shall be in addition to any other existing remedies which may be available to the tenant or the City.

(6) Defending Eviction Lawsuits. In any action to recover possession of a rental unit subject to the Chapter, unless the sole basis of the notice to quit is Section 37.9(b), the court shall award the tenant reasonable attorney fees and costs incurred in defending the action upon a finding that the tenant is the prevailing party under Code of Civil Procedure Section 1032(a)(4).

(d) Severability. If any provision or clause of this Section 37.10B, or Section 37.2(g), or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held to be unconstitutional or to be otherwise invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions of this Section 37.10B or Section 37.2(g) and all clauses of these Sections are declared to be severable.

Motion No. M08-121, Board of Supevisors File No. 080821

Foreclosures Do Not Affect Rent Control Rights

There are currently a lot of foreclosures happening throughout the country. In San Francisco, foreclosures do not affect the rights of tenants under the Rent Ordinance. Thus, tenants in units subject to the Rent Ordinance have the right to stay in the unit after a foreclosure on the same terms and conditions of tenancy as before. The Court of Appeal held in Gross v. Superior Court (1985)171 Cal.App.3d 265 that foreclosure, like any other sale, is not a just cause for eviction under the Rent Ordinance and provides no basis to force the tenant to leave. Any tenant who receives an eviction notice based on foreclosure of the property can file a "Report of Alleged Wrongful Eviction" with the Rent Board, and may also want to obtain legal advice from an attorney. In addition, any tenant who suffers a substantial decrease in housing services, such as termination of utility service(s) either before or after foreclosure, can file a tenant petition with the Rent Board requesting a corresponding reduction in rent. Tenants should pay the rent to the new owner or put the rent money aside if the new owner is not known.

Extension of Eviction Protections

to Previously Exempt Units After Foreclosure

Effective April 25, 2010, any tenant in San Francisco who was in possession of a rental unit that was exempt from and not subject to the Rent Ordinance at the time of foreclosure may not be evicted by the person or entity who took title through foreclosure, except for a “just cause” reason under the Rent Ordinance and only after expiration of the tenant’s existing lease term. [Ordinance Section37.9D(b)] 

法拍屋不影響租金管制權利

近來全國各地有許多法拍屋。在舊金山，法拍屋並不影響受房租條例 (RentOrdinance) 規範的房客的權利。因此，房屋被法院拍賣後，受到房租條例規範的房客有權以和先前同樣的租賃條款和條件繼續租住該房屋。在Gross對高等法院 (1985) 171 Cal.App.3d 265 的案件中，上訴法院裁決法拍屋就如 同其他的買賣一樣，不能當做正當原因來驅趕受房租條例規範的房客，且也不構成強迫房客搬離的法律基礎。任何因住在法拍屋而收到驅逐通知的房客，可以提出「聲稱非法驅趕報告」給房租委員會 (Rent Board), 也可以向律師尋問法律上的意見。 此外，任何在住屋服務上感到有大幅降低的房客，例如在 取消抵押品回贖權之前或之後停止公用事業(水、電等)服務，可提交房客請願書給房租委員會，要求適當的減少租金。房客應把租金繳交給新的屋主，或如不知道新的屋主為誰，可先把租金放在一邊收好。 

原本免受房租條例規範之房屋遭法拍後，租屋房客享有延期驅逐保護

自 2010 年 4 月 25 日起，所有居住在舊金山的房客，若承租的房子免受或不受房租條例之規範，在該房屋遭法拍後，透過法拍程序取得房屋所有權的新屋主或實體不得強迫房客搬遷，除非是基於房租條例明定之「正當理由」或房客既有租約到期後使得為之。 [房租條例第 37 條第 9 項 D 款 (b) 目] 

[Translator's Note: 本文中的foreclosure是指近來次貸危機中，因屋主無法按時繳交貸款額，有許多房子遭銀行取回或法院查封，在法律上稱取消抵押品贖回權。] 

Ejecuciones hipotecarias no afectan a los derechos previstos

por la Ordenanza de Arrendamiento

Actualmente, se están ejecutando muchas hipotecasa través de todo el país. En San Francisco, los juicios hipotecarios no afectana los derechos de los inquilinos bajo la Ordenanza de Arrendamiento. Por lotanto, inquilinos cuyas unidades son sujetas a la Ordenanza de Arrendamiento tienen el derecho de quedarse en sus unidades después de cualquier ejecución hipotecaria, bajo los mismos términos y las mismas condiciones de alquiler como antes. El Tribunal de Apelaciones dictó, en Gross v. Superior Court (1985) 171 Cal.App.3d265, que una ejecución hipotecaria, igual que cualquier otra venta, no es motivo fundado para el desalojo según la Ordenanza de Arrendamiento y no ofrece ninguna base para expulsar a un inquilino. Si un inquilino recibe un aviso dedesalojo basado en la ejecución de la hipoteca de una propiedad, él o ella puede presentar una “Denuncia por supuesto desalojo injusto” con la Junta de Control de Renta, y quizás le beneficiaría obtener consejos legales de parte de un abogado. Además, cualquier inquilino que se ve sujeto a una baja considerable de servicios de vivienda, tal como la interrupción de servicios públicos, o antes o después de una ejecución hipotecaria, puede presentar una petición ante la Junta de Control de Renta pidiendo una reducción correspondiente en la cantidad de su renta. Tales inquilinos deben pagar la renta al nuevo propietario o guardar ese dinero aparte si no se conoce quién es el nuevo dueño. 

EXTENSIÓN DE LAS PROTECCIONES AL DESALOJO DE UNIDADES PREVIAMENTE EXENTAS LUEGO DE LA EJECUCIÓN HIPOTECARIA

A partir del 25 de abril de 2010, cualquier inquilino en San Francisco que haya estado en posesión de una unidad de arrendamiento exenta y no sujeta a la Ordenanza del Control de Rentas en el momento de producirse una ejecución hipotecaria no puede ser desalojado por la persona o entidad que adquiere el título de propiedad a través de la ejecución hipotecaria, excepto que sea por “justa causa” de conformidad con la Ordenanza del Control de Rentas y solamente con posterioridad al vencimiento del plazo de arrendamiento existente. [Sección 37.9D(b) de la Ordenanza]

April 2010

New Ordinance Amendment Regarding Written Disclosure of Tenant Rights

Eminent Domain Propositions on the June Ballot