Legal Question in Landlord & Tenant Law in California

On Sept. 4, 2013 I received a 60 day eviction notice under California CCP 1946.1. This was the result of a verbal altercation with a neighbor and subsequent conversation with the apt. mgr. who “felt as if I had disrespected her.” I most certainly am guilty of ungentlemanly like conduct with my neighbor (very much out of normal character), and of not taking the matter very seriously with the mgr. I am currently on a month to month rental agreement after having fulfilled a one year lease agreement. Total time in current residence 3 years.

CCP 1946.1 was enacted many years ago with a sunset clause that expired in 2010 and was then adopted indefinitely in CA. SB 290 (2009).

Can you please advise me of my options? I am more than willing to move, but cannot find a new residence with the eviction notice in place. As I interpret CCP 1946.1 - there are several conditions that must be met that are not present; these are:

(1)The dwelling or unit is alienable separate from the title to any other dwelling unit.

(2)The owner has contracted to sell the dwelling or unit to a bona fide purchaser for value, and has established an escrow with a licensed escrow agent, as defined in Sections 17004 and 17200 of the Financial Code, or a licensed real estate broker, as defined in Section 10131 of the Business and Professions Code

(3)The purchaser is a natural person or persons

(4)The notice is given no more than 120 days after the escrow has been established

(5)Notice was not previously given to the tenant pursuant to this section

(6)The purchaser in good faith intends to reside in the property for at least one full year after the termination of the tenancy

Since these conditions are not present is it not the wrong form - does that matter?

Asked on 9/17/13, 11:54 am

3 Answers from Attorneys

Anthony Roach Law Office of Anthony A. Roach

First of all, the correct code section is Civil Code section 1946.1, not Code of Civil Procedure section 1946.1.

Second of all, you are reading from section (d), which does not apply to you. Subdivision (b) applies to you, based on the facts that you have provided.

The notice is valid. The notice was given to you personally, and is not a matter of public record, and has not effect on your ability to find a new place to rent. If you do not move out before the end of the period in the notice, then the landlord can file an unlawful detainer complaint against you, and that may eventually become public record.

Read more
Answered on 9/17/13, 12:03 pm

Timothy McCormick Libris Solutions - Dispute Resolution Services

Mr. Roach is correct. Section 1946.1(a) says tenancies with no specified end date automatically renew unless one of the parties gives notice to terminate the tenancy. Section 1946.1(b) requires 60-days notice to terminate a tenancy of undefined term. 1946.1(c) says BUT you only have to give 30-days notice if the tenancy has existed less than a year. 1946.1(d) says you ALSO only have to give 30-days notice IF the six conditions you list are present. So if they are NOT present AND the tenancy has lasted at least a year, THEN you have to give 60-days. The conditions are not present; so they gave you 60-days instead of 30-days notice. There is nothing wrong with the notice. There is also no form required. They could hand you a notice written in crayon on the back of a paper bag, and as long as it gives you notification you are supposed to be out in 60-days, it is valid.

Read more
Answered on 9/17/13, 2:15 pm
Kelvin Green The Law Office of Kelvin Green

My colleagues are absolutely correct. You have been placed on notice. The notice is not public record. Pay your rent for the next 60 days. Clean the property, be on time leaving. Anything else will cost you more money.

Read more
Answered on 9/17/13, 7:31 pm

Related Questions & Answers

More Landlord & Tenants questions and answers in California