Question:
Is there any way for a new tenant keep rent control once all original tenants move out?
Dear Mr. Blacksburg,
I live in a rent-controlled apartment and have lived here for 12 years. About a year ago, one tenant moved out, and the landlord said she'd only accept checks from the three remaining tenants on the original lease. Now another's moving out, and I have a friend who wants to move in, but she's very concerned about the situation of the landlord stating she won't accept checks from new tenants.
Basically, it seems to us that if/when I and the other original tenant move out, my remaining friend won't have any rights to rent-control, and the landlord will either raise the rent to market value (a huge jump) and/or force her to move out.
Is it legal for the landlord to say she'll only accept checks from the "original" tenants? Is there anything we can do to have her accept checks from my friend? Is there any way my friend can move in and be protected?
Answer:
It seems that your questions all stem from what you mean by "protected." Your friend is "protected" as long as an original tenant is there. She would be protected by being able to move in as a legal subtenant, and she would be protected as a rent controlled tenant up to the point that the last original tenant moves out.
The landlord must accept a one for one replacement of a tenant, so as long as your friend has decent credit and meets whatever other application requirements the landlord has, then the new subtenant must be accepted.
VERY IMPORTANT: Just because a landlord must allow you to have a one for one replacement tenant doesn’t mean that you can forgo the notice requirements outlined in your written lease. If you don't have a written lease or there isn't a provision relating to subtenants, then you're not required to obtain prior written consent.
As for accepting checks, the landlord is not required to accept checks from a subtenant. A landlord has a lease agreement with the original tenants, not a subsequent occupant. Even if the landlord were to accept a check from a subtenant, the landlord can provide what's known as a 6.14 notice, which would let the subsequent occupant know that they will never become original tenants (with the rights of rent control connected to the base rate in the original lease). I'll discuss the rent control issue below.
Your question was, is there anything you can do to have the landlord accept checks from your friend: You can let the landlord know that your friend is willing to sign a 6.14 acknowledgement that states when all original occupants vacate, the landlord will have the right to raise the rent to market rate. This might alleviate the landlord’s concern that by accepting a rent check from a subtenant, the landlord will be roped into providing the low rent of the original base lease to the subsequent occupant.
However, even if you did this, if I were the landlord, I'd still say no. By accepting rent from a subtenant, the landlord becomes contractually connected to the subtenant. That means that the landlord would now become responsible for things like the subtenant’s security deposit, arguments between all tenants, etc.
Your last question is whether there's anything else that can be done so that your friend is protected. I think what you mean to ask (and correct me if I’m wrong): is there anything you can do so that when all original occupants leave, your friend can continue in the apartment with the same rent she was paying while an original occupant was living there?
The short answer is… No. Your rent rate is based on when you, the original occupants, move in. The original occupants get the benefit of the original base rent so long as they are living there. Once the original occupants go, the landlord has the right to raise the rent to market rate on those subsequent occupants that choose to stay after the last original occupant goes. And that makes sense, right? Otherwise, a landlord would suffer because they’d have to endure a perpetual stream of subtenants, and subsequently the original occupants suffer because a landlord would never accept a subtenant to move in after one of several original occupants go. More specific to you: Why would your landlord ever agree to your friend moving in if it meant that when you and all the other originals left, the landlord was required to continue that low rent rate for her? If that were the case, the landlord might as well let you suffer under the weight of additional rent and just have you move out if you can't afford the rent without the new subtenant.
This is why certain San Francisco laws were put into place. The landlord is required to allow a one for one replacement tenant so that original occupants aren't required to move out if one of the originals leaves. In exchange for this concession (state and common law don't require a landlord to accept a subtenant if the lease says otherwise), the landlord gets to raise the raise the rent when all original occupants go.
Just as landlords must deal with the Rent Ordinance, so must tenants. Your current situation is one where subsequent occupants enter into this soup with the understanding that their rights extend only as far as an original occupant.
You can also read a little more about this at the San Francisco rent board site: http://www.sfgov.org/site/rentboard_page.asp?id=5615
The legal advice offered here pertains to the specific set of circumstances being discussed in each post. Answers given to questions answered on this blog will not necessarily pertain to all other similar cases. For personalized legal advice, please contact Michael Blacksburg directly. |
