All Forum Posts by: Benjamin Fishler

Hi all, 

We have a couple of plots of land land we acquired a while back via tax auction. They apparently were not split properly, was told we need to get the lots legalized. 

We're not looking to build on the lots but rather get them legalized and sell.  Looked through SD county website and spoke to a few zoning reps and they just point to the "Certificate of Compliance without BA" form, but that form basically asks you to include permit plans (not looking to build) and "evidence of legal parcel" (what we're trying to accomplish, so seems a bit cyclic). 

Anyone know of services that help accomplish getting the lots legalized/sellable? Is this something a title company could handle for a fee?

Thanks for any input. 

We have a situation where 1 out of 3 tenants (who are good, pay on time, keep place clean) in our rental  is moving out of the area. We told the remaining 2x they could find a suitable tenant if we go through references/credit check/etc. and approve them first (also in our original contract). The tenant they proposed definitely did not check out (was moving from another city, first filled out application with no current listed job or income, only 5 months of rental history and nothing before that). So right off the bat it seemed suspicious. 

We ask her to fill out the form again, this time with complete rental history, current job or source of income. She sends the form back again without listing income amount again, but with an email saying that she forgot to mention she's on student financial aid and that she can have a cosigner. The prior house that she left off on first application didn't make sense either as the landlord was listed as living at it and it was a one-bedroom house, among other things. We call to get clarity and ask for the financial aid income amount *again* and she didn't give a straight answer -- said she didn't really know and would need to look it up. We told her to find out, fill out the application form properly with that information and that we'd send the credit/background check link (tenantbackgroundsearch.com, so we're not dealing with the money) that evening.

Needless to say, we never got an updated application form with income amount. Instead, they only filled out part of the information from tenantbackgroundsearch.com -- saying "they didn't feel comfortable filling out the banking section" and just wanted to provide printouts. Also added that they "were very busy" which is why they hadn't responded with updated form. Needless to say, printouts can be faked which is why we use third party verification. 

It also turned out her cosigner had an eviction within the last 10 years, almost 20x open credit cards with 85% limit used up, and a recent bankruptcy that was "settled" in court (so the report says that the bankruptcy section was clean, but it did note the court case that was settled). Their credit was barely over 650.

Since we're obviously going to deny her application to be added on the lease, my questions are these:

1) Adverse action letter: What to list for disqualification on letter -- just credit stuff or list all reasons? (slow to respond with information, incomplete application, insufficient income requirements, cosigner didn't meet requirements?)
2) Since part of the reason she's being disqualified is her cosigner has a recent eviction, large # of credit cards, and bankruptcy (settled) -- would we send the adverse action letter to her, or her cosigner, or both? (father). Are you allowed to send the credit info or things like eviction records that came up to the cosigner to that applicant, or only directly to their cosigner? 
3) Is a "settled" bankruptcy allowable as a reason to not approve someone, or just don't list it? We already have a policy in original ad of no evictions, but curious how you'd handle settled bankruptcies, since it obviously means they did not handle financials correct and still paid their debtors less than they owed.

We just bought a place and are looking for some data points/recommendations a) Attic clean-up/sterilization and b) 200 amp main panel upgrade in the San Diego, area

The quotes we received are basically insane, even accounting for the recent inflation... one guy wanted ~$3500 to clean/sterilize/seal up two metal mesh openings (and that's including a $500 "discount" for doing it before Thanksgiving). The kicker is there's no insulation in there that needs removing or adding back in...they basically want ~$3500 to vacuum up some mouse droppings, sterilize and add some wire mesh in a job they said would be under a day. The space isn't excessively large either, ~1200 sq ft footprint although it's a bit tight of head clearance. I've read online the high end for attic cleanup should be ~$600 and sometimes see advertisements for $95, but most reviews I've read online say places aren't honoring those prices...

For the 200 amp main panel upgrade, we received a quote that was between $5500-7500 depending on configuration, which is also crazy -- I've been reading the main panel upgrades should range from $1500 - $3500. They are listing the permit costs at $700, and I know the actual permit fee is ~$350 and it's an online no-plan review e-permit submittal.  The real kicker is even on the website of one of the places that quoted us, they list the 200 amp panel upgrade prices as "In order to upgrade to the appropriate panel size, the cost can be anywhere from $800 to $3,000". So no idea how they came up with 5500+ for a clean cut main panel upgrade 200 amps. Nothing fancy or difficult about the main panel or number of breakers -- it's a main panel easily accessible in the front of the house.

I'm pretty sure these guys seeing that we just bought this place/what we paid for it and then wildly inflating their prices thinking we'll pay it. Any suggestions or recommendations from trusted, fair contractors? I'm fine paying market rate ...but these seem so far out of line.

https://www.sandiegouniontribu...

They introduced wording that says:

"
The biggest point of contention is a provision that limits landlords’ ability to evict tenants for lease violations and, in general, being a nuisance. It would go beyond statewide law crafted during the pandemic that says renters can be evicted for just cause, such as lease violations. San Diego County’s ordinance says eviction can only happen if renters are imminent threats to health and safety.
"
They don't even have clauses if you want to move back into your own house.

This is insane, and just because it may expire in late August doesn't mean it's OK -- they do it once, they may be testing the waters to make something like this more permanent or used frequently in the future. We need tools to be able to evict someone who is a nuisance...what's the point of having a lease with signed agreements if nothing in it is enforceable? We may as well not even own the housing at that point.

I don't think some of politicians get the picture -- I've been seeing an unprecedented jump in rent prices and a corresponding decrease in rental units available, and most of the new tenants we've had apply are telling us the same thing -- their landlords are selling. May be "good" for those staying in the game and the system may balance out, in terms of higher rent prices. But right now, there's a lot of incentive to cash out from high home prices and/or laws that are extremely landlord unfriendly. Seems like we're the one group who's expected to directly foot the bill for necessities -- I don't see politicians forcing grocery stores or farms to provide free food to those who lost their job in the pandemic. And our property tax bills are higher monthly fees than some people pay for mortgages in other parts of the country. And yes, many businesses had to shut down operations during the pandemic -- but there's a difference than being told you can't run your business, and you have to run your business and can't exit out.

Anyway, if you feel the same way -- please go visit the virtual meeting at: 

https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/cob/bosa/index.html

It starts at 9am I believe, although I'm not sure on the exact voting schedule yet.

Also, this ordinance was introduced by "San Diego County Supervisor Nora Vargas" -- please remember that name next time she's up for reelection. I think we need to send a message to politicians who think this is OK by voting them out.

One thing I noticed under FHEO-2020-01 is it starts off by reading:

"This notice explains certain obligations of housing providers under the Fair Housing
Act (FHA)"

If you jump over to https://www.hud.gov/sites/docu... , page 5, it states:

"What Housing is Covered?
The Fair Housing Act covers most housing. In some circumstances,
the Act exempts owner-occupied buildings with no more than four
units, single-family housing sold or rented without the use of a broker
and housing operated by organizations and private clubs that limit
occupancy to members."

Again, in https://www.hud.gov/program_of... in relation to service and emotional support animals, it talks about for those who are covered under the Fair Housing Act.

Since in both instances, it states that those rules are in effect, for those who are covered under the Fair Housing Act. I guess where it goes open to interpretation is where it states "in some circumstances, the act exempts"...I guess I'd have to read into the law a little further to dig into the "in some circumstances" part. Obviously, I'm not a lawyer but I find the details interesting. But it's a moot point for here, since California law provides extra coverage for almost all circumstances anyway.

Regardless, we wrote a pretty thorough, maybe somewhat snarky email asking for all the legally allowed documentation and process, letting them know indirectly we clearly knew they had lied to us, and gave them an out by offering to cancel the contract before moving in and refunding the deposit in full. Happy resolution, they asked for contract cancelation, we gave money back, and we're going to try and be even more thorough next time using above advice.

Great information everyone, thanks for the input and detailed responses. Such a great community. One good point I saw was liability coverage/umbrella policies in case of suing -- which begs the question -- Does an umbrella policy covering the rental property protect against a lawsuit that would arise from this situation? I can see coverage from someone getting injured on the property, but if someone springs a frivolous lawsuit because they got called out lying on the application, would you need a personal umbrella policy? And if the contract they signed had them opt out of lawsuits and instead go to binding arbitration [we have this clause], how would that play out? (I know...these are all questions that probably would have to be explored by lawyers/insurance agents, but good things to think about).

Moving forward I think we'll definitely try and start using the petscreening.com service and will ask on the application the total number of animals. Thanks again.

We're not bound by the Fair Housing Act, since we do it all ourselves (no agent), but unfortunately California has far more restrictive criteria -- I think it's either a) you live in a SFH and only one tenant lives in there with you, b) You're renting to share a room and specify female-only or male only if you're a female/male and want to same living in same room, or c) part of a clubhouse.

We have a new situation here that we’d greatly appreciate input on from the BP community… but first, anyone know a good lawyer to have on-hand for questions like these/cost?

We screened out many, many tenants that applied to our property. We did thorough background checks, social media, checked references, high salary, good credit score, etc…picked the most qualified, best-fit for our single-family home (note that it has a completely separate ADU on the lot in the back). We even had a fairly generous policy of up to 2 pets with no pet rent and only pet deposit. The tenants inform us they have only one small pet dog, and we were A-ok with that. We get contracts signed; deposit paid. Tenant will be moving in in a few weeks.

Now enter the world of ESA’s: less than 10 days after signing contracts, tenants say that both they and their significant other talked with their therapist and came to the conclusion that they needed additional ESA dogs (each)…so now it will be 3 dogs total on the property.

To summarize what was explained to us: They booked an appointment with a licensed therapist, built up a rapport with them and got diagnosed, went out and adopted two animals, got them temperament tested, and know they get along well with their existing dog…all in under 10 days after signing.

To me, this sets off a number of red flags:
a) They’re not up-front/transparent with us on this, what else could they be hiding?
b) They’re trying to game the system.
c) They approached email as “this is what is happening”, not requesting…so strong sense of entitlement. We’ve found that attribute in tenants that can signal bad things ahead. As I understand the law, it should be a request for reasonable accommodation, per qualified disability. Landlord investigates and tries to reasonably accommodate per law.

Also to note is that during social media checks, I did note that they seemed to each have another dog dating back many years ago….I figured they no longer had these dogs. Upon re-checking one of their social media profiles, I noticed they had recently made all the prior pictures that were visible during our initial search now private – and it was done right before emailing us with this new information. This certainly gives the appearance of trying to hide something, although I did capture screenshots with dates of them posting pictures of one of the dogs.

Even if they had legitimate ESA dogs each, they didn’t frame it as “we had them, but didn’t want to tell you until after”. The framed it as: “we talked with a therapist…and decided to get them”…within 10 days of signing.

To be clear: We have no problem with official service animals at all – they’re trained. And we might have actually been OK if they told us up-front about 3 dogs total, considering we openly said 2 were OK. It’s the fact that they were deceptive that’s giving us major pause about these tenants.

So my question is as follows:

-What would those in the BP community do? What can we do?

I think collectively we’ve sort of just rolled over to the ESA-train. What are legal ways to verify these are legitimate requests, and not just someone trying to game the system? If it was determined that these were existing pets and they just turned them into ESA shortly after signing the contracts but lied about this directly on the application, is that grounds for rejection? And what are ways to question why the first dog can’t be an ESA to one of them – ie, why 3 dogs to 2 people? (I’ve seen the arguments about different breeds for different purposes and where they’re allowed – ie, a pet bird for around the house, but a pet dog for when they go out)…but why one person needs two dogs, and one served as an ESA, the other doesn’t?

If it helps, there are some other considerations:

• 1) We live in California
• 2) We meet the criteria that would normally exempt us from these rules (own less than 3 rentals, self-manage, not an LLC, etc…)…but we're in California, which I believe is more stringent.
  3) We may actually move to the ADU in the back and be owner-occupied lot (TBD), so I'm not sure if that'd make us escape the requirements. Don't think so in CA, but not sure.
• 4) We sign all of our tenants on month-to-month from the beginning (the market near us is perpetually hot, and it’s really easy to get a large candidate pool)
• 5) From when we started advertising to getting the contracts signed to now, the home is probably under market value and could reasonably have rent raised
• 6) We’re not limited by CA’s 5% rent increase limit due to criteria listed in #2 (and put the required notice in our rental agreement per CA’s AB 1482)
• 7) They haven’t moved in yet

Reading through the existing forums, it seems like there are a few first steps:
a) Request documentation (i.e., ask for letter from licensed therapist/etc. on official letterhead, not a random internet certification).
b) Say that we'll try and make a reasonable accommodation (but need breed/weight of dogs so we can verify with insurance of any substantial premium increases and/or insurance cancelation). And then there's the consideration that should we end up renting out the newly built ADU and allow pets there too, the insurance may put limitations – if the front house as 3 dogs, and the rear house then pulls the same stunt and 3 days…6 dogs on an original SFH lot? Might be even more hated by neighbors.

But what further steps can you take? Can you ask/politely challenge the therapist why one of the existing dogs wouldn’t function as an ESA? If we find out they did have these dogs for 5+ years now, and registered them as ESA after signing the contract, would they have been considered to falsify information on their initial application since they had those dogs, they weren’t ESA, and they didn’t list them? Can we ask for documentation showing that they acquired the dogs within those 10 days to validate the story they told us via email?

We already have the peace and quiet clause in the contract, so if it does end up going through and the three dogs do make a lot of noise…

Either way, looking for best way to approach. And, if any of you know/recommend a good lawyer to have on-call (and what are the typical costs associated with that? Is it a per-question basis?)

Much appreciated for any input.

Anyone know a local, available licensed surveyor or survey-licensed civil engineer in San Diego who can do a monument preservation sign-off?

Looking to get a public right-of-way permit submitted so I can expand the curb opening to the driveway by about 8', but the city requires a licensed surveyor to basically come out, look at the 8' of curb I need to remove and verify there are no monuments that will be destroyed. 

It's a small job that literally requires them to check a box and sign a one-page sheet after inspecting the 8' of curb, but we've called over 15 places and no one wants to even quote on a job that small or says they are too busy.

But as I can't get the permit without it, I'm not sure how to proceed. Any ideas?

Question for any one who has come upon this situation for California-based landlords

-We have a single property (SFH) which we run ourselves, not under an real estate investment trust, corporation, or LLC which would normally be a slam-dunk exception from California's AB1482 bill for rent cap increases and no-cause evictions.

However, we built a "SFH" (on the permit) ADU in the back, which I've read can be interpreted as no longer applying as exempt from the law, but can't find specific wording in the law. However, separately there's an exception for new-construction buildings less than 15 years old, to not take away too much incentive for new construction.

So the question is.... single family home with brand new ADU, exempt or not exempt from rent cap increase and no-cause evictions?? Two buildings, but one is new construction.

Also, aware I need to put the following language in the contract ahead of time: 

"This property is not subject to the rent limits imposed by Section 1947.12 of the Civil Code and is not subject to the just-cause requirements of Section 1946.2 of the Civil Code. This property meets the requirements of Sections 1947.12 (d) (5) and 1946.2 (e)(8) of the Civil Code and the owner is not any of the following: (1) a real estate investment trust, as defined by Section 856 of the Internal Revenue Code; (2) a corporation; or (3) a limited liability company in which at least one member is a corporation."