All Forum Posts by: Justin Mancherje

Currently there are two units occupied both paying well below market value in rent. The rental contracts are stated as month-to-month.

The lease has the phrasing : " the term of this agreement is for Month-to-Month, beginning on (beginning of the month) and ending on (end of the month) , at which time tis lease shall terminate without further notice. Any holding over thereafter shall result in Resident being liable to Owner/Agent for daily rental damages equal to the current market value of the unit, divided by 30. A "Month-to-month" tenancy subject to the terms and conditions of this agreement shall be created only if Owner/Agent accepts rent from the Resident thereafter, and if so accepted, tenancy may be terminated by Resident after service upon the Owner/Agent of a written 30-day Notice of Termination. Except as prohibited by law, that month-to-month tenancy may be terminated by the Owner/Agent by service upon the Resident of a written 60-day notice of termination of tenancy. However, Civil code section 1946.1 provides that "if any tenant or resident has resided in the dwelling for less than a year", the Owner/Agent may terminate the tenancy by service upon the Resident of a written 30-day notice"

Do month-to-month tenants have the same protection as tenants with a regular lease? It appears to say that the Onwer/Agent can terminate the lease agreement with 60 days notice, however that is following "except as prohibited by law". 

Is it possible to terminate the lease agreement with appropriate notice? and if not, how does a month-to-month agreement differ at all from a year lease?

Steven, thank you for the information.

according to the website you sourced it says:

For owner-occupied properties, when can the owner increase the rent?

The landlord in an owner-occupied building with three or fewer units may increase the rent after the landlord has lived in the building for at least one continuous year.

So presumably after I occupied the vacant unit for a year the rent control would be removed? Or is this just restating that the rent can be increased once a year with normal rent control restrictions?

I have been reading up a lot about rent control and just cause eviction in Oakland and I am trying to verify information I have gathered.

I am contemplating purchasing a triplex in Oakland California. It currently has 2 units occupied and 1 unit unoccupied. The units are currently protected under rent control and the rent is far below market value and without an increase the property will not be financially viable. I read this on a site about just cause eviction: "People who live in single-family homes, units built since 1983, and owner-occupied buildings with 3 or fewer units are NOT covered by rent control. If you live in one of these types of units, your landlord can raise your rent at any time."

If I purchase the triplex and move into the unoccupied unit the property will then be owner occupied. Will it effectively remove the rent control on the other units? Or does this rule only apply to new tenants?