All Forum Posts by: Larry Hucks

Hello,

If a 1 year lease signed in 2012 that has been month to month ever since 2013 is assumed by a new landlord for a section 8 tenant, can the month to month tenancy be terminated with a 90 day notice without good cause? Or does there always have to be good cause no matter what when terminating tenancy? I've come across conflicting information about this. The HUD agreement says tenancy in the INITIAL term can only be terminated due to good cause. Nothing about AFTER the initial term, so does this mean after initial term, good cause is not needed? What if the landlord simply does not want to accept section 8 vouchers anymore?

Also, I did read on the HUD agreement that raising the rent counts as "good cause". Does the landlord just decide they want to raise the rent, and if the tenant's voucher isn't enough for the owners desired rent, is this a reason for terminating tenancy? For example, if a unit rents for 1000, and the section 8 tenants voucher is for 1000, and the landlord decides they want to raise the rent to 1200, is this terms for terminating the tenancy? Or does the landlord have to apply with the HA first? And what if the increased rent request gets denied? Can the landlord still terminate tenancy?

And for terminating tenancy due to sale of the home, can the landlord give the section 8 tenant the notice to vacate before the house goes on the market? Because selling a house with a tenant is much harder than without a tenant. How would getting the tenant out of the house work in this situation?

Thanks, all help is appreciated

 do you know if a 90 notice to vacate given to the tenant by the seller would roll over to me after escrow since I am taking in the current lease? the lease ended in 2013 and they have been living month to month since.

@Account Closed The property is in a non-rent controlled area. I did read the HUD document and it is very conflicting with other things I've read. Especially since I am taking the current lease - which ended in 2013 and is now month to month. I don't see how I could not be able to end it without cause. Not that I would ever want to have a tenant leave for no reason, but it just doesn't make sense how I can be forced to rent to someone. Especially if I want to raise the rent, but the tenant doesn't have a voucher to cover my desired rent increase. I guess this would be grounds to terminate, but I'm not sure if I would have to apply to get the rent increase with HA first, and what would happen if I was denied the rent increase. If anyone else knows these answers it would be greatly appreciated.

@Account Closed So ultimately section 8 tenants in CA can have their tenancy terminated by the landlord without cause if there is proper notice (90 days)? Am I interpreting what you're saying correctly?

Anyways, yes, I will let you know what HA says!

@Account Closed, i noticed digging into the language, that only part B contains the words "extension term:

(1) During the initial lease term, other good cause for termination of tenancy must be something the family did or failed to do. 

(2) During the initial lease term or during any extension term, other good cause may include: (a) Disturbance of neighbors, (b) Destruction of property, or (c) Living or housekeeping habits that cause damage to the unit or premises.

(3) After the initial lease term, such good cause may include: (a) The tenant’s failure to accept the owner’s offer of a new lease or revision; (b) The owner’s desire to use the unit for personal or family use or for a purpose other than use as a residential rental unit; or (c) A business or economic reason for termination of the tenancy (such as sale of the property, renovation of the unit, the owner’s desire to rent the unit for a higher rent).

the higher rent part - can't a landlord just decide they want to rent it out for a higher price? and just like that, its good cause? right? Or would a landlord have to apply for a higher rent 1st and be approved or denied? And how would the voucher come into play? For example, if the tenant's voucher is for 1150 and current rent is 1150. The landlord says they want to raise rent. the tenant cant afford a higher rent. is the good cause? or do I have to apply with HA and get the rent approved first before i can say I want to raise rent? I just don't understand how a landlord can be FORCED to rent to someone...no matter how great the tenant is, why would a landlord bind themselves into that? The language in the contract is ridiculous. Even just trying to talk to someone from section 8 is a hassle. They never pick up their phones! I'm trying to get a hold of the case manager so I can ask all of these questions!

But what if the landlord just chooses to no longer accept section 8 vouchers? A landlord cannot be forced to accept a section 8 voucher right? according to the civil code:

Indeed, the legislative history of section 1954.535 suggests that the 90-day
notice provision was meant to address issues of statewide concern. The Senate
Judiciary Committee’s comment on the proposed 90-day notice provision
explained the purpose of the increased notice period as follows: “Proponents assert
that the current requirement of 30 days notice is insufficient time for a Section 8
tenant to find replacement income and housing when the property [owner] decides
to no longer accept Section 8 housing vouchers, thereby forcing the tenant to
move. They assert that this proposal, requiring 90 days notice of the effective date
of the landlord’s termination or nonrenewal of a Section 8 agreement and freezing
5

the tenant’s rent for that period, does not impose an undue burden on the property
owner. The only burden is to advise the affected tenants of the owner’s decision
60 days earlier, thereby giving the affected tenants more time to prepare. This is
fair, assert the proponents, given the tight market for low income housing and the
unique relationship between the Section 8 tenant and his or her landlord.” (Sen.
Com. on Judiciary, Analysis of Sen. Bill No. 1098 (1999-2000 Reg. Sess.) as
amended Apr. 7, 1999, p. 5.)

the only reason I bring it up is because also on page 10 it says "initial lease". the tenant's initial lease ended on 2013 and has been living month to month ever since. Would "good cause" not apply here since it was past the initial lease? Again see civil code 1954.535 from above. And if my good cause were to raise rent, would I have to apply and get it approved through the housing authority to use that as a reason to get the tenant out? Or can I just say I want to raise rent and since she only has a 1 bedroom voucher for 1150, I know she cant pay it so she has to leave? Or can I say I want to raise the rent and only to the free market thats nonsection 8, because the HA won't accept my application for a rent increase since it's above fair market price in the area?

Thanks again - all the help is much appreciated.

 I know it's confusing, and I've been confused, too.  But, I think I have a better grip on it now.

I was also caught by the term regarding the "initial lease," but it's followed with "and any additional term, " it can only be terminated for the following reasons and according to the HUD contract.

http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/documents/huddoc?i...

Page 10 again:

8. Termination of Tenancy by Owner a. Requirements. The owner may only terminate the tenancy in accordance with the lease and HUD requirements. b. Grounds. During the term of the lease (the initial term of the lease or any extension term), the owner may only terminate the tenancy because of: (1) Serious or repeated violation of the lease; (2) Violation of Federal, State, or local law that imposes obligations on the tenant in connection with the occupancy or use of the unit and the premises; (3) Criminal activity or alcohol abuse (as provided in paragraph c); or (4) Other good cause (as provided in paragraph d).

Then, paragraph d, section 3:

(3) After the initial lease term, such good cause may include: (a) The tenant’s failure to accept the owner’s offer of a new lease or revision; (b) The owner’s desire to use the unit for personal or family use or for a purpose other than use as a residential rental unit; or (c) A business or economic reason for termination of the tenancy (such as sale of the property, renovation of the unit, the owner’s desire to rent the unit for a higher rent).

It's not particularly clear. But, based on the court's ruling, it looks like what they mean is that to end either the initial lease or after it goes month to month, you need to terminate for cause only. And you have to notify HUD at the same time you notify the tenant.

I wonder how much their lawyers got paid to write such a garbage contract?  LOL.  No wonder it went all the way to the Supreme Court.

 (c) A business or economic reason for termination of the tenancy (such as sale of the property, renovation of the unit, the owner’s desire to rent the unit for a higher rent).

the higher rent part - can't a landlord just decide they want to rent it out for a higher price? and just like that, its good cause? right? Or would a landlord have to apply for a higher rent 1st and be approved or denied? And how would the voucher come into play? For example, if the tenant's voucher is for 1150 and current rent is 1150. The landlord says they want to raise rent. the tenant cant afford a higher rent. is the good cause? or do I have to apply with HA and get the rent approved first before i can say I want to raise rent? I just don't understand how a landlord can be FORCED to rent to someone...no matter how great the tenant is, why would a landlord bind themselves into that? The language in the contract is ridiculous. Even just trying to talk to someone from section 8 is a hassle. They never pick up their phones! I'm trying to get a hold of the case manager so I can ask all of these questions!

 But what if the landlord just chooses to no longer accept section 8 vouchers? A landlord cannot be forced to accept a section 8 voucher right? according to the civil code:

Indeed, the legislative history of section 1954.535 suggests that the 90-day
notice provision was meant to address issues of statewide concern. The Senate
Judiciary Committee’s comment on the proposed 90-day notice provision
explained the purpose of the increased notice period as follows: “Proponents assert
that the current requirement of 30 days notice is insufficient time for a Section 8
tenant to find replacement income and housing when the property [owner] decides
to no longer accept Section 8 housing vouchers, thereby forcing the tenant to
move. They assert that this proposal, requiring 90 days notice of the effective date
of the landlord’s termination or nonrenewal of a Section 8 agreement and freezing
5

the tenant’s rent for that period, does not impose an undue burden on the property
owner. The only burden is to advise the affected tenants of the owner’s decision
60 days earlier, thereby giving the affected tenants more time to prepare. This is
fair, assert the proponents, given the tight market for low income housing and the
unique relationship between the Section 8 tenant and his or her landlord.” (Sen.
Com. on Judiciary, Analysis of Sen. Bill No. 1098 (1999-2000 Reg. Sess.) as
amended Apr. 7, 1999, p. 5.)

 (c) A business or economic reason for termination of the tenancy (such as sale of the property, renovation of the unit, the owner’s desire to rent the unit for a higher rent).

the higher rent part - can't a landlord just decide they want to rent it out for a higher price? and just like that, its good cause? right? Or would a landlord have to apply for a higher rent 1st and be approved or denied? And how would the voucher come into play? For example, if the tenant's voucher is for 1150 and current rent is 1150. The landlord says they want to raise rent. the tenant cant afford a higher rent. is the good cause? or do I have to apply with HA and get the rent approved first before i can say I want to raise rent? I just don't understand how a landlord can be FORCED to rent to someone...no matter how great the tenant is, why would a landlord bind themselves into that? The language in the contract is ridiculous. Even just trying to talk to someone from section 8 is a hassle. They never pick up their phones! I'm trying to get a hold of the case manager so I can ask all of these questions!

 But what if the landlord just chooses to no longer accept section 8 vouchers? A landlord cannot be forced to accept a section 8 voucher right? according to the civil code:

Indeed, the legislative history of section 1954.535 suggests that the 90-day
notice provision was meant to address issues of statewide concern. The Senate
Judiciary Committee’s comment on the proposed 90-day notice provision
explained the purpose of the increased notice period as follows: “Proponents assert
that the current requirement of 30 days notice is insufficient time for a Section 8
tenant to find replacement income and housing when the property [owner] decides
to no longer accept Section 8 housing vouchers, thereby forcing the tenant to
move. They assert that this proposal, requiring 90 days notice of the effective date
of the landlord’s termination or nonrenewal of a Section 8 agreement and freezing
5

the tenant’s rent for that period, does not impose an undue burden on the property
owner. The only burden is to advise the affected tenants of the owner’s decision
60 days earlier, thereby giving the affected tenants more time to prepare. This is
fair, assert the proponents, given the tight market for low income housing and the
unique relationship between the Section 8 tenant and his or her landlord.” (Sen.
Com. on Judiciary, Analysis of Sen. Bill No. 1098 (1999-2000 Reg. Sess.) as
amended Apr. 7, 1999, p. 5.)

the only reason I bring it up is because also on page 10 it says "initial lease". the tenant's initial lease ended on 2013 and has been living month to month ever since. Would "good cause" not apply here since it was past the initial lease? Again see civil code 1954.535 from above. And if my good cause were to raise rent, would I have to apply and get it approved through the housing authority to use that as a reason to get the tenant out? Or can I just say I want to raise rent and since she only has a 1 bedroom voucher for 1150, I know she cant pay it so she has to leave? Or can I say I want to raise the rent and only to the free market thats nonsection 8, because the HA won't accept my application for a rent increase since it's above fair market price in the area?

Thanks again - all the help is much appreciated.

 it was ruled through Civil Code Section 1954.535, http://scocal.stanford.edu/opinion/wasatch-etc-v-d...

section 8 tenant was given 90 days to vacate without cause

 I think your analysis is correct. The contract I signed with the seller even says I am to honor the 90 day notice to vacate and I can re-negotiate a lease if I wish. So if I don't renegotiate, she has to be out. But I just want to go back to the california tenant code I posted earlier...I don't see how this doesn't apply to section 8 as well? I thought if the tenant is living month to month, the landlord can give a notice to vacate without cause, as long as its 90 days: What if the landlord simply decides not to renew the lease, or decides to terminate the HAP (housing assistance payment) contract? In this case, the landlord must give the tenant 90 days' advance written notice of the termination date.210 If the tenant doesn't move out by the end of the 90 days, the landlord must follow California law to evict the tenant.211

It says what if the landlord "simply decides not to renew the lease, or decides to terminate the HAP", this applies to section 8 since its taking about the HAP right? I feel deep down my best bet is to have the tenant vacate after her 90 days. But my other investor friends tell me to keep her since she's already there. I just don't want to be locked into section 8. For instance, what if a landlord has intentions of selling their house, gives the tenant a 90 day notice, the tenant leaves, and the landlord takes the house off the market since it doesn't sell/they don't get the offers they want? How can anyone prove the landlord wasn't just trying to get the tenant out? The way I've interpreted it is that everything between a tenant and landlord is the same for section 8 as it is for non-govt funding. If the landlord wants to get the tenant out without cause, they should be able to by giving them a 90 day notice. Right?