By Spencer Wilson, Bay Area Legal Aid
The Appellate Division of Contra Costa County Superior Court handed down a major victory for California’s innocent tenant victims of foreclosure. The three judge panel reversed a trial court decision to evict a low-income single mother and her three school-age children from a foreclosed home they lawfully occupied. With the assistance of Bay Area Legal Aid’s Tenants After Foreclosure Project, the displaced tenants appealed the faulty decision, arguing that the trial court had misapplied a new federal law and a new state law designed to help tenants living in foreclosed properties.
The trial court erred by holding that a 30-Day notice was sufficient basis for an eviction lawsuit, even though tenants in foreclosed properties are entitled to more time before an eviction lawsuit can be brought. Under the recently enacted Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act (PTFA), tenants in foreclosed properties are entitled to a 90-day notice prior to commencement of an eviction lawsuit. A similar state law entitles these tenants to a 60-day notice.
The Appellate Division recognized the errors of the trial court, reversed the decision, and ordered the trial court to dismiss the eviction lawsuit. This decision elucidates the federal and state protections for tenants in foreclosed properties and will help ensure that the rights of these often overlooked victims of the foreclosure crisis are enforced by our courts.
The Tenants After Foreclosure Project, funded by a fellowship from the William Wayne Justice Center at the University of Texas School of Law, addresses the unique legal needs of low-income tenants living in foreclosed properties in Contra Costa County via direct legal services coupled with educational and outreach efforts.
For more information, please contact Project Attorney, Spencer Wilson at (510) 903-2623.
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Settlements at Lincoln Place
Big news from Los Angeles today. The Lincoln Place settlements have been finalized. Click here for the L.A. Times story:
Congratulations to the Lincoln Place tenants for their perseverance! For more information about this long eviction battle with AIMCO, visit the website of the Lincoln Place Tenants Association.
An epic landlord-tenant battle in Venice has ended with three legal settlements that would preserve the postwar-era Lincoln Place apartments, return scores of evicted residents to their homes and add hundreds of below-market-rate units to the housing-starved Westside.
Congratulations to the Lincoln Place tenants for their perseverance! For more information about this long eviction battle with AIMCO, visit the website of the Lincoln Place Tenants Association.
Sunday, May 23, 2010
LA City Council Votes Down Rent Freeze Proposal
Garcetti, Rosendahl Change Votes, Protest Erupts & Turns Into Melee As Police Called In, Tenants Are Hurt & 3 Are Arrested
By Larry Gross, Coalition for Economic Survival
It was a sad day for the City of Los Angeles on May 22, as the LA City Council essentially provided tenants with a 3% rent increase notice. What was just as sad was the manner in which this decision was made and the events that followed.
The City Council Chambers was overflowing with tenants, including Coalition for Economic Survival members, and landlords there to weigh in on an ordinance introduced by City Council Member Richard Alarcón for a 4 month rent increase moratorium. The freeze was to enable the City Council to finish discussions regarding potential changes to the Rent Stabilization Ordinance (RSO) without tenants being saddled with a new round of unjust rent increase of 3% scheduled to go into effect on July 1.
Two weeks earlier the City Council had approved requesting the drafting of the ordinance on an 8 to 6 vote. Unfortunately, on Friday the crowd was forced sit there for over 5 hours having to endure award ceremonies and other items until the rent freeze issue came up.
Adding insult to injury, because it was so late in the day and some Council Members had to leave, the public testimony and Council discussion was cut short.
Then it was learned that both Council President Eric Garcetti and Council Member Bill Rosendahl had changed their support for the rent freeze and planned to vote against it. This left the rent freeze one vote short of the required eight votes to pass it.
At that point Council Member Garcetti made a motion to send the rent freeze back to Committee. "I think we need to have a comprehensive plan in place before we make any changes to the rent control measure at this time," Garcetti said.
Garcetti's reasoning made no sense since the process of developing a comprehensive plan had been going on for nearly a year and the freeze was not a change in rent control, but merely a temporary 'time-out' to enable the Council to finish a job it have been dragging its feet on.
In the end, the Council voted 8 to 5 to send it back to committee, thus killing any chance of putting a rent freeze in place before the July 1 rent increase is effective. Council Members Garcetti, Rosendahl, Cardenas, La Bonge, Koretz, Parks, Perry, Reyes, Smith and Zine all supported sending the issue back to committee.
Protest Erupts After Rent Freeze is Voted Down
Believing they were disrespected by having to wait all day and betrayed by Council Members Garcetti and Rosendahl, many tenants stood and voiced their outrage at the Council vote. Council Member Zine, who was chairing the meeting at that point, instructed the crowd to leave the Council Chambers. When some tenants refused, Zine called for the LA Police Department to come in and remove them. It then got ugly.
With seniors, women and children still in the Chambers, LAPD started to forcibly push tenants out. A number of tenants were injured and three members of the LA Community Action Network (LACAN) were arrested.
Councilman Richard Alarcón, who proposed the rent freeze, said that during his years working for Mayor Tom Bradley and serving on the council he had never seen the "council lose control of its chamber'' and called the arrests a sad day in the city's history.
It's a very sad day for renters who are going to have to pay more rent when many of them cannot pay their bills now,'' Alarcón said. "What we saw today was an expression of their anger.''
Why the Rent Freeze Was Needed
The need for the freeze was because RSO tenants face a 3% rent increase on July 1st under the existing ordinance. A City commissioned RSO Study indicates 58% of LA's RSO tenants are paying unaffordable rents, while 31% are paying 50% or more of their income to rent.
While increases are based on the Consumer Prices Index (CPI), which is a negative .62%, the increases will be allowed because the RSO has a 3% rent increase floor guaranteeing landlords this amount even though the increase is not in any way justified. If the 3% floor did not exist the rent increase would be zero, based on the CPI The freeze was needed to give the Council more time to fix this and other inequities in the law which the Council is in the process of discussing.
The Debate Continues - Action Needed to Protect & Strengthen Rent Control
The process of addressing changes to the rent control law will continue. But, without the rent freeze in place there is no incentive for the City Council to act quickly. Tenants must become involved in this process, now more than ever. With this vote landlords and some Council Members are likely to feel more empowered to increase their efforts to weaken and destroy rent control. Without a strong tenant presence, they could succeed.
We urge that tenants and supporters of rent control contact Council Members Garcetti and Rosendahl to express your outrage and disappointment in their action which will result in tenants receiving another unjust 3% rent increase.
Council President Eric Garcetti
213-473-7013
councilmember.garcetti@lacity.org
Council Member Bill Rosendahl
213-473-7011
councilman.rosendahl@lacity.org
By Larry Gross, Coalition for Economic Survival
It was a sad day for the City of Los Angeles on May 22, as the LA City Council essentially provided tenants with a 3% rent increase notice. What was just as sad was the manner in which this decision was made and the events that followed.
The City Council Chambers was overflowing with tenants, including Coalition for Economic Survival members, and landlords there to weigh in on an ordinance introduced by City Council Member Richard Alarcón for a 4 month rent increase moratorium. The freeze was to enable the City Council to finish discussions regarding potential changes to the Rent Stabilization Ordinance (RSO) without tenants being saddled with a new round of unjust rent increase of 3% scheduled to go into effect on July 1.
Two weeks earlier the City Council had approved requesting the drafting of the ordinance on an 8 to 6 vote. Unfortunately, on Friday the crowd was forced sit there for over 5 hours having to endure award ceremonies and other items until the rent freeze issue came up.
Adding insult to injury, because it was so late in the day and some Council Members had to leave, the public testimony and Council discussion was cut short.
Then it was learned that both Council President Eric Garcetti and Council Member Bill Rosendahl had changed their support for the rent freeze and planned to vote against it. This left the rent freeze one vote short of the required eight votes to pass it.
At that point Council Member Garcetti made a motion to send the rent freeze back to Committee. "I think we need to have a comprehensive plan in place before we make any changes to the rent control measure at this time," Garcetti said.
Garcetti's reasoning made no sense since the process of developing a comprehensive plan had been going on for nearly a year and the freeze was not a change in rent control, but merely a temporary 'time-out' to enable the Council to finish a job it have been dragging its feet on.
In the end, the Council voted 8 to 5 to send it back to committee, thus killing any chance of putting a rent freeze in place before the July 1 rent increase is effective. Council Members Garcetti, Rosendahl, Cardenas, La Bonge, Koretz, Parks, Perry, Reyes, Smith and Zine all supported sending the issue back to committee.
Protest Erupts After Rent Freeze is Voted Down
Believing they were disrespected by having to wait all day and betrayed by Council Members Garcetti and Rosendahl, many tenants stood and voiced their outrage at the Council vote. Council Member Zine, who was chairing the meeting at that point, instructed the crowd to leave the Council Chambers. When some tenants refused, Zine called for the LA Police Department to come in and remove them. It then got ugly.
With seniors, women and children still in the Chambers, LAPD started to forcibly push tenants out. A number of tenants were injured and three members of the LA Community Action Network (LACAN) were arrested.
Councilman Richard Alarcón, who proposed the rent freeze, said that during his years working for Mayor Tom Bradley and serving on the council he had never seen the "council lose control of its chamber'' and called the arrests a sad day in the city's history.
It's a very sad day for renters who are going to have to pay more rent when many of them cannot pay their bills now,'' Alarcón said. "What we saw today was an expression of their anger.''
Why the Rent Freeze Was Needed
The need for the freeze was because RSO tenants face a 3% rent increase on July 1st under the existing ordinance. A City commissioned RSO Study indicates 58% of LA's RSO tenants are paying unaffordable rents, while 31% are paying 50% or more of their income to rent.
While increases are based on the Consumer Prices Index (CPI), which is a negative .62%, the increases will be allowed because the RSO has a 3% rent increase floor guaranteeing landlords this amount even though the increase is not in any way justified. If the 3% floor did not exist the rent increase would be zero, based on the CPI The freeze was needed to give the Council more time to fix this and other inequities in the law which the Council is in the process of discussing.
The Debate Continues - Action Needed to Protect & Strengthen Rent Control
The process of addressing changes to the rent control law will continue. But, without the rent freeze in place there is no incentive for the City Council to act quickly. Tenants must become involved in this process, now more than ever. With this vote landlords and some Council Members are likely to feel more empowered to increase their efforts to weaken and destroy rent control. Without a strong tenant presence, they could succeed.
We urge that tenants and supporters of rent control contact Council Members Garcetti and Rosendahl to express your outrage and disappointment in their action which will result in tenants receiving another unjust 3% rent increase.
Council President Eric Garcetti
213-473-7013
councilmember.garcetti@lacity.org
Council Member Bill Rosendahl
213-473-7011
councilman.rosendahl@lacity.org
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
Tenants Together Releases 2010 Report: California Renters in the Foreclosure Crisis
Tenants Together, California’s statewide organization for renters’ rights, released its new 2010 Report: California Tenants in the Foreclosure Crisis today. The report, a follow-up to Tenants Together’s 2009 tenant foreclosure report, highlights recent foreclosure-related developments affecting tenants, quantifies the impact of home foreclosures on tenants in 2009 at the state and county level, and makes recommendations to strengthen protections for tenants in foreclosure situations.
Tenants Together conservatively estimates that at least 37% of residential units in foreclosure in California were rentals, directly affecting over 200,000 tenants- most of whom were displaced. The report quantifies the impact of the foreclosure crisis on a county-by-county level. The report’s research is based on California property records for every foreclosure in 2009.
For printer-friendly version of press release, click here
For a printer-friendly version of the report, click here
Tenants Together conservatively estimates that at least 37% of residential units in foreclosure in California were rentals, directly affecting over 200,000 tenants- most of whom were displaced. The report quantifies the impact of the foreclosure crisis on a county-by-county level. The report’s research is based on California property records for every foreclosure in 2009.
For printer-friendly version of press release, click here
For a printer-friendly version of the report, click here
Friday, May 14, 2010
Massachusetts AG Goes After Realtors Who Abuse Tenants, But Penalties Are Way Too Low
Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley has announced settlements with real estate brokers that served deceptive notices threatening to remove tenants and their belongings from properties after foreclosure. As in California, real estate agents and brokers are dispatched by banks to vacate properties after foreclosure. These agents frequently mislead and harass tenants into leaving their homes long before they are required to do so.
According to the AG's press release, the settlement with RE/MAX Classic of Fairhaven and real estate broker Simone Schettino "provide[s] a broad range of relief and preventive measures to ensure their future compliance with state and federal consumer protection laws." The settlement bars RE/MAX Classic and Schettino from delivering deceptive notices, "requires RE/MAX Classic to pay a penalty of $10,000, with $7,500 suspended, including $1,000 to South Coastal Counties Legal Services and $1,500 to the Local Consumer Aid Fund. Schettino must pay $500 to the Local Consumer Aid Fund. RE/MAX is also required to provide six free seminars that are open to the public and will provide information to homeowners and tenants in buildings facing foreclosure about their rights." The settlement also requires specific contents in future notices to tenants.
It is good to see state attorneys general pursuing these violations. Such cases highlight the bad actors who are violating tenants rights after foreclosure and provide injunctive relief against particular individuals and entities.
But why are the penalties assessed are so low? A $500 penalty against the individual agent and $2500 against the company, will not deter future misconduct by these or other agents. There's a significant danger, in fact, that unscrupulous real estate agents will conclude that they make more money violating tenants' right than they will have to pay if caught.
There is a reason unscrupulous real estate agents engage in this conduct. They think that the quicker they get tenants out, the quicker they will be able to sell the properties, and the quicker they will get their commissions. The tenants, and their rights under the law, are viewed as roadblocks to their commissions. The fear of a $500 penalty if caught will not change their behavior.
The conduct of overzealous real estate agents after foreclosure is ruining the lives of hundreds of thousands of tenants, prematurely forcing tenants from their homes and, in some cases, into homelessness. These agents deserve more than a slap on the wrist.
According to the AG's press release, the settlement with RE/MAX Classic of Fairhaven and real estate broker Simone Schettino "provide[s] a broad range of relief and preventive measures to ensure their future compliance with state and federal consumer protection laws." The settlement bars RE/MAX Classic and Schettino from delivering deceptive notices, "requires RE/MAX Classic to pay a penalty of $10,000, with $7,500 suspended, including $1,000 to South Coastal Counties Legal Services and $1,500 to the Local Consumer Aid Fund. Schettino must pay $500 to the Local Consumer Aid Fund. RE/MAX is also required to provide six free seminars that are open to the public and will provide information to homeowners and tenants in buildings facing foreclosure about their rights." The settlement also requires specific contents in future notices to tenants.
It is good to see state attorneys general pursuing these violations. Such cases highlight the bad actors who are violating tenants rights after foreclosure and provide injunctive relief against particular individuals and entities.
But why are the penalties assessed are so low? A $500 penalty against the individual agent and $2500 against the company, will not deter future misconduct by these or other agents. There's a significant danger, in fact, that unscrupulous real estate agents will conclude that they make more money violating tenants' right than they will have to pay if caught.
There is a reason unscrupulous real estate agents engage in this conduct. They think that the quicker they get tenants out, the quicker they will be able to sell the properties, and the quicker they will get their commissions. The tenants, and their rights under the law, are viewed as roadblocks to their commissions. The fear of a $500 penalty if caught will not change their behavior.
The conduct of overzealous real estate agents after foreclosure is ruining the lives of hundreds of thousands of tenants, prematurely forcing tenants from their homes and, in some cases, into homelessness. These agents deserve more than a slap on the wrist.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)