S.F. Apartment Assn. v. City & County of S.F. (2024)

Citation: S.F. Apartment Assn. v. City & County of S.F. (2024)
Parent Document: S.F. Apartment Assn. v. City & County of S.F. (2024)
Jurisdiction: California (state)
Effective Date: 2024-09-11
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10114513/sf-apartment-assn-v-city-county-of-sf/ ↗

Full Text

2,031 chars

24
deduction of expenses from rent]; id. § 1942.3, subd. (a)(3) [failure to correct
substandard condition after 60 days’ notice creates rebuttable presumption
against landlord in unlawful detainer action]; id. § 1942.4, subd. (a) [failure
to correct substandard condition after 35 days’ notice precludes landlord from
filing unlawful detainer action]; id. § 1942.5, subd. (a) [lessor retaliation for
lessee notice of complaint regarding tenantability precludes lessor from
recovering possession of dwelling for 180 days]; id. § 1951.3, subd. (c) [lessor
may give notice of belief of abandonment to lessee when rent has been due
and unpaid for at least 14 consecutive days]; § 1951.7, subd. (b) [notice to
lessee upon reletting of property].)
      The appellate court explained that landlord-tenant relationships “are
so much affected by statutory timetables governing the parties’ respective
rights and obligations that a ‘patterned approach’ by the Legislature appears
clear” and “reveals that the timing of landlord-tenant transactions is a
matter of statewide concern not amenable to local variations.” (Tri County,
supra, 196 Cal.App.3d at pp. 1296, 1298.) Tri County determined that the
ordinance adding 30 days to the notice timeline was not like the substantive
eviction restrictions from Birkenfeld. (Tri County, at p. 1296.) Instead, it
“adopts the same purpose as the statute, i.e., appropriate notification, but
then changes the statewide chronology to suit its own agenda.” (Ibid.) Here,
as in Tri County, Ordinance No. 18-22 “adopts the same purpose” as section
1161 in setting the notification timeline but changes the three-day statewide
chronology to “suit its own agenda,” namely to provide tenants with an
additional 10 days of notice and opportunity to cure. (Tri County, at p. 1296.)
      Similarly, in Channing, a landlord challenged certain provisions of the
Berkeley Municipal Code, including its requirement that landlords provide
six months’ notice before removing their property from the rental housing

Other Sections in This Document (40)

Full Text