A couple of weeks ago I wrote about a Santa Monica landlord who claimed harassment by a tenant fighting a rent increase. Usually, it’s the tenants who are harassed by landlords driven to maximize property income.
A man, who shall remain anonymous, and his disabled mother rent a three-bedroom, mid-city apartment. In 1996, when they moved in, the son and mother were given exclusive use of a secure basement storage room, which was noted in an amendment to their lease. In 2005, the building was sold to a young businessman from Malibu.
Their new landlord demanded use of the storage room. The man refused on the grounds that the room was an exclusive amenity to their tenancy including their apartment and two parking spaces.
The dispute escalated with the landlord denying that the storage room was part of the lease and served the son and mother with a notice to vacate the room. When they refused, they were served with an eviction notice to move out of the building entirely. The landlord said, “I have more money than you do and I can get you out any time.”
The son and mother conferred with Santa Monica’s rent control administration who advised them to give up the storage, as did a legal aid attorney. Fearing this was the first salvo in an ongoing campaign to get them to move, the son and mother hired San Gabrial Valley attorney Jerome M. Applebaum and their case went to court in Santa Monica in October. It was an entertaining five-hour trial. “(The son and mother) prevailed because they had a valid contract (lease) which gave them the exclusive use of the storage room despite the landlord’s denial,” said Applebaum, who usually represents landlords. “The notice to quit was improperly prepared by the landlord’s attorney and therefore not legal notice which in itself was enough to dismiss the case.”
Although the landlord wanted a complete eviction from the property, during the trial his attorney offered to let the son and mother stay if they surrendered half the room to the landlord, or allowed other tenants to share the room, or vacate the room entirely. According to Applebaum, “This is a change of the terms of the notice and invalidates the landlord’s action.”
Meanwhile, the son and mother filed a harassment complaint against their landlord with the City Attorney’s office.
City Hall’s tenant harassment ordinance defines tenant harassment as using lies or intimidation intended to make a tenant move out, giving a “three-day notice,” or trying to evict a tenant with false charges, refusing to accept a rent payment, taking away parking, laundry, or other services provided in the lease (in this case, a storage room) and intentionally disturbing a tenant’s peace and quiet or privacy. These were all occurrences alleged by the son and mother.
The City Attorney’s office is taking no action on their complaint.
I asked Adam Radinsky, who handles landlord/tenant complaints in the City Attorney’s office, “Why not?” He said that based on their investigation they “didn’t feel the landlord was acting with malice, which is required along with clear proof of ongoing harassment,” which they also felt was lacking.
“Harassment can be defined as when a landlord interferes with a tenant’s quiet enjoyment of his apartment and commits acts such as serving a tenant with ‘legal’ notices that are wrong, improperly executed or are ambiguous with the intent to cause mental anguish,” Applebaum said.
It seems like harassment to me — including the “I’ve got more money” threat, which clearly states an intent to evict and shows malice or oppression.
The landlord is an intelligent, educated businessman who clearly understands English. As a landlord, he should have a basic understanding of landlord/tenant law, especially since retaining an attorney. So, what’s his excuse? Is he ignorant or malicious?
I lean toward malicious because six of the eight apartments in his building are currently low-rent units. Leasing them at market rate, building income triples and building worth increases by as much as $1 million dollars. That’s a lot of motivation for maliciousness.
The son and mother aren’t alone. The City Attorney’s office doesn’t act on most of the 40 to 50 written complaints they receive annually from renters.
“We go to court on one or two complaints a year, maybe four or five in a good year,” Radinsky said.
“Unscrupulous landlords know that by threatening to evict, they can scare tenants into surrendering apartments, sometimes without paying out relocation fees,” the son said. “I was lucky. I hired a great attorney. Most low income tenants can’t.”
With the City Attorney, at very best, filing on one out of 10 cases — the cream of the crop and the ones they’re sure they can win — most tenants will likely receive no help from City Hall and landlords know it.
Next week: Rent control and renters’ rights. Who is protecting tenants? (Bill Bauer is a longtime Santa Monica resident and a freelance writer.)
Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on December 5, 2005. Read the original PDF.