Landlords can’t be held liable for evictions
CITY HALL Attorneys for City Hall can no longer hold landlords accountable for filing bad faith evictions following a recent ruling by the California Supreme Court.
In a 5-2 decision partially affirming and partially reversing a ruling by the Court of Appeals, a panel of seven judges held last week that City Hall may not penalize the bringing of an unlawful detainer action, even if the landlord’s motivation is malicious and the allegations made are known to be untrue.
The move was hailed by property owners who challenged the “tenant harassment” provisions of Santa Monica’s rent control law, claiming a code section prohibiting the filing of a bad-faith eviction violated their constitutional rights to remove tenants for not paying their rent or for being a nuisance to others.
“It was a terrific win,” said Carl Lambert, president of the Action Apartment Association, a Santa Monica-based advocacy group for landlords that filed suit in October 2002 along with Doreen Dennis, an owner and manager of multi-unit apartment buildings in Santa Monica.
“We protected responsible owners’ right to file lawsuits and evict tenants when necessary,” Lambert added. “This is a right that is important to all property owners.”
While property owners celebrated, so did attorneys for City Hall, who pointed to the court’s ruling on a second issue challenged by landlords which has to do with pre-litigation tactics. The court ruled that Santa Monica may continue to sanction landlords who serve an eviction notice for an improper purpose and with no intent to actually sue to remove the tenant.
To evict a tenant, a landlord must first serve an eviction notice. If the tenant does not vacate the premises, the landlord can file an unlawful detainer and have his or her day in court. Often times a tenant is reluctant to fight the unlawful detainer out of fear of retaliation or are unable to hire an attorney.
Adam Radinsky, an attorney for City Hall’s Fair Housing Unit said the ruling was a victory for City Hall and tenants because it reversed an earlier decision that struck down the entire code section, leaving tenants with few options to protect themselves against wrongful evictions.
“The section is still valid and still on the books so each case must be looked at individually to determine if the landlord really intends to go to court, and the (Supreme Court) said the landlord must have a good-faith intention to go to court to get the tenant out or otherwise they can be cited.”
The City Council passed the anti-harrass-ment provisions of the rent control law in 1995, largely in response to the state Legislature’s enactment of the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act, which eased some of the burdens on landlords in Santa Monica and other rent controlled cities. The law imposed “vacancy decontrol,” meaning that if a tenant leaves or is evicted, the landlord can then raise the rent for that unit to market rate.
Recognizing that this created incentives to evict tenants, lawmakers preserved the right of cities to regulate or monitor the grounds for eviction.
The section challenged in court bars landlords from maliciously interrupting services, failing to perform repairs, threatening or verbally abusing tenants or taking action to terminate a tenancy “based upon facts which the landlord has no reasonable cause to believe to be true or upon a legal theory which is untenable under the facts known to the landlord.”
It makes violation of the law a misdemeanor and permits either private parties or City Hall to bring civil action and authorizes injunctions,civil penalties and damage awards.
In writing for the Supreme Court, Justice Carlos Moreno said the law, to the extent that it penalizes the filing of an unlawful detainer action, “would cut against the litigation privilege’s ‘core policy’ of protecting access to the courts” and if allowed to continue would “have a chilling effect on landlords pursuing evictions through the courts.”
The litigation privilege applies to publications made in a judicial proceeding and it has been held in the past to cover both pleadings and pre-litigation communications.
It is essentially a type of immunity given for certain acts and statements taken in connection with the pursuit of a lawsuit. It generally covers such things as liable and defamation.
Moreno did say that in regards to filing an eviction notice or other pre-litigation tactics, a landlord is only protected under the privilege if he or she is pursuing litigation in “good faith and under serious consideration.”
Now that the decision has been handed down, attorneys for City Hall will be reviewing their options.
Lambert said he hopes City Hall will do the right thing and honor the judgment, striking the code section found to be pre-empted by state law.
“The city should amend the ordinance to remove the unconstitutional parts,” Lambert said. “Whether they will or not remains to be seen.”
Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on August 7, 2007. Read the original PDF.