Landlord Archives - Good Shepherd News - Fastest Growing Religious, Free Speech & Political Content

How To Enforce or Defend a California Mechanic’s Lien

The Truth News — Thu, 27 Feb 2025 08:46:59 +0000

How To Enforce or Defend a California Mechanic’s Lien

What is a Mechanic’s Lien?

A mechanic’s lien in California is a legal tool that guarantees payment to builders, contractors, subcontractors, laborers, and suppliers involved in a construction project. This lien can be used when the project owner or other responsible parties fail to pay for the services rendered or materials provided. For contractors, developers, or property owners in California, dealing with mechanic’s liens can be complex and stressful. A lien can halt your project and disrupt your budget and schedule. Conversely, for contractors or suppliers who haven’t been paid, filing a mechanic’s lien may be necessary to secure the payment owed.

Handling mechanic’s liens in California involves adhering to strict deadlines and procedural requirements. An experienced California construction lawyer is crucial for properly filing or defending against a mechanic’s lien. This guide provides an overview of how mechanic’s liens work in California and offers advice for filing a valid lien as a contractor and defending against a suspect lien as a property owner.

How do Mechanic’s Liens work in California?

A mechanic’s lien allows contractors, subcontractors, suppliers, and design professionals to place a lien against the property to secure unpaid bills for work or materials provided. Some key characteristics of California mechanic’s liens include:

Liens can be filed on private property.

Preliminary notice must be given within 20 days of starting work.

Liens must be filed within 90 days of completing the work if no notice of completion is recorded.

Property owners can face double payment if they pay the general contractor who fails to pay subs and suppliers.

Steps to File a Valid Mechanic’s Lien in California

If you are a contractor, subcontractor, or supplier who has not been fully paid for your work on a construction project in California, then you need to follow these steps to file a valid mechanic’s lien:

Send a Preliminary Notice Within 20 Days

In California, most claimants must serve a preliminary notice within 20 days of starting work or delivering materials. This notice informs the property owner, general contractor, and lender that you provide labor or materials and may file a lien if unpaid. If you send a notice after 20 days, then you may lose lien rights for work done or materials delivered more than 20 days before the notice.

File your Lien with the County

The mechanic’s lien must be recorded with the county recorder’s office where the property is located. This must be done within 90 days of completion of work, when the owner began using the improvement, or when the owner accepted the improvement.

Serve the Owner of the Property

After recording the lien, you must serve a copy to the property owner. This step ensures the owner knows the lien and can address the payment issue.

Start Suit to Foreclose your Mechanic’s Lien

To enforce your lien, you must file a lawsuit to foreclose on the lien within 90 days of recording it. If you do not enforce the lien in court within this timeframe, the lien becomes void.

It is highly recommended that you have an experienced California mechanic’s lien attorney guide you through the process to avoid missing deadlines or technical defects that could invalidate your lien.

How to Defend Against a Mechanic’s Lien

If you are a property owner or developer who has had a mechanic’s lien filed on your California property, here are some potential defenses and strategies to beat the lien:

File a Lien Release Bond

Filing a lien release bond for 125% of the lien amount will remove the lien from your property title. This allows you to sell or finance the property while the lien is being disputed.

Challenge Service or Notice Defects

Examine the lien for defects in service of notices or documents. If the lien claimant missed a notice deadline or improperly served the lien, it may be invalidated.

Assert Payment Defenses

If you have evidence that you paid the contractor who failed to pay the lien claimant, assert this defense. Additionally, if the work was improper or unfinished, file a counterclaim.

Reduce the Lien Amount

Argue that the lien is excessive and seek to reduce the amount through court intervention. You can also negotiate a lower settlement of the lien.

The Lien Was Filed Beyond the Deadline

One of the most common defenses is that the lien was filed after the statutory deadline from the last furnishing of labor or materials.

Attack Technical Lien Defencts

Liens can be invalidated if they lack key details about the property, the parties involved, or the nature/amounts of the claim.

Having a California lawyer experienced in mechanic’s liens review the claim and build potential defenses is highly recommended for property owners.

Why Should You Contact A California Construction Attorney about a Mechanic’s Lien?

Strict Deadlines

Missing a lien deadline by even one day can destroy your rights. A lawyer will ensure deadlines are met.

Complex Notices and Process Service

Improper service of notices or lien claims can invalidate a lien. A lawyer handles service properly.

Lien Amount Determination

Calculating the accurate lien amount is complex. A lawyer ensures the amount is supported and stands up in court.

Payment Priority Issues

An attorney can help pay your lien first from sale or financing proceeds.

Negotiations and Settlement

An experienced construction lawyer can negotiate fair lien reductions or settlements, often resolving liens out of court.

Avoiding Liability

Property owners who don’t manage payments correctly can end up paying twice. A construction lawyer helps avoid double liability.

Enforcement Expertise

Enforcing a lien is complex and requires litigation experience. Construction lawyers have the expertise to enforce or defend liens in court.

Takeaways for Mechanic’s Liens in California

Mechanic’s liens are serious and can harm your property rights and budget, but they are defendable with help from an experienced construction law attorney. To avoid critical mistakes, contractors and suppliers should consult a lawyer before commencing the lien filing process. Property owners should retain counsel once a lien is received to maximize defense strategy options. While expensive, litigation may ultimately be needed to enforce or defend against a lien if a cheaper resolution is not reached first.

What is your next step?

Will you keep trying to negotiate independently with mounting stress and uncertainty? Or is it time to consult an experienced California mechanic’s lien attorney for expert guidance and confidence that your rights are protected?

source

Are Property Taxes Deductible from Federal Income Tax in California

The Truth News — Thu, 27 Feb 2025 08:35:53 +0000

Are Property Taxes Deductible from Federal Income Tax in California?

Taxes are rarely simple. Many taxpayers turn to tax attorneys and other experts to help them get it right when filing their taxes. Nobody wants to file inaccurate taxes and possibly be hit with penalties. However, everybody wants to maximize their deductions to minimize the amount of money they owe to the government. Property taxes in California and many other states can be deducted from your overall taxable income. However, depending on your tax situation, this may or may not be the best idea.

Generally, California taxpayers may deduct the amount of money they have paid towards their property taxes from their taxable income. This effectively reduces the amount of income the federal government can tax and reduces the amount of tax they must pay. As of 2024, the maximum amount of property taxes you may deduct is capped at $10,000. However, you may only claim this deduction if you take the itemized deductions instead of the standard deduction. In some cases, the standard deduction may be more beneficial.

Every year California citizens are required to pay their taxes. For many taxpayers, especially those with multiple streams of income or otherwise complicated financial assets, it can be a major pain. Avoid the headache of doing your taxes by calling our

educting California Property Taxes from Federal Income Tax

As of 2021, California property owners may deduct up to $10,000 of their property taxes from their federal income tax if they are filing as single or married filing jointly. Unfortunately, any property taxes you have paid in excess of $10,000 cannot be counted toward your deduction. The cap is only $5,000 if you are married filing separately, but each spouse may claim $5,000 for a total of $10,000.

Deductions are important because they can lower your overall taxable income. For example, a person who earned a total taxable income of $100,000 and applied the property tax deduction of $10,000 would only have to pay taxes on $90,000 of income.

There are many different kinds of deductions that may be available to you. The more you can deduct from your taxable income, the less money you may owe the government. This is why it is crucial to speak with a legal tax expert, so you do not miss any deductions you are eligible to take advantage of. It is also important because you do not want to mistakenly apply a deduction you are ineligible for and face penalties. Our Sacramento tax lawyers can help guide you through this complicated process.

Limits on Deducting California Property Taxes from Federal Income Tax

As stated above, a single person or a married couple filing jointly may only claim a total of $10,000 as a deduction for property taxes. The limit drops to only $5,000 for married taxpayers filing separately. However, each spouse may claim that $5,000 for a total of $10,000 for the household. Any property taxes you pay exceeding this limit cannot be counted toward your deduction.

If you have been paying property taxes and applying the deduction for the past few years, you should know that this $10,000 cap on property tax deductions is relatively new. In years past, there was no limit and all property taxes paid could be applied to your deduction. For people who paid hefty property taxes, this was a significant deduction on their taxes.

However, in 2017, former President Donald Trump signed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act and imposed new limitations. As it stands today, taxpayers must abide by the $10,000 cap. If you previously claimed the unlimited deduction, your taxes might look very different from now on, so it is crucial to discuss them with our California tax attorneys.

You must claim the itemized deductions when filing federal income taxes to claim the property tax deductions. Generally, taxpayers may choose either the standard deduction or the itemized deduction. Most taxpayers choose whichever gets them a greater deduction. The standard deduction is available to all taxpayers no matter what kinds of deductions they may be eligible for. Itemized deductions are unique to each taxpayer and will look different depending on what kind of deductions they can claim. Speak with our Vacaville tax lawyers about applying deductions to your taxes.

Deciding Between the Standard or Itemized Deductions When Filing Taxes in California

When filing your federal income taxes, you may take the standard deduction available to everyone or an itemized deduction more tailored to your individual tax situation. A person may include many different types of deductions if they take the itemized deduction. People who choose the itemized deduction over the standard deduction are often business owners who deduct certain operating costs from their taxes. Speak to our California tax attorneys to determine if the itemized deduction is right for you.

As of 2025, the standard deduction is $15,000. This means $15,000 will be deducted from your taxable income no matter what kind of deductible expenses you may or may not have incurred. People with nine-to-five jobs and less complicated finances usually take the standard deduction. To make your property tax deductions worth your while, you will need another deduction of at least $4,600. If your itemized deductions do not amount to at least the standard deduction, it may not be worth claiming.

Essentially, deducting property taxes is only worth your time if your total itemized deductions exceed the standard deduction. Our Stockton tax attorneys can help you comb through your financial records and find any potential tax deductions you may be eligible for. source

New California Laws Going Into Effect in 2025

The Truth News — Tue, 07 Jan 2025 10:07:35 +0000

New California Laws Going Into Effect in 2025

(AB 1960) Smash & Grab Robberies
Creates stiffer penalties for those involved in smash-and-grab robberies. If the crime caused more than $50,000 in damage to a property, the court can impose an additional sentence of one year. Additional years can be added to a sentence if the property loss is higher.

Cracking Down on Retail Theft

Organized retail theft is permanently codified into California law through AB 1802 and SB 982.

It is now considered a felony to possess over $950 of items obtained through retail theft with the intention to resell (AB 2943). Similarly, breaking into vehicles to steal property valued at $950 or more with the intention to resell is now also considered a felony (SB 905).

Harsher penalties for serial shoplifters. A framework for Amsterdam-style cannabis cafes. New safeguards against artificial intelligence deepfakes.

The California Legislature passed hundreds of bills in 2024, many of which go into effect on Jan. 1 and touch nearly every aspect of life in the Golden State.

Here’s a look at some of the most prominent laws taking hold New Year’s Day.

The state passed a series of laws targeting retail crime and property theft, including shoplifting, car break-ins and smash-and-grab robberies.

The legislation increases penalties for repeat offenders, creates additional ways to prosecute crimes as felonies and allows the police to arrest people suspected of retail theft with probable cause, even if officers did not witness the crime.

One significant change allows prosecutors to add up the value of property stolen from multiple victims, making it easier to reach the $950 threshold necessary to charge a suspect with a felony.

The changes come as California voters have shifted to the right on crime. While overall crime rates in California are among the lowest ever recorded, certain crimes, such as vehicle thefts and shoplifting, have risen in recent years.

In November, voters passed Proposition 36, a ballot measure that imposed harsher penalties for shoplifting and drug possession. That went into effect in mid-December.

Juvenile Dependency and Child Welfare

Effective immediately, child custody proceedings involving Indian children must follow the California Indian Child Welfare Act. This means conducting inquiry on the child’s possible Native American heritage and tribal membership eligibility at the first court appearance. Parties and persons present at the proceedings must also inform the court if they receive information about the child’s possible Native American heritage. (AB 81)

Collaborative Courts

A few changes will affect collaborative justice courts, which combine judicial supervision with rehabilitative services.

If a defendant is charged with a drug offense, courts are required to order an available drug treatment or education program. (AB 2106)

A probation officer can refer offenses to youth court (with consent from the youth and family) as opposed to filing a petition to declare the youth as a dependent or ward of the court under SB 1005.

Under SB 1323, courts are now allowed to make competency determinations based on written evaluations by licensed psychologists or psychiatrists. Additionally, courts may refer incompetent defendants charged with felonies to mental health diversion programs. Furthermore, under SB 1400, if a defendant is incompetent to stand trial in a misdemeanor case, the court must consider referral to diversion or other options and subsequent dismissal at certain timeframes.

Under SB 910, treatment courts in California will need to operate in accordance with state and national guidelines, and the Judicial Council will be required to revise drug court standards of administration by Jan. 1, 2026.

Felony offenses will be added to pretrial diversion programs in veterans court under SB 1025.

Artificial Intelligence – Protections against sexually explicit deepfakes

Artificial intelligence (AI) has been a hot topic across all industries and especially in California. The state will implement the CA Transparency Act, which requires AI businesses to identify AI-generated content (SB 942). This law will be set to go into effect on Jan. 1, 2026.

(SB 926) Deepfakes
Makes it a crime to create and distribute sexually explicit images of a real person that are artificially generated but made to appear authentic with the purpose of causing that person emotional distress.

(SB 981) Sexually Explicit Images
Requires that social media platforms establish a mechanism for users who are California residents to report sexually explicit images that were created or altered digitally but made to appear authentic. Social media companies must take down the content while they investigate the complaint.

(AB 1836 & 2602) Digital Likeness
Protects deceased actors and performers from having their image, likeness or voice reproduced without authorization by artificial intelligence. The law requires consent from the actor’s estate before their likeness can be digitally replicated. A similar law (AB 2602) allows performers to back out of existing contracts if the language is vague enough to allow studios to digitally clone their image or voice in the future without expressed consent.

Gov. Gavin Newsom signed several A.I.-related protections. One bill makes it illegal to create and distribute lifelike depictions of real people in images that cause serious emotional distress, targeting A.I.-generated deepfakes that are sexually explicit. Another bill requires social media platforms to provide users with a way to report sexually explicit deepfakes of themselves.

Mr. Newsom did however veto a sweeping A.I. safety bill that was aimed at limiting the growth of the technology, directing legislators to revise it in the next session.

Courts and Access to Justice

The CARE Act has been implemented in all California counties as of Dec. 1 of this year. Starting July 1, 2025, California courts will be required to provide ongoing notice of CARE Act proceedings to original petitioners (SB 42).

In continuing the council’s commitment to access to justice, AB 170 will extend remote proceedings in juvenile and civil cases. Courtrooms utilizing remote technology will need to meet minimum standards set by the Judicial Council, as well as provide regular reporting to the courts and the council.

A ban on ‘forced outing’ of L.G.B.T.Q. youths by schools

School districts can no longer require teachers or staff members to disclose a student’s gender identity or sexual orientation to their parents.

The legislation, the first of its kind in the country, responds to policies in some school districts that required employees to notify parents if a student began using different pronouns or identified as a gender not reflected in school records.

“Teachers can still talk to parents,” Mr. Newsom said at a news conference in December. “What they can’t do under the law is fire a teacher for not being a snitch. I just don’t think teachers should be gender police.”

Several school districts have sued the state over the legislation, and the case is pending in federal court.

Reparations measures for Black residents

Multiple laws modeled after recommendations from the state’s Reparations Task Force are taking effect, including a measure that broadens protections against discrimination based on hair texture and hairstyles such as braids, locs and twists that protect hair from damage and are often worn by Black people.

Another such law requires companies to give advance notice to employees and county officials before closing a grocery store or a pharmacy. That measure is aimed at preventing neighborhoods from losing their main source of food or prescriptions, which disproportionately affects areas that are predominantly Black.

Of the 14 reparations bills prioritized by the California Legislative Black Caucus, six were signed into law. Some failed to pass the Legislature, and two were vetoed by Mr. Newsom. The package did not include the direct cash payments recommended by the task force.

A measure blocking medical debt from affecting credit scores

Health providers and debt collectors are now prohibited from reporting most medical debt to credit agencies, preventing it from having a negative impact on credit reports. These reports, which are the basis for credit scores, can affect a person’s ability to secure a loan, mortgage or even a job.

Millions of Californians have unpaid medical bills, including more than half of low-income residents, according to the California Health Care Foundation.

Restrictions on toxic chemicals in cosmetics and clothing

Several laws that ban certain toxic chemicals from clothing and cosmetics take effect on Jan. 1.

One bill targets 24 chemicals in cosmetics, including mercury and formaldehyde. Other bills ban the sale of cosmetic products, clothing and outdoor gear containing PFAS, also known as “forever chemicals,” a group of thousands of chemicals that persist in the environment and accumulate in the body.

Exposure to PFAS has been linked to severe health risks, though experts are still researching to fully understand their effects. These chemicals are widespread in the blood of Americans and difficult to get rid of, as they can be found in items ranging from pizza boxes to dental floss.

The Legislature passed the laws before 2024 but gave companies additional time to comply.

ONLINE

(SB 764) Child Vloggers
Parents or guardians who earn money by posting online videos that feature their children must set aside a percentage of their earnings in a trust account that benefits the minor. Parents will have to keep detailed logs of how much money they earned from each post and how many minutes their children appeared in the video. Children can sue parents who fail to follow the law.

(AB 1979) Doxxing
Allows victims of doxxing to sue their aggressors for up to $30,000 in damages. Doxxing is when someone shares personal information like phone numbers, addresses or sensitive materials about someone else with the intent to harm or embarrass them. A survey by SafeHome.org found that 11 million Americans have been victims of doxxing.

California gun safety regulations going into effect Jan. 1

In September, California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a series of laws aimed at strengthening gun safety regulations. Those include requiring schools to implement safety programs and plans, and establishing an Office of Gun Violence Prevention, which have deadlines in the coming years.

Some of those laws go into effect on Jan. 1 including:

AB 1483 strengthens a rule against applying for more than one handgun in a 30-day period. The bill removes an exemption for a private party transactions. However, the policy has been caught in court battles and the California Department of Justice does will not enforce it while a court injunction is in place, the California DOJ told USA TODAY on Dec. 27.
AB 1598 requires firearm dealers to provide consumers with a pamphlet covering the reasons for and risks of firearm ownership, “including the increased risk of death to someone in the household by suicide, homicide, or unintentional injury.”
AB 2917 guides courts to expand considerations for a gun violence restraining order to include threats of violence, specifically hate-based threats.
SB-1019 Firearms: destruction.

Safeguards for money made by child content creators

Two pieces of legislation enhance financial protections for child content creators, including child influencers and minors featured on YouTube, Instagram and other online platforms that generate revenue.

One bill extends the state’s Coogan Law, which protects child performers, to minors employed as content creators on online platforms. Employers will be required to deposit at least 15 percent of their earnings into a trust account.

The other measure mandates compensation for minors featured in online content that makes money, requiring parents or guardians to set aside a portion of their earnings in a trust account.

(AB 3162) Octopus Farming

California becomes the second state to make it illegal to raise octopuses in farms with the intent to sell them for human consumption. The law also bars businesses from selling octopuses that came from octopus farms. The law still allows for the fishing of octopuses as long as it does not exceed the daily limit.

A proactive ban on octopus farming

California is banning octopus farming and the sale of farmed octopuses, citing concerns about animal welfare and environmental impacts. Although currently there are no large-scale octopus farming operations in the state, the legislation aims to prevent them from opening in the future.

The law describes octopuses as “highly intelligent, curious, problem-solving animals” that are “conscious, sentient beings.”

California is the second state to prohibit octopus farming and the first to ban the sale of farmed octopuses.

California Laws That Go Into Effect on Jan. 1

Lawmakers passed hundreds of bills in 2024, addressing issues including shoplifting, marijuana and artificial intelligence. Here are some of the key measures that begin New Year’s Day.

CONSUMERS

(AB 2426) Digital Goods
Requires sellers of online products like digital movies, music, books or video games to disclose whether the consumer is purchasing unrestricted ownership or a revocable license. Sellers are not allowed to use the terms “buy” or “purchase” if the consumer is only receiving a license to access the digital good. It is not clear if the law applies to non-fungible tokens (NFTs).

(SB 1217) Pet Insurance
Requires pet insurance providers to be more transparent about whether their policy premiums are based on the age of the pet or where the pet lives, and if their policies exclude pre-existing conditions, hereditary disorders, congenital anomalies or chronic conditions.

(AB 2863) Automatic Renewals
Requires subscription services to get clear consent from a customer for automatic renewals and send annual reminders about the automatic renewal or continuous service. The law, which takes effect on July 1st also makes it easier to cancel a subscription either online or by telephone.

(AB 2017 & SB 1075) Overdraft Fees
Limits the overdraft fees that banks and credit unions can charge. The law prohibits financial institutions from charging a customer a fee for non-sufficient funds if the transaction was declined instantaneously. Starting in 2026, credit unions would be prohibited from charging an overdraft fee in excess of $14.

(SB2202) Cleaning Fees
Requires short-term rental like Airbnb to disclose if there will be any additional fees or charges that will be added if the customer fails to perform certain cleaning tasks at the end of their stay. The law takes effect on July 1, 2025.

HEALTH

(AB 1817 & AB2771) Chemicals in Cosmetics
Bans the use of PFAS in clothing, textiles and cosmetics. PFAS (perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances) can lead to liver damage, thyroid disease, reproductive problems and cancer. California would be the first state to impose a ban on PFAS, which are already prohibited in the European Union.

Another law taking effect in 2025 bans the manufacture or sale of cosmetic products with 11 other chemicals, including formaldehyde, mercury and methylene glycol.

ENTERTAINMENT

(SB969) Entertainment Zones
Allows local governments to create entertainment zones where bars and restaurants can sell alcoholic beverages that customers can drink on public streets and sidewalks. It replaces a law that only allowed outside vendors to sell alcohol at festivals and parades. A similar law that took effect in January of 2024 allowed San Francisco to set up entertainment zones to improve business at brick and mortar bars and restaurants.

Ah, the Cannabis Cafe beckons

The intoxicating allure of the urban promenade! In a bold bid to revive city centers still languishing from the malaise of the COVID-19 era, California unveils its latest temptations: cannabis cafés and boozy boulevards. One can almost hear the clinking of glasses and the murmur of delighted vices in the making.

Senate Bill 969, the brainchild of state Sen. Scott Weiner, invites local governments to create ‘entertainment zones,’ where revelers may roam the streets with drinks in hand, as though life were an eternal carnival. The California Alcohol Policy Alliance, ever the Cassandra at the feast, warns that this bacchanalia might lead to more drunk drivers and sorrowful statistics. But who among us has ever listened to the voice of caution when champagne is calling?

Then there’s AB 1775, which legalizes cannabis cafés reminiscent of Amsterdam’s smoky charm. At long last, one can pair a well-rolled joint with an artisanal sandwich or a frothy cappuccino, perhaps while a jazz trio croons in the background. Of course, the American Heart and Lung Association clutched its collective pearls, necessitating protections against secondhand smoke for workers. A small price to pay for the ambiance of curated decadence.

Assemblymember Matt Haney, waxing poetic, declared: ‘Lots of people want to enjoy legal cannabis in the company of others.’ Indeed, Mr. Haney, and if those others happen to be a slice of avocado toast and an indie folk band, so much the better. California, as ever, remains the harbinger of tomorrow’s indulgences today.

(AB 1775) Cannabis Cafes
Cannabis dispensaries are about to get livelier. The law will allow licensed cannabis retailers to prepare and sell food and beverages at newly created cafes or lounges. That means customers can buy and consume cannabis at the business while they eat a meal or watch a live performance.

A pathway for Amsterdam-style cannabis cafes

Marijuana dispensaries in California are now allowed to sell food and nonalcoholic beverages and host live events, paving the way for Amsterdam-like cannabis cafes.

Marijuana businesses in the state, home to the nation’s largest number of cannabis consumers, rallied for the law.

A separate law lets local governments create “entertainment zones,” where restaurants and bars can sell alcoholic drinks to go, and outdoor drinking will be permitted.

(SB 540) Cannabis Health Warnings
Requires the state health department to create brochures or flyers that explain the risks associated with cannabis use. The documents must be displayed at cannabis retailers by March 1.

(SB 729) Infertility Treatments
Starting on July 1, 2025, health insurance plans are required to cover the diagnosis and treatment of infertility, including in vitro fertilization (IVF). Religious employers are excluded from the requirement.

SB-1059Cannabis: local taxation: gross receipts.

SB-1064Cannabis: operator and separate premises license types: excessive concentration of licenses.

CRIME AND SAFETY

(AB 1394) Sexual Exploitation
Holds social media companies like Meta and Tik Tok liable for images of a person that appear on sexual exploitation videos or photos posted on their platforms. Victims of child sex trafficking can sue these companies for up to $4 million if they knowingly facilitated the distribution of these images. The new law also requires social media platforms to establish a process for sex abuse victims to report videos or photos that include them. Companies have 36 hours to take the images down from their platforms.

(SB 1414) Sex Solicitation
Makes it a felony to solicit a minor under the age of 16 for sex. If the minor is 16 or 17, the crime can be upgraded to a felony if the teen is a victim of trafficking. The law penalizes anyone paying for sex with a minor even if the sexual act never occurred.

(SB 428) Restraining Orders
Allows employers to obtain a temporary restraining on behalf of an employee who has suffered harassment. The employee can choose not to be named in the restraining order petition. A court can deny the order if it would prohibit speech or activities protected by the constitution or labor law.

(SB 2342) Funding victim services
Creates the California Crime Victims Fund, helping to guarantee more consistent resources for survivors. It also directs fines from corporate white-collar crimes into this fund – giving victims extra support when they need it most.

(AB 1978) Sideshows & Street Racing
Governor Newsom signed several laws that impose stricter penalties for people participating in sideshows and street racing. The laws would make it easier for law enforcement to arrest sideshow participants and impound vehicles for illegal activities happening on streets, highways or parking lots.

EMPLOYMENT

Minimum Wage
California’s minimum wage will increase to $16.50 per hour for all employers. The increase is tied to inflation. Fast food workers and healthcare facility workers have a higher minimum wage.

(AB 2123) Paid Family Leave
Allows an employee to take paid family leave without using accrued vacation time. Previously employers could require workers to take up to 2 weeks of vacation time before they could access California’s Paid Family Leave Program. The law applies to employees that need to take leave from work to care for a sick family member, bond with a new minor child or because a military family member is on active duty.

(SB 988) Freelance Workers
Requires employers that hire freelance workers for professional services worth more than $250 to provide a contract in writing that includes information on the work that will be performed and payment information. Employers must pay the freelance workers within the date specified in the contract or no later than 30 days after the work is completed.

(AB 1815) Hairstyles Discrimination
Expands protections against racial discrimination by widening the definition of race to include traits such as hairstyles and hair textures that are associated with certain races.

(SB 399) Mandatory Meetings
Bans employers from requiring that workers attend mandatory meetings concerning union organizing, otherwise known as ‘captive audience’ meetings. Also prohibits employers from requiring its workers attend meetings or participate in communications whose primary objective is to express the employer’s stance on political matters or religious leanings. Employers who ignore the law can face a $500 penalty per employee for each violation.

(SB 1100) Driver’s License
Employers would no longer be allowed to require a driver’s license in job postings unless the employer reasonably expects the job function to include driving and taking alternate transportation would be a detriment in travel time and cost to the employer.

EDUCATION

(AB 1780) Legacy Admissions
Bans legacy admissions for students applying to a private non-profit university in California. Universities like Stanford and USC would no longer be allowed to take into account whether a student applicant has ties to a donor or an alumnus. The law takes effect in September, so it does not apply to current applicants for the fall 2025 school year.

(AB 1821) Native Americans
Requires K-12 public schools in the state to teach about the treatment and perspectives of Native Americans during the Spanish colonization of California and the Gold Rush periods.

STATE SYMBOLS

Several laws have established official state symbols, including the Dungeness crab as the official state crustacean (AB 1797), the banana slug as the official state slug (AB 1859) and the shell of the black abalone as the official state seashell (AB 2504).

MISCELLANEOUS

(SB 1174) Voter ID Requirements

Prohibits local governments in California from requiring voters to present identification in order to vote. The law is in response to an ordinance passed in Huntington Beach that allowed the city to verify voter eligibility through IDs.

(AB 1810) Menstrual Products

Requires state prisons or jails in California to provide incarcerated people with free menstrual products without the inmate having to ask for them. Before this law, inmates had to ask for sanitary pads or tampons, which criminal justice advocates say allowed prison security to withhold menstrual products as a form of punishment and oppression.

California, ever the avant-garde of legislative theatrics! Starting January 1, 2025, prepare for a smorgasbord of new rules, ranging from the progressive to the peculiar. Cannabis cafés and expanded outdoor drinking?

A toast to your libations, but do mind the irony of laws encouraging indulgence while protecting your credit score from the ravages of medical debt. Even financial institutions aren’t safe from the guillotine of ‘no-fee’ indignation.

In the hallowed halls of education, lawmakers have decided that LGBTQ+ students deserve privacy (as well they should), Native American history deserves accuracy (a novel concept for history books), and people of color deserve the liberty of unbothered hairstyles. Progress wrapped in policy, with a dash of overdue decency.

Nearly 5,000 bills were birthed in the latest legislative session, though half perished in obscurity without so much as a debate. Of the 1,200 that survived, Gov. Gavin Newsom vetoed a tidy 200, like a chef trimming fat from an already overwhelming feast. And so, what remains: a mélange of laws that range from the vital to the vexing, with just enough intrigue to keep Californians on their toes. Bureaucracy, darling, is nothing if not dramatic.

Meet the new boss, not like the old boss

California, ever the patron saint of the worker’s plight, has declared war on the tyranny of boardroom sermons and managerial homilies. With Senate Bill 399, the state has effectively banned employers from dragging their beleaguered staff into mandatory meetings extolling the virtues of a political agenda or the evils of unions—or worse, pontificating on the intersection of religion and profit margins. Truly, there is nothing more odious than a boss attempting to sermonize between PowerPoints.

Proponents of this law, with the California Labor Federation at the helm, argue that such forced gatherings are nothing short of thinly veiled intimidation, designed to quash the spirit of unionization before it even takes root. Business groups, predictably clutching their pearls and brandishing the First Amendment like a shield, warn of dire consequences for free speech and economic dialogue. Fear not, however, for political operatives and proselytizers remain free to spout their truths to their similarly employed acolytes.

But the drama does not end there, for California’s workplace reforms continue to roll out like acts in a morality play. Witness the modest rise in the minimum wage, from $16 to $16.50—an increase too slight to invite revolution but sufficient to provoke muttering in executive suites. Voters recently quashed a more ambitious leap to $18, opting instead for the slow creep of inflation-linked adjustments. One can almost hear Dickens’ ghost remarking, ‘A half dollar more, sir? For a loaf of bread, perhaps?’

And let us not overlook the newfound flexibility in the use of time off. Under AB 2123, workers can no longer be coerced into exhausting vacation days before accessing paid family leave—a small triumph for those who might like a few holiday hours left to spend on something other than convalescence. Meanwhile, AB 2499 elevates sick days to a nobler purpose: jury duty. Because nothing says ‘recovery’ like a day deliberating over petty theft or tax fraud.

California’s labor laws, like its sunsets, remain a spectacle: vivid, dramatic, and occasionally bewildering. One can only imagine what new workplace epiphanies await in 2026.

Getting schooled in 2025

California, ever the harbinger of cultural skirmishes disguised as legislative decrees, has unfurled the SAFETY Act, a proclamation that schools are no longer the battleground for parental notifications about gender identity. Assembly Bill 1955, signed with a flourish by Gov. Gavin Newsom, bars school boards from mandating that teachers act as informants to parents about a child’s gender preferences. In essence, the legislation tells meddling school boards: ‘Not on our watch, darling.’

The SAFETY Act goes further, shielding educators from retribution should they decline to participate in such clandestine tattling. It also extends a supportive hand—likely manicured with inclusivity—to LGBTQ+ students in junior high and high schools, recognizing that adolescence is already a theater of existential chaos without adding identity politics to the script.

Assemblymember Chris Ward, the bill’s San Diego-based champion, condemned the ‘politically motivated attacks’ targeting transgender and nonbinary youth, likening such policies to a forced outing party no one asked to attend. With this act, the state affirms that gender identity discussions are best reserved for private family dynamics—preferably without the school board’s unsolicited editorializing.

Naturally, there is opposition, with Assemblymember Bill Essayli and other critics forecasting a showdown in the courts, where gavel-wielding arbiters of justice will untangle this knot of privacy, parental rights, and public policy. One imagines the arguments unfolding with the gravity of a Shakespearean trial, though less eloquent and with more legal jargon.

California, never content to follow the crowd, remains a stage for the audacious and the contentious, ensuring that even its education policies are draped in drama and debate. The SAFETY Act may spark lawsuits, but for now, it is a banner of defiance unfurled against those who would turn classrooms into confessionals.

HOUSING

(SB 611) Rent Checks
Prohibits landlord from charging tenants a fee if they pay their rent or security deposit by check. Starting in April, landlords will also have to provide renters with a written statement if they charge a security deposit higher than the standard.

(AB 2347) Evictions
Doubles the current deadline that tenants have to respond to an eviction notice to ten days. Under California law, if a tenant does not respond to an eviction notice within the required time they lose the case automatically. Advocates say this will give renters more time to seek legal advice.

(SB 450) Housing Developments
Makes it easier to convert single-family homes into duplexes and fourplexes by removing loopholes used by some local governments to slow down conversions. The new law requires local governments to respond to housing conversion applications within 60 days and bars local governments from denying an application to split up a lot based on the visual impact to the community.

New Laws for California Landlords In 2025

Tenants have rights, too

A shadow of misfortune fell upon tenant advocates this autumn as California voters declined to broaden the power of cities to curtail rent increases. Yet, amid the gloom, a glimmer of hope emerges: a new law, poised to take effect on the first of January, promises a moment of reprieve for renters teetering on the precipice of eviction.

This modest yet meaningful decree grants tenants twice the grace—ten days, rather than five business days—to respond to an eviction notice. What might appear to the uninitiated as a trifling procedural adjustment could, in truth, be the thread by which countless lives are tethered to their homes. Legal advocates, whose battles often go unsung, herald this as a salve for those besieged by housing insecurity.

For tenants, the stakes of silence are ruinous. To neglect a timely response is to forfeit the game before the first move, leaving them ensnared in a labyrinth of penalties and tarnished records. Such marks of disgrace darken their prospects, rendering the quest for future shelter an odyssey of near-impossible odds. Even those with just claims—a landlord’s breach of duty to repair or a rent hike that flouts the law—can see their defenses dissolve in the cruel light of procedural default. Researchers whisper grimly that four in ten California tenants succumb to this ignoble fate.

“Five days,” lamented Lorraine López, a senior attorney at the Western Center on Law and Poverty, “has never sufficed for tenants to summon aid, unravel the cryptic legalese of a complaint, identify their defenses, prepare their papers, and present themselves at court.” Her words, delivered to CalMatters this past autumn, resonate like the toll of a distant bell.

The law, penned by Assemblymember Ash Kalra of San Jose, extends its hand not only to tenants but also to landlords—those oft-portrayed antagonists of such tales. To assuage their concerns, the legislation imposes limits on the time tenant attorneys may wield certain motions to contest landlords’ filings. This compromise quelled the ire of the formidable California Apartment Association, which chose neutrality over opposition as legislators debated the measure. Yet, not all property owners were placated; some local groups clung to their grievances like a miser to his coin.

Daniel Bornstein, an attorney for landlords, encapsulated their frustrations succinctly: “The longer these matters linger, the costlier they become, and the greater the loss of rent.” And so, the pendulum swings—between the tenant’s plea for sanctuary and the landlord’s lament for expediency—a delicate balance in the ceaseless theatre of housing in California.

2025 is here and with it come a slew of new laws that affect California landlords.

We’ve selected 11 of the most impactful laws to discuss for the typical client that we serve. Laws affecting affordable housing, large multi-family properties, or commercial properties are not discussed here.

1. AB 2747 – Mandatory Offer of Credit Reporting

This law requires landlords of buildings with 15 units or more or landlords that own more than 1 residential rental property or landlords that are a REIT or corporation to offer positive rental payment reporting to at least 1 credit bureau. Landlords can only charge the lesser of $10 or the actual cost to provide the service, unless of course the landlord does not incur a fee to provide the service.

Note that this is only positive rental history reporting. Landlords need to offer positive rental history reporting with all leases beginning on 4/1/25 and must provide notice to tenants of leases existing as of 1/1/25 of the same offer.

If a tenant defaults on the payment, landlords are not allowed to use rent income to cover it and cannot use any unpaid fee amount for this service as a reason for termination of tenancy or any other punitive action. The landlord is able to stop the reporting if the fee remains unpaid for 30 or more days.

2. AB 2493 – Application Fees

AB 2493 codifies the way we at Mesa already approach application processing, which is essentially a first come, first qualified, first granted approach. We believe it to be the most fair and unbiased way to process applications and now it appears, the California State Legislature agrees. Many landlords want to treat the application process like a job interview where the “best” applicant gets the property. We disagree with this approach because of its potential to violate Fair Housing laws, and while California has not outright banned this approach, they have made it much more difficult to choose this option.

This law only allows landlords to charge an application fee if they do one of two things:

The Job Interview Method – Refund all applicants not selected, regardless of reason, if their application is treated like the “job interview” approach above. This means if the landlord is not using a first come, first qualified, first granted approach, they must refund the application fee for all applicants, even if the applicant would have been denied for not meeting the landlord’s criteria. This refund must occur within the lesser of 7 days of a tenant being selected or 30 days of the application being received.
The Mesa Method – Process applications on the first come, first qualified, first granted approach. The landlord must present their requirements along with the application form. Once a tenant is selected, using this approach any remaining applicants that were in process must either be refunded within 7 days or have their application transferred to another property that the landlord has available for rent. Using this approach, landlords are able to retain the application fees for applications that were considered but denied for not meeting the landlord’s posted criteria.

3. SB 611 – Fees and Security

This law prevents landlords from charging a fee for the service of any notice on the tenant. Since California still requires the physical posting of certain notices such as the 3 day notice to pay rent or quit and the 60 day notice of termination of tenancy, landlords often incur significant costs in the service of these mandatory notices. In the past, it has been common practice for landlords to charge a notice service fee to compensate for those costs.

SB 611 bans that practice and also bans landlords from charging any fees for processing a physical check from tenants.

4. SB 1051 – Changing Locks Due to Domestic Violence

This law requires landlords to pay for the changing of locks when a tenant requests it due to being a victim of domestic violence. They must provide proof of the claim.

The landlord only has 24 hours to comply with the request. If they fail to change the locks within 24 hours of the tenant’s request, then the tenant can change them themselves and notify the landlord within 24 hours that the locks were changed as well as provide the landlord with the new key. The landlord will then have 21 days to reimburse the tenant for their cost of changing the locks.

This law also makes it illegal for landlords to deny or conditionally approve applicants for exercising their rights under this law, including changing locks and terminating a tenancy due to being the victim of domestic violence.

5. AB 2801 – Security Deposits

This law, similar to AB 2493, essentially codifies the “Mesa Way” meaning the way we already conduct our business.

Beginning on 4/1/25, landlords will need to take photos of the property immediately after receiving possession back from a tenant and before any repairs or cleaning take place and also immediately after repairs are made or cleaning is done. Additionally, landlords will need to send photos along with the standard itemized list of what the deposit was used for and a written explanation of the cost of the repairs or cleaning.

Finally, landlords are not able to charge for professional carpet cleaning or professional cleaning unless those services are necessary to return the unit to the same condition it was in prior to being rented out excluding ordinary wear and tear.

6. AB 2898 – Unbundled Parking

This law requires that landlords unbundle parking from the lease. If landlords want to charge for parking or have an agreement related to parking, they must do so in an agreement that is separate from the lease agreement.

The reason behind this change is so that a landlord cannot use the non-payment or other violation of the parking agreement as a reason to evict a tenant.

7. AB 2347 – Time Extension for Evictions

This law gives the defendant in an unlawful detainer case (eviction) 10 business days to respond by filing an answer to the eviction instead of the current 5 days.

This will extend the amount of time for landlords to regain possession of their property in an eviction by at least a week. Good news in this law is that it also reduces the time for responsive pleadings (demurrer, motion to strike) to between 5 and 7 days instead of the current 30 days.

8. AB 2579 – Balcony Inspections

You may recall our 2019 blog post on new laws which highlighted the balcony inspection law and its mandatory requirement for owners to have balconies inspected by 1/1/2025. Nothing has really changed here except that the 2025 deadline has been pushed out to 1/1/2026 and Civil Engineers are now able to conduct those inspections.

9. AB 653 – Housing Authority Reporting Requirements

This is a welcome law which will require Housing Authorities to provide annual reports with data on their monthly success rate, payment standards, inspection wait times, and total search time for voucher holders to obtain housing.

We work with housing authorities all the time and know first hand how delayed they can be and how bad the communication can be. The hope with this new law is that there will be more transparency and accountability for housing authorities to be efficient and productive with their use of funds and assistance to voucher holders and landlords alike. We would sure love to see increased efficiency here!

10. AB 2684 – Extreme Heat

If you don’t have central AC in your rental property, start budgeting to install it soon.

In January 2028, extreme heat will be added to local cities’ and counties’ safety of housing element or local hazard plans.

We are already seeing proposals to add a minimum indoor temperature requirement in order for a rental property to be considered habitable. The addition of extreme heat hazard plans will almost certainly bring this to fruition. It is highly likely that in the next few years, landlords will be required to provide central AC in rental homes and that central AC will be required to maintain the temperature below a certain temperature in all areas of the home.

While there is no immediate effect on landlords because of this law, we strongly recommend that all landlords prepare for this as it could drastically increase costs related to HVAC maintenance, replacement, or installation.

11. AB 2622 – Unlicensed Handyman Requirement

We saved the best for last! Until now, unlicensed handymen were unable to do work of more than $500 without a contractor’s license. That amount has finally been updated to take into account inflation and has been increased to $1,000! That means unlicensed handymen can do a lot more, which should save owners money on smaller jobs since they won’t have to hire a licensed contractor for as many jobs anymore!

What the Future Holds

It’s impossible to know what future laws will go into effect, but one thing is for sure: it gets more and more difficult to be a landlord every year.

The great news coming out of 2024 was the failure of Prop 33 which would have repealed the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act of 1995. If that had passed, cities and counties could have each enacted their own forms of rent control, which would have made it even more difficult and potentially unprofitable to be a landlord in California.

Other good news is that rental properties continue to hold their value and appreciate even in the difficult interest rate environment we experienced all through last year.

As long as you learn the new laws and abide by them, California is still a great place to own rental property!

Some help for ATM penalty fees

In the gilded realm of modern finance, where even the simplest transactions often come with hidden snares, a rare reprieve has emerged for Californians teetering on the edge of fiscal despair. Thanks to a new law, those who attempt to withdraw funds only to discover their coffers insufficient shall no longer be met with the insult of a penalty atop their injury.

This decree, a balm for the beleaguered, targets the pernicious fees levied when withdrawals are declined—be it at the unfeeling maw of an ATM or through other instantaneous denials wrought by insufficient funds.

Assembly Bill 2017, shepherded into existence by the tireless efforts of consumer advocates, is a testament to the virtues of human empathy within the cold calculus of commerce. Signed into law by Governor Gavin Newsom this past September, the measure stands as a shield for the financially vulnerable against the scourge of what these advocates rightly dub “junk fees.” The California Low-Income Consumer Coalition and the East Bay Community Law Center, its chief proponents, have proclaimed victory for the common citizen, protecting them from tumbling further into the abyss of poverty.

Yet this is but one chapter in the broader narrative of reform. In tandem with this triumph, another piece of legislation ascends the stage: Senate Bill 1075, which curtails credit union overdraft fees, capping them at $14 unless a more benevolent federal standard emerges. This provision, however, will not grace the public until 2026—an all-too-familiar delay in the theatre of legislative promise.

And let us not overlook Assembly Bill 2863, a law designed to liberate consumers from the labyrinth of subscription services. It demands that companies seek explicit consent before renewing subscriptions or extending free trials into paid obligations. Slated to take effect this July, it strikes at the heart of one of capitalism’s most insidious traps, restoring agency to the hapless consumer.

Thus, in this rare alignment of legislation and compassion, Californians may glimpse a flicker of justice—a fleeting reminder that, even in an age of relentless profiteering, the wheels of reform, though slow, do occasionally turn in their favor.

Medical debt need not affect credit scores

In the labyrinthine world of financial burdens, where every misstep seems destined to echo through one’s future, a rare beacon of mercy has arisen. A new California law now forbids health providers and debt collectors from reporting medical debts to credit agencies, ensuring that the scars of illness no longer mar the pristine visage of one’s credit report.

Though this law does not erase the specter of unpaid bills, it grants a measure of solace to the beleaguered patient. No longer need a hospital stay or an urgent-care visit haunt their financial standing, casting shadows on their ability to secure a home, a car, or even a livelihood. For in the realm of credit scores—those fickle arbiters of modern worth—every blemish exacts a toll, driving up interest rates and erecting barriers to opportunity.

While the triumvirate of credit bureaus—TransUnion, Equifax, and Experian—ceased reporting medical debts under $500 in 2023, the harsh truth remains that most medical debts far exceed this modest threshold. The national average, a sobering $3,100, tells the tale of a society where the price of health is measured in crushing balances. In California alone, nearly four in ten residents shoulder medical debt, a figure that rises to over half among the low-income, as revealed by the California Health Care Foundation.

But, as in all things, there is a caveat. The law’s shield extends only to debts owed directly to medical providers or collection agencies. Those who rely on the ill-fated convenience of medical or general credit cards find themselves beyond its protection, their debts still bound to the capricious judgment of the credit bureaus.

Thus, while this law may not banish the specter of medical debt entirely, it offers a reprieve, a moment of grace in a world all too eager to punish the vulnerable for the audacity of falling ill. It is a small victory, yet one that hints at the possibility of a more just society—one in which the ailments of the body do not leave permanent wounds upon the soul.

Going native historically

But supporters of a new law that goes into effect on Jan. 1 say that there are still grave concerns that the history of California Native Americans — including enslavement, starvation, illness and violence — is still misleading or completely absent from the curriculum.

AB 1821, authored by Assemblymember James Ramos, D-San Bernardino, aims to address this. When California next updates its history-social science curriculum — on or after Jan. 1 — it asks that the Instruction Quality Commission consult with California tribes to develop a curriculum including the treatment and perspectives of Native Americans during the Spanish colonization and the Gold Rush eras.

“The mission era of Spanish occupation was one of the most devastating and sensitive periods in the history of California’s native peoples and the lasting impact of that period is lost in the current curriculum,” according to a statement from the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians, one of the supporters of the legislation.

Desegregate already

Ah, my dear friend, what a splendid spectacle of justice and progress is unfurling before our eyes! Picture, if you will, the gilded chambers of history opening their doors to let in the sunlight of truth—this is precisely what this new law aims to achieve. It beckons the state to revisit and refine the chronicles of its past, ensuring that the luminous tale of Mendez v. Westminster is given its rightful place upon the pedestal of remembrance.

It was in 1945, amidst the orchards and orange blossoms of California, that a grave injustice was challenged. Mexican-American parents, armed not with swords but with the unyielding conviction of love for their children, took up arms against the dark specter of segregation. Their triumph illuminated the path toward equality, inspiring California to become the vanguard in abolishing the blight of segregation from its public schools. Such a victory was not merely a legal decree but a proclamation of humanity’s better instincts—a prelude, if you will, to the symphonic crescendo of Brown v. Board of Education.

The story of Mendez is no mere anecdote; it is a parable of unity, a testament to the power of inter-ethnic solidarity. How fitting that it should now be etched more prominently into the annals of education, woven into the tapestry of history lessons for our youth. The Westminster School District, with commendable grace, lends its voice to ensure that this chapter is not merely remembered but celebrated—a beacon to guide future generations toward justice and fellowship.

And so, let us applaud this endeavor, for it is not merely a revision of curriculum but an act of restoration—a gesture of reverence for those who dared to dream of a brighter, fairer world. Let the past speak with eloquence to the present, and may its lessons resound through the ages, as only truth, when polished to its finest luster, can do.

Hair today, hair tomorrow

how the law seeks to untangle the knotted threads of prejudice, weaving instead a tapestry of dignity and equality! Assembly Bill 1815 strides boldly forward, casting its light upon an insidious form of discrimination—one that has long lurked in the shadows of cultural ignorance and petty bias. Here, at last, is legislation that endeavors to liberate not just the individual, but the expression of their very identity.

Though the CROWN Act already guards against such affronts in many realms, this new provision extends the shield of justice into the arenas of amateur and club sports, where the echoes of outdated prejudice have lingered too long. With elegant precision, the bill revises the language of the California Code, recognizing that the markers of identity are not merely “historical” but vibrantly cultural—a nuanced yet profound shift in understanding.

The American Civil Liberties Union, ever the champion of liberty’s cause, aptly describes this effort as a remedy for a pernicious slight often inflicted upon our youth. Bias against natural textures and protective hairstyles—those braids, locks, and twists that speak volumes of heritage and pride—is a quiet violence, a theft of self-expression. By addressing this injustice, the law casts off the remnants of archaic prejudice and asserts that the playing fields of sport, like the wider stage of life, must be arenas of equality and respect.

Let us commend this noble effort! For in protecting the strands of identity, we uphold the strands of humanity itself, recognizing that beauty lies not in conformity but in the dazzling diversity of the human spirit. Such legislation is no mere legalese; it is an ode to individuality and a testament to the unyielding march of progress.

Child content creation must be fair

Ah, how fitting that the gilded age of digital fame should now be tempered with the golden virtues of justice and foresight! In a world where even the youngest among us are drawn into the luminous whirl of online creation, Governor Newsom has wielded the pen with a deft and benevolent hand, signing into law measures that cradle the dreams of child creators in the arms of protection.

Senate Bill 764 and Assembly Bill 1880—twin sentinels of equity—rise to expand the mantle of safeguarding once reserved for the child performers of stage and screen. Now, they extend their reach into the boundless ether of the digital sphere, where vloggers, podcasters, influencers, and streamers weave their bright tapestries of creativity. These laws decree, with both wisdom and grace, that at least 15% of the earnings accrued by these youthful artisans shall be held in trust, a shimmering dowry for the adults they are yet to become.

It is a poetic justice, is it not, that the fruits of a child’s labor, so often plucked by others, should now be preserved for the very hands that sowed them? These laws stand as a testament to the recognition that even amidst the intoxicating allure of digital stardom, there lies a duty to nurture and protect. They remind us that innocence and ambition need not be at odds, and that the light of youth should be neither exploited nor extinguished.

Let us celebrate these measures, for they do not merely regulate—they ennoble. They enshrine in law a simple yet profound truth: that the joy of creation should be met with the security of preservation. Thus, the stage is set for a future where young creators may flourish, unencumbered by the shadows of exploitation, and bask in the light of their own hard-won legacies.

Expanded acohol education for the kiddos

California public school students will get additional coursework on the harms of alcohol in 2025, thanks to a new law from a former lawmaker whose drunken driving arrest inspired her legislation.

In September, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed Assembly Bill 2865 by former Los Angeles Democratic Assemblymember Wendy Carrillo, whose DUI last year helped derail her political career.

California schools are already required to provide instruction about alcohol, narcotics and other dangerous drugs. This bill would require that schools also provide instruction about the short- and long-term harms of excessive drinking — including alcohol’s link to chronic diseases, mental health problems and deaths.

Under the new law, school boards can decide which grades receive the new instruction. They can ask the state for reimbursements for the costs of instruction, training and updates to instructional materials, said Nicholas Filipas, a spokesperson for the California Department of Education.

Best of the rest…

Voter ID Ban Sparks Clash Between Conservative Cities and the State

California, ever the stage for political theatrics, finds itself embroiled in yet another tempest. This time, it is voter identification laws—the perennial darling of conservative agendas—that have ignited the latest battle. Propelled into prominence by the fervent proclamations of election fraud from President-elect Donald Trump, voter ID requirements now serve as the banner under which local and state governments skirmish.

A new state law, which took effect on the first day of the year, forbids municipalities from demanding that voters present identification at the polls. Yet, the city of Huntington Beach, brimming with defiance, has chosen to rebel against this directive, becoming the unlikely protagonist in a tale of democracy’s complexities.

For Car Buyers, 2025 Brings Diminished Protections

For Californians with a penchant for secondhand vehicles—or, dare we say, clunkers—the year 2025 heralds a rather disheartening chapter. The state Supreme Court has clipped the wings of warranty protections for used cars, leaving consumers adrift amid the already murky waters of lemon law regulations. Lawmakers have pledged to revisit these rules, yet until they do, buyers must navigate this terrain with diminished safeguards, their faith placed precariously in the promises of sellers.

California Stiffens Penalties for Theft Amid Rising Concerns

The specter of retail theft has long loomed over California, and now, the state has unveiled new laws to confront this menace with renewed vigor. Beginning January 1, harsher measures have been introduced to streamline prosecutions for those accused of pilfering from shops. Not content with this alone, voters have also passed Proposition 36, tightening the reins on sentences for theft and drug offenses. Thus, the pendulum swings yet again in the eternal debate over justice and severity.

Protections for Emergency Workers Take Center Stage

In a world increasingly fraught with discord, even those tasked with saving lives have found themselves under siege. A new law imposes stricter penalties on those who assault emergency room workers, addressing a disturbing rise in such attacks. Yet, not all are content with this path; progressive voices and prison-reform advocates warn of the potential consequences, their protests mingling with the cries of justice. And so, California’s legal landscape shifts once more, a reflection of the times and tensions that define it.

Other Laws of Note

Starting January 1, 2025, tenants will have 10 days to respond to an unlawful detainer summons and complaint, doubling the previous 5-day deadline that has been in effect since 1971 (AB 2347).

Under AB 1186, minors can no longer be charged with restitution fines and any outstanding balances of these fines will be uncollectible and unenforceable 10 years after they were imposed.

New California Laws 2025 (part 21)

SB-946	Personal Income Tax Law: Corporation Tax Law: exclusions: wildfire mitigation payments.
SB-948	Political Reform Act of 1974: contribution limitations.
SB-949	Superior court: lactation accommodation.
SB-951	California Coastal Act of 1976: coastal zone: coastal development.
SB-956	School facilities: design-build contracts.
SB-957	Data collection: sexual orientation, gender identity, and intersex status.
SB-958	Surplus state property: County of Napa.
SB-960	Transportation: planning: complete streets facilities: transit priority facilities.
SB-962	San Diego Unified Port District: public employee pension benefits.
SB-963	Hospitals: self-identification procedure: human trafficking or domestic violence.
SB-965	Firearms.
SB-969	Alcoholic beverages: entertainment zones: consumption.
SB-974	Lithium Extraction Tax: fund distribution.
SB-976	Protecting Our Kids from Social Media Addiction Act.
SB-977	County of San Luis Obispo Redistricting Commission.
SB-978	State government: budget: state publications: format.
SB-981	Sexually explicit digital images.
SB-982	Crimes: organized theft.
SB-985	Check Sellers, Bill Payers and Proraters Law: exemption: nonprofit community service organizations.
SB-988	Freelance Worker Protection Act.
SB-9 8 9	Domestic violence: deaths.
SB-990	Office of Emergency Services: State Emergency Plan: LGBTQ+ individuals.
SB-991	School districts: Los Angeles Unified School District: inspector general.
SB-994	Local government: joint powers authority: transfer of authority.
SB-997	Pupil health: opioid antagonists and fentanyl test strips.
SB-1001	Death penalty: intellectually disabled persons.
SB-1002	Firearms: prohibited persons.
SB-1005	Juveniles.
SB-1006	Electricity: transmission capacity: reconductoring and grid-enhancing technologies.
SB-1009	Mount Shasta Fish Hatchery: lease.

SB-1015	Nursing schools and programs.
SB-1016	Latino and Indigenous Disparities Reduction Act.
SB-1019	Firearms: destruction.
SB-1024	Healing arts: Board of Behavioral Sciences: licensees and registrants.
SB-1025	Pretrial diversion for veterans.
SB-1027	Political Reform Act of 1974: disclosures.
SB-1034	California Public Records Act: state of emergency.
SB-1037	Planning and zoning: housing element: enforcement.
SB-1043	Short-term residential therapeutic programs: dashboard: seclusion or behavioral restraints.
SB-1044	Bingo: overhead costs.
SB-1046	Organic waste reduction: program environmental impact report: small and medium compostable material handling facilities or operations.
SB-1048	Planning and zoning: local planning: site plans.
SB-1051	Victims of abuse or violence: lock changes.
SB-1053	Solid waste: recycled paper bags: standards: carryout bag prohibition.
SB-1059	Cannabis: local taxation: gross receipts.
SB-1 061	Consumer debt: medical debt.
SB-1063	Pupil safety: identification cards.
SB-1064	Cannabis: operator and separate premises license types: excessive concentration of licenses.
SB-1068	Tri-Valley-San Joaquin Valley Regional Rail Authority: contracting: Construction Manager/General Contractor project delivery method.
SB-1069	State prisons: Office of the Inspector General.
SB-1070	Health care district: County of Imperial.
SB-1072	Local government: Proposition 218: remedies.
SB-1075	Credit unions: overdraft and nonsufficient funds fees.
SB-1077	Coastal resources: local coastal program: amendments: accessory and junior accessory dwelling units.
SB-1089	Food and prescription access: grocery and pharmacy closures.
SB-1090	Unemployment insurance: disability and paid family leave: claim administration.
SB-1091	School facilities: school projects: accessible path of travel requirements.
SB-1096	Mailed solicitations: disclosure statement.
SB-1097	Veterans: military and veterans: gender-neutral terms.
SB-1098	Passenger and freight rail: LOSSAN Rail Corridor.

New Laws for California Landlords In 2025

The Truth News — Sun, 05 Jan 2025 10:41:18 +0000

New Laws for California Landlords In 2025

HOUSING

Tenants have rights, too

2025 is here and with it come a slew of new laws that affect California landlords.

1. AB 2747 – Mandatory Offer of Credit Reporting

2. AB 2493 – Application Fees

AB 2493 codifies the way application processing, which is essentially a first come, first qualified, first granted approach. We believe it to be the most fair and unbiased way to process applications and now it appears, the California State Legislature agrees. Many landlords want to treat the application process like a job interview where the “best” applicant gets the property. We disagree with this approach because of its potential to violate Fair Housing laws, and while California has not outright banned this approach, they have made it much more difficult to choose this option.

This law only allows landlords to charge an application fee if they do one of two things:

The Job Interview Method – Refund all applicants not selected, regardless of reason, if their application is treated like the “job interview” approach above. This means if the landlord is not using a first come, first qualified, first granted approach, they must refund the application fee for all applicants, even if the applicant would have been denied for not meeting the landlord’s criteria. This refund must occur within the lesser of 7 days of a tenant being selected or 30 days of the application being received.
The correct Method – Process applications on the first come, first qualified, first granted approach. The landlord must present their requirements along with the application form. Once a tenant is selected, using this approach any remaining applicants that were in process must either be refunded within 7 days or have their application transferred to another property that the landlord has available for rent. Using this approach, landlords are able to retain the application fees for applications that were considered but denied for not meeting the landlord’s posted criteria.

3. SB 611 – Fees and Security

SB 611 bans that practice and also bans landlords from charging any fees for processing a physical check from tenants.

4. SB 1051 – Changing Locks Due to Domestic Violence

This law requires landlords to pay for the changing of locks when a tenant requests it due to being a victim of domestic violence. They must provide proof of the claim.

5. AB 2801 – Security Deposits

This law, similar to AB 2493, essentially codifies the “Correct Way” meaning the way we already conduct our business.

6. AB 2898 – Unbundled Parking

The reason behind this change is so that a landlord cannot use the non-payment or other violation of the parking agreement as a reason to evict a tenant.

7. AB 2347 – Time Extension for Evictions

This law gives the defendant in an unlawful detainer case (eviction) 10 business days to respond by filing an answer to the eviction instead of the current 5 days.

8. AB 2579 – Balcony Inspections

9. AB 653 – Housing Authority Reporting Requirements

10. AB 2684 – Extreme Heat

If you don’t have central AC in your rental property, start budgeting to install it soon.

In January 2028, extreme heat will be added to local cities’ and counties’ safety of housing element or local hazard plans.

11. AB 2622 – Unlicensed Handyman Requirement

What the Future Holds

It’s impossible to know what future laws will go into effect, but one thing is for sure: it gets more and more difficult to be a landlord every year.

Other good news is that rental properties continue to hold their value and appreciate even in the difficult interest rate environment we experienced all through last year.

As long as you learn the new laws and abide by them, California is still a great place to own rental property!

source

Rules and Regulations Governing California Landlord – Tenant Laws – California Landlord / Tenant Laws

The Truth News — Sun, 04 Feb 2024 20:24:22 +0000

Rules and Regulations Governing California Landlord – Tenant Laws

Below is a summary of rental laws in California. This article is researched and cited according to the Official California Civil Code, however, it is very important that every landlord and property manager review their state and local laws and speak with an attorney in their state for further guidance and clarification.

The California Civil Code and other reputable municipal sources were used to research this information. Resource links to the California Civil Code on Landlord-Tenant Laws and the California tenant’s handbook have been included for your convenience.

Rental laws are amended and updated by state legislation, you are advised to speak with a local housing authority and licensed attorney that specializes in landlord-tenant laws in California for a detailed interpretation of the rental laws that affect you. This article is an educational reference and does not constitute legal advice.

OFFICIAL STATE RESOURCES FOR LANDLORD-TENANT LAWS IN CALIFORNIA

California Civil Code – Hiring of Real Property Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1940-1954.1
California Civil Code – Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1961 to 1995.340
California Tenants: A Guide to Residential Tenants’ and Landlords’ Rights and Responsibilities

Lochner v. New York The general right to make a contract in relation to his business is part of the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment, and this includes the right to purchase and sell labor, except as controlled by the State in the legitimate exercise of its police power.Lochner v. New York The general right to make a contract in relation to his business is part of the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment, and this includes the right to purchase and sell labor, except as controlled by the State in the legitimate exercise of its police power.

“Right of protecting property, declared inalienable by constitution, is not mere right to protect it by individual force, but right to protect it by law of land, and force of body politic.” Billings v. Hall (1857), 7 C. 1.

“Constitution of this state declares, among inalienable rights of each citizen, that of acquiring, possessing and protecting property. This is one of primary objects of government, is guaranteed by constitution, and cannot be impaired by legislation.” Billings v. Hall (1857), 7 C. 1.

LAWS ABOUT SECURITY DEPOSITS

Max Security Deposit Amount: (Cal. Civ. Code § 1950.5)

Equal to 2 months rent for an unfurnished property
Equal to 3 months rent for a furnished property

Nonrefundable Security Deposit: Are not allowed (Cal. Civ. Code § 1950.5m)

Additional Move-In Fees:

Application screening fee – A landlord might charge you an application screening fee to cover the cost of obtaining information about you, like checking references and ordering a credit report. The application screening fee is not part of the security deposit. (Cal. Civ. Code § 1950.6)

New tenant processing fee – A landlord might charge you a fee to reimburse the landlord for the costs of processing you as a new tenant. For example, at the beginning of the tenancy, the landlord might charge you for providing application forms, listing the unit for rent, interviewing and screening you, and similar purposes. These kinds of fees are part of the security deposit, and may be refundable. (Cal. Civ. Code § 1950.5(b))

Security Deposit Refund Timeline: 21 days after vacancy. (Cal. Civ. Code § 1950.5g)

Move-In Inspection: No state law.

Move-Out Inspection: A landlord is required to notify the tenant in writing about his right to request a pre-move-out inspection at a reasonable time prior to a lease termination.

The pre-move-out inspection will take place prior to any final inspection a landlord will make on the vacated premise. A pre-move-out inspection gives the landlord an opportunity to point out potential security deposit deductions and allows the renter reasonable time to remedy the identified deficiencies. (Cal. Civ. Code § 1950.5f)

Legal Use of Security Deposit Funds:

Unpaid rent
Damages beyond normal wear and tear, by a renter or guest of the renter
Cleaning fees associated with returning the property to it’s pre-move in condition
Restore, repair or return the property to its pre-move in condition according to the lease agreement. (Cal. Civ. Code § 1950.5(b))

Failure to Comply with Security Deposit Laws: If a landlord mishandles a security deposit or fails to comply with security deposit laws, he may be required to pay the tenant twice the amount of the security, in addition to actual damages. (Cal. Civ. Code § 1950.5)

Additional CA Security Deposit Laws:

Tenants must receive by first-class mail, postage prepaid, a copy of an itemized statement for any deductions, and the return of any remaining portion of the security deposit. (Cal. Civ. Code § 1950.5)
Along with the itemized statement, the landlord shall also include copies of documents showing charges incurred and deducted by the landlord to repair or clean the premises. (Cal. Civ. Code § 1950.5(g(2)))
A tenant can request that a security deposit refund be returned electronically to a bank account or financial institution. (Cal. Civ. Code § 1950.5(g(1)))
A tenant can request that the itemized account of deductions be delivered via email (Cal. Civ. Code § 1950.5(g(1)))

LAWS ABOUT RENTAL APPLICATIONS

Application Costs: A landlord may only charge an application fee that covers the actual out-of-pocket costs of gathering information for tenant screening – including credit and background reports and the reasonable value of time spent acquiring and reviewing screening data. (Cal. Civ. Code § 1950.6b)

LAWS ABOUT RENT

Increases: Landlords must provide 30 days notice if the rent increase is less than 10 percent. If the rent increase is more than 10 percent, 60 days notice is required. (Cal. Civ. Code §§ 827(b)(2-3))

Maximum charge: No state statute for maximum rent, unless the property is under local rent control jurisdiction.

Grace Period: Rent is due at the end of the month unless otherwise stated in your lease or rental agreement. A landlord can require rent be due on any day in a month as long as it says so in the lease agreement. (Cal. Civ. Code § 1947)

Late Fees: Allowed if specified in the lease, are “reasonable” and follow local rent control laws. (Handbook p. 30)

Insufficient Funds: Equal to the actual bank fee. Or a landlord can charge a flat “service” fee which is $25 for the first occurrence, and $35 for each occurrence thereafter. (Cal. Civ. Code § 1719).

Partial Rent Payments: Landlords are allowed to take the partial payment and still give a tenant an eviction notice if necessary. (Handbook, p. 30)

Payment Methods: A landlord cannot allow all rents be paid via electronic funds transfer only. They must allow tenants to pay rent by at least one form of payment that is not cash or electronic funds transfer. (Cal. Civ. Code § 1947.3)

LAWS ABOUT THE LEASE

Discrimination: Landlords are not allowed to ask any tenants or applicants about their immigration or citizenship status. Landlords are required to follow federal requirements about discrimination and may request information and documentation to determine the financial qualifications of a prospective tenant. (Cal. Civ. Code § 1940.3)

Lease Terms: Unless designated in writing, rental terms are assumed to be a month to month tenancy. (Cal. Civ. Code § 1943)

Renters Insurance: Landlords can require renters obtain renters insurance if they own a waterbed to cover possible water damage. (Cal. Civ. Code § 1940.5(a))

Lease Termination: California requires the following notice terms be met depending on the length of tenancy or the reason for termination:

Month-to-month lease, under one year: 30 days notice required by the landlord or the tenant (Cal. Civ. Code § 1946)
Month-to-month lease, over one year: 60 days notice (Cal. Civ. Code § 1946.1)
Fixed end date lease: No notice required.

Lease Termination Due to Sale of Property: A landlord can terminate a month-to-month tenancy with 30 days notice after the sale of property if certain conditions are met. A landlord cannot terminate a fix-term lease. (Cal. Civ. Code § 1946.1)

Renewals: If the lessor accepts rent from a tenant after a lease term has expired, it is thought to have renewed under the previous terms, unless the lease agreement states otherwise. (Cal. Civ. Code § 1945)

Evictions: If the tenant doesn’t voluntarily move out after the landlord has properly given the required notice to the tenant, the landlord can evict the tenant. In order to evict the tenant, the landlord must file an unlawful detainer lawsuit in superior court. (Handbook, p. 72)

Occupancy Limits: In order to prevent overcrowding of rental units, California has adopted the Uniform Housing Code’s occupancy requirements. A landlord can establish reasonable standards for the number of people per square feet in a rental unit, but the landlord cannot use overcrowding as a pretext for refusing to rent to tenants with children if the landlord would rent to the same number of adults. (Handbook, p. 8)

No Smoking Policy: The lease agreement is allowed to prohibit cigarette smoking and other tobacco products, as defined in Section 104556 of the Health and Safety Code, in the dwelling unit, and other interior and exterior areas. (Cal. Civ. Code § 1947.5)

Threatening a Tenant: It is illegal to use, or threaten to use, force, willful threats, or menacing conduct that interferes with a tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment for the purpose of influencing a tenant to vacate.. (Cal. Civ. Code § 1940.2)

Required Landlord Disclosures in California

As a landlord in California, you must provide your tenants with certain disclosures before they can move into your property. The following are some of them.

The following are some of the disclosures that you must provide tenants with when renting out a property in the state of California according to California landlord tenant laws:

Disclosure about lead-based paint concentrations. This is mandatory for landlords renting out units built prior to 1978.
Disclosure of any known mold.
Disclosure in the rental agreement of how utility fees are applied and how they are going to be shared among tenants in a multi-family unit.
Disclosure of asbestos. This is only mandatory for landlords with buildings built before 1979.
Disclosure of possible drug contamination where remediation is yet to be completed.
Disclosure of your tenant’s right to access the sex offender registry.
Disclosure of any planned future demolition that will have an impact on a tenancy.
Disclosure about bed bug infestation. In doing so, you must use a specific language as outlined under California law (Civ. Code §§ 1954.603).
Written information regarding bed bugs using language specified in Civ. Code §§ 1954.603.
Documentation regarding any known mold.
Disclosure on how utility fees are going to be split among renters in a multi-unit dwelling.
Knowledge of asbestos for landlords renting out units built prior to 1979.
Disclosure of any known information regarding drug contamination.
Disclosure of the tenant’s right to have access to the sex offender registry.
Providing the landlord’s contact information to the tenant

California Landlord Rights & Responsibilities

According to landlord tenant laws, landlords in California have the following rights. A right to:

Enter rented the rental unit to perform needed or requested responsibilities.
Evict a tenant for failing to observe the terms of the lease agreement.
Ask a tenant to pay a security deposit prior to moving into the rental unit.
Penalize a tenant for breaking their lease agreement early, especially if the reason for doing so is not legally justified.
Charge reasonable late fees as long as they are outlined in the lease or rental agreement.

The following are some of the responsibilities you have as a California landlord.

Give at least 24 hours advance notice prior to entering an occupied rental unit.
Provide your tenant with certain mandatory disclosures.
Not to discriminate against your tenant based on race, color, religion, sex, nationality, ancestry, marital status, or any other protected class.
Raise rent in accordance with AB 1483 of the Tenant Protection Act.
Abide by California security deposit law.
Follow the proper eviction process when evicting a tenant from their rental unit.
Respond to repair requests in a “reasonable” amount of time. This time is normally interpreted as 30 days (or sooner for emergency situations).

LAWS ABOUT LANDLORD RESPONSIBILITIES

Notice for Entry: Tenants must receive reasonable advance notice in writing before the landlord or landlord’s agent can enter a rental unit. The notice must state the date, approximate time and purpose of entry. Advance notice is not required for an emergency, when a tenant has moved or abandoned the property, if the tenant and landlord agree to entry to make repairs or supply services, or if the tenant is present and consents to the entry at that time. (Cal. Civ. Code § 1954)

Implied Warranty of Habitability: A rental unit must be fit to live in; that is, it must be habitable. In legal terms, “habitable” means that the rental unit is fit for occupation by human beings and that it substantially complies with state and local building and health codes that materially affect tenants’ health and safety. (Cal. Civ. Code § 1941)

Required Amenities: A building will be deemed uninhabitable if it does not have the following amenities and characteristics –

Effective waterproofing and weather protection of roof and exterior wall, including unbroken windows and doors.
Plumbing or gas facilities, maintained in good working order
A water supply that is capable of producing hot and cold water, with appropriate fixtures and connected to a sewage disposal system
Heating facilities, maintained in good working order
Electrical lighting, with wiring and electrical equipment, maintained in good working order
Building, grounds, and property that is kept clean, sanitary, and free from all accumulations of debris, filth, rubbish, garbage, rodents, and vermin.
An adequate number of garbage receptacles, in clean condition and good repair. The landlord must provide serviceable receptacles in good condition if they are under his control throughout the lease.
Floors, stairways, and railing maintained in good repair

(Cal. Civ. Code § 1941.1)

Heat/Water Requirements: Landlords must provide Plumbing or gas facilities, maintained in good working order; a water supply that is capable of producing hot and cold water, with appropriate fixtures and connected to a sewage disposal system; and heating facilities, maintained in good working order. (Cal. Civ. Code § 1941.1)

Security Requirements: Landlords are required to install and maintain-

An operable deadbolt on each main swinging entry door of a dwelling unit
Operable window security or locking devices on windows designed to be opened (some exclusions apply)
Locking mechanisms on exterior doors that provide access to common areas of multifamily developments.

(Cal. Civ. Code § 1941.3)

Utility Billing By the Landlord: California law does not specifically regulate how landlords bill tenants for water and sewer utilities. the landlord must reach an agreement with you, which must be in writing, about who will pay for the shared utilities. (Cal. Civ. Code § 1940.9)

LAWS ABOUT PROPERTY MAINTENANCE AND REPAIRS

Tenant Maintenance Responsibilities: Tenants are required to meet the following maintenance responsibilities under California Law, unless otherwise agreed upon in writing with the landlord –

(1) To keep that part of the premises which he occupies and uses clean and sanitary as the condition of the premises permits.
(2) To dispose from his dwelling unit of all rubbish, garbage and other waste, in a clean and sanitary manner.
(3) To properly use and operate all electrical, gas and plumbing fixtures and keep them as clean and sanitary as their condition permits.
(4) Not to permit any person on the premises, with his permission, to willfully or wantonly destroy, deface, damage, impair or remove any part of the structure or dwelling unit or the facilities, equipment, or appurtenances thereto, nor himself do any such thing.
(5) To occupy the premises as his abode, utilizing portions thereof for living, sleeping, cooking or dining purposes only which were respectively designed or intended to be used for such occupancies.

SECTION 1941.2 “TENANT’S DUTY OF HABITABILITY”

(Cal. Civ. Code § 1941.2)

Repair and Deduct: If a tenant notifies a landlord of required repairs that make the property inhabitable, and which are not the fault of the tenant, and the landlord does not act to the notice within 30 days, the tenant can perform the repairs himself and deduct the expenses from rent, as long as the repair expenses do not exceed one month’s rent. A tenant is only allowed to do this twice in a 12-month period. (Cal. Civ. Code § 1942)

LEGAL DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS

Murders/Death: Landlords and property managers must tell prospective tenants if a prior occupant died in the rental unit within the past three years. (Cal. Civ. Code § 1710.2)

Demolition Permit: A property owner must inform all current or future tenants when he has applied for a demolition permit. He must give written notice to prospective tenants before entering into a rental agreement with the tenant. The notice must state the earliest approximate dates that the owner expects the demolition to occur and that the tenancy will end. (Cal. Civ. Code § 1940.6)

Methamphetamine Contamination: If a property is found to be contaminated with methamphetamine, a local health officer must issue an order prohibiting the use or occupancy of the property to the property owner and all occupants. The owner must give written notice of the health officer’s order and a copy of it to potential tenants who have completed an application to rent the contaminated property. A tenant may cancel their rental agreement if the owner does not meet these requirements. (Health and Safety Code Sections 25400.10-25400.46)

Pest Control: Landlords must provide notice to tenants regarding the use of pest control on the structure by a registered structural pest control company pursuant to
Section 8538 of the Business and Professions Code, if a contract for periodic pest control service has been executed and provide notice prior to each application. (Business and Professions Code Section 8538, Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1940.8–1940.8.5)

Asbestos: Residential property built before 1981 may contain asbestos. A leading reference for landlords recommends that landlords make asbestos disclosures to tenants whenever asbestos is discovered in the rental property. (Handbook p. 23)

Former Military Ordnance Location: The landlord of a residential dwelling unit who has actual knowledge of any former federal or state ordnance locations in the neighborhood area shall give written notice to a prospective tenant of that knowledge prior to the execution of a rental agreement. In cases of tenancies in existence on January 1, 1990, this written notice shall be given to tenants as soon as practicable thereafter. (Cal. Civ. Code § 1940.7)

Mold: Landlord must disclose, prior to lease signing, knowledge of any mold in the dwelling that exceeds safety limits or poses a health concern. Landlord must distribute a State Department of Health Services consumer handbook once it is developed and approved. (Cal. Health & Safety Code § 26147 and Cal. Civ. Code § 1941.7)

Lead Paint: Federal Law requires all landlords to include a “Lead Warning Statement” in their lease for buildings built before 1978 about lead-based paint and/or potential hazards. Additionally, landlords are required to provide renters with an EPA-approved information pamphlet about lead-based paint and lead-based paint hazards.(Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act, Title X)

Sexual Offenders: Landlords are required to include the following language in the lease:

“Notice: Pursuant to Section 290.46 of the Penal Code, information about specified registered sex offenders is made available to the public via an Internet Web site maintained by the Department of Justice at www.meganslaw.ca.gov. Depending on an offender’s criminal history, this information will include either the address at which the offender resides or the community of residence and zip code in which he or she resides.” (Cal. Civ. Code § 2079.10a)

RANDOM TENANT LAWS

Political Signs: Landlords cannot prohibit tenants from posting political signs as long as they meet local guidelines, are under 6 square feet in size, and are removed within a timely manner. (Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1940.4)

Waterbeds: A landlord must allow a tenant to install a water if the unit that received a valid certificate for occupancy after 1973 as long as certain conditions are met. (Cal. Civ. Code § 1940.5)

Telephone Line Access: Building owners are required to install and maintain at least one telephone jack and place and maintain necessary telephone wiring as established by the California Electrical Code and Public Utilities Commission. (Cal. Civ. Code § 1941.4)

Declaw/Devocalize Animals: Landlords cannot require their tenants’ pets to be declawed or devocalized. (Cal. Civ. Code § 1942.7)

California Tenant Rights and Responsibilities

These are some of the rights tenants have in the state of California.

A right to:

Break the lease for certain legally justified reasons, such as, when starting an active military service or for habitability violations.
Be provided with proper notice prior to entry by the landlord.
Live in peace and quiet enjoyment.
Continue occupying the property until the proper eviction process has been followed.
Reside in a habitable property.
Have repairs completed within a reasonable time frame after service of proper notice.
Exercise their housing rights, such as filing a health or safety report.
A fair tenant screening exercise.
A fair and judicial eviction process.
Be provided with certain disclosures.

When it comes to responsibilities, they are as follows:

Serve the landlord with proper notice prior to moving out.
Abide by all requirements of the lease agreement.
Respect the peace and quiet of other tenants by keeping noise levels down.
Let the landlord know of needed repairs within a reasonable time frame.
Pay rent to the landlord on time

California Landlord Rights and Responsibilities

California landlords have certain rights under the residential tenancies act. A right to:

Require tenants to sign a lease prior to moving in.
Enforce the terms of the lease or rental agreement
Evict a tenant for violating the terms of the agreement, such as nonpayment of rent.
Require tenants to pay a security deposit upon signing the rental agreement.
Enter the tenant’s rented premises after serving the proper notice.
Terminate a periodic lease agreement after providing them with the proper notice.
Be notified when a tenant is looking to leave town for an extended period of time.

The list of responsibilities that California landlords have includes the following.

A responsibility to:

Abide by all terms of the lease agreement.
Notify the tenant prior to entering their rented premises.
Notify the tenant prior to terminating their periodic agreement.
Abide by the state’s security deposit laws.
Ensure the unit abides by the state’s safety, health, and building codes.
Maintain peace and quiet.
Provide the tenant with the aforementioned mandatory disclosures.

Overview of the California Landlord Tenant Laws

Landlord’s Right to Entry

As a landlord, you have a right to enter your tenant’s rental property under landlord tenant laws. Be that as it may, you have certain obligations that you must abide by when doing so. Firstly, you must provide the tenant with a 24-hour advance notice prior to entering.

California landlords must have a legitimate reason for entry, such as, to inspect the property, to show the unit to prospective tenants, or court order. Finally, you must enter the tenant’s rented unit during normal business hours or as agreed.

The only exception to these rules is if there is an emergency.

Rent Increase

As a landlord, you must abide by AB 1483 – the Tenant Protection Act. The act limits the increase of rental rates based on inflation. It also establishes jurisdictions for local rent control.

According to the act, you must give your tenant proper written notice prior when raising the rent. If the raise is less than 10% of one month’s rent, you must give the tenant a 30 days notice.

If it is greater than 10% of one months rent, you must serve them a 60 days advance written notice.

Housing Discrimination

You have an obligation to treat your tenants equally and fairly. The Fair Housing Act prohibits any form of discrimination on the basis of a tenant’s race, color, religion, sex, familial status, nationality, and disability.

The state of California fair housing law also extends additional protection to tenants based on sexual orientation, primary language, marital status, immigration status, gender identity, mental disability, citizenship status, and income source.

Evictions in California

You can evict a tenant in California from their rental unit for the following reasons.

Unpaid of rent.
Violation of the lease or rental agreement.
When the lease comes to an end.
Foreclosure of the rental property.
Illegal use of the rental property.

It’s illegal to evict tenants on the basis of a protected class or as a retaliatory tactic. If the landlord fails to follow these eviction laws it can result in legal issues.

Warranty of Habitability

Landlords have a duty to keep their rental property in a safe and habitable condition. For instance, ensuring that the unit has running hot and cold water, and working smoke and carbon monoxide detectors.

In addition, you must respond to repair and maintenance issues within 30 days of being notified. Specifically, you must make necessary repairs within 30 days of getting written notice.

You have a responsibility to provide your tenant with a livable unit. Among other things, it must have the following amenities.

Hot and cold running water.
A working HVAC system.
Properly working plumbing and sanitation systems.
Safe stairs and railings.
Working smoke detectors.
A locking mailbox.
No mold.

If the landlord fails to provide these basics to the tenant, then the California tenant may break the rental agreement legally.

Evictions

Landlords have a right to evict a tenant for certain justifiable reasons, such as nonpayment of rent, a lease violation, and illegal activity. It is your duty to ensure the process follows the proper eviction procedure.

The following is a basic overview of the process you must follow when evicting a tenant in California.

Serve an eviction notice.
File a lawsuit if the matter remains unresolved.
Serve a copy of the summons and complaint to the tenant.
Attend the court hearing and await judgment.
Obtain a writ of possession and have the tenant evicted from the property.

Security Deposits

California law also obligates landlords to abide by certain rules when it comes to the collection of security deposits. Including:

The maximum amount to collect. You must only ask for a security deposit within two months’ rent.
What deductions you can make. You can only make deductions in certain situations. such as if the tenant moves out without clearing utility payments or for causing damage exceeding normal wear and tear.
When to return the deposit. You must return the deposit within 21 days of the tenant moving out.

Lease Termination

In a fixed-term lease, a California tenant may be able to break their lease early for the following reasons.

Active military duty.
Uninhabitable unit.
Landlord harassment.
Early lease termination clause.

Both parties, landlord and tenant, can end a rental agreement after serving proper notice. For instance, to terminate a month-to-month lease, a 30-day notice is required. For instance a 30-day notice is required to terminate a month-to-month lease.

However, a tenant must have a legally justified reason to terminate a fixed-term lease, such as active military duty, landlord harassment, and safety or health violations.

RESOURCES

EPA Approved Lead Disclosure Information on Lead-Based Paint/Hazards – SAMPLE

Section 8 Housing Guide

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development- Tenants Rights, Laws & Protections: California

Laws governing rental properties, landlords and tenants are primarily found in the California Civil Code (Cal. Civ. Code) Title 5 Chapter 2.

Access to the entire California Civil Code is provided by the California State Legislature’s website. Go to the California Civil Code.

This summary of landlord-tenant laws is provided to you by Rentec Direct, LLC and is thought to be true and accurate at the time of publication. It not intended to be used as legal advice for your particular problem. Please note that changes may occur and this publication may not reflect the most recent updates to the law.

Please consult an attorney familiar with landlord-tenant law in your state for any legal advice. source source source

Cal. Civ. Code § 1941

Current through the 2023 Legislative Session.

Section 1941 – Duty to put building in condition fit for human occupancy and repair subsequent dilapidations

Section Nineteen Hundred and Forty-one. The lessor of a building intended for the occupation of human beings must, in the absence of an agreement to the contrary, put it into a condition fit for such occupation, and repair all subsequent dilapidations thereof, which render it untenantable, except such as are mentioned in section nineteen hundred and twenty-nine.

Ca. Civ. Code § 1941

Amended by Code Amendments 1873-74, Ch. 612.

1941.1.

(a) A dwelling shall be deemed untenantable for purposes of Section 1941 if it substantially lacks any of the following affirmative standard characteristics or is a residential unit described in Section 17920.3 or 17920.10 of the Health and Safety Code:

(1) Effective waterproofing and weather protection of roof and exterior walls, including unbroken windows and doors.

(2) Plumbing or gas facilities that conformed to applicable law in effect at the time of installation, maintained in good working order.

(3) A water supply approved under applicable law that is under the control of the tenant, capable of producing hot and cold running water, or a system that is under the control of the landlord, that produces hot and cold running water, furnished to appropriate fixtures, and connected to a sewage disposal system approved under applicable law.

(4) Heating facilities that conformed with applicable law at the time of installation, maintained in good working order.

(5) Electrical lighting, with wiring and electrical equipment that conformed with applicable law at the time of installation, maintained in good working order.

(6) Building, grounds, and appurtenances at the time of the commencement of the lease or rental agreement, and all areas under control of the landlord, kept in every part clean, sanitary, and free from all accumulations of debris, filth, rubbish, garbage, rodents, and vermin.

(7) An adequate number of appropriate receptacles for garbage and rubbish, in clean condition and good repair at the time of the commencement of the lease or rental agreement, with the landlord providing appropriate serviceable receptacles thereafter and being responsible for the clean condition and good repair of the receptacles under his or her control.

(8) Floors, stairways, and railings maintained in good repair.

(9) A locking mail receptacle for each residential unit in a residential hotel, as required by Section 17958.3 of the Health and Safety Code. This subdivision shall become operative on July 1, 2008.

(b) Nothing in this section shall be interpreted to prohibit a tenant or owner of rental properties from qualifying for a utility energy savings assistance program, or any other program assistance, for heating or hot water system repairs or replacement, or a combination of heating and hot water system repairs or replacements, that would achieve energy savings.

(Amended by Stats. 2012, Ch. 600, Sec. 1. (AB 1124) Effective January 1, 2013.)

1940.8.

A landlord of a residential dwelling unit shall provide each new tenant that occupies the unit with a copy of the notice provided by a registered structural pest control company pursuant to Section 8538 of the Business and Professions Code, if a contract for periodic pest control service has been executed.

(Added by Stats. 2000, Ch. 234, Sec. 2. Effective January 1, 2001.)

1940.8.5

(a) For purposes of this section, the following terms have the following meanings:
- (1) “Adjacent dwelling unit” means a dwelling unit that is directly beside, above, or below a particular dwelling unit.
- (2) “Authorized agent” means an individual, organization, or other entity that has entered into an agreement with a landlord to act on the landlord’s behalf in relation to the management of a residential rental property.
- (3) “Broadcast application” means spreading pesticide over an area greater than two square feet.
- (4) “Electronic delivery” means delivery of a document by electronic means to the electronic address at or through which a tenant, landlord, or authorized agent has authorized electronic delivery.
- (5) “Landlord” means an owner of residential rental property.
- (6) “Pest” means a living organism that causes damage to property or economic loss, or transmits or produces diseases.
- (7) “Pesticide” means any substance, or mixture of substances, that is intended to be used for controlling, destroying, repelling, or mitigating any pest or organism, excluding antimicrobial pesticides as defined by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. Sec. 136(mm)).
- (8) “Licensed pest control operator” means anyone licensed by the state to apply pesticides.
(b)
- (1) A landlord or authorized agent that applies any pesticide to a dwelling unit without a licensed pest control operator shall provide a tenant of that dwelling unit and, if making broadcast applications, or using total release foggers or aerosol sprays, any tenant in an adjacent dwelling unit that could reasonably be impacted by the pesticide use with written notice that contains the following statements and information using words with common and everyday meaning:
  - (A) The pest or pests to be controlled.
  - (B) The name and brand of the pesticide product proposed to be used.
  - (C) “State law requires that you be given the following information:CAUTION – PESTICIDES ARE TOXIC CHEMICALS. The California Department of Pesticide Regulation and the United States Environmental Protection Agency allow the unlicensed use of certain pesticides based on existing scientific evidence that there are no appreciable risks if proper use conditions are followed or that the risks are outweighed by the benefits. The degree of risk depends upon the degree of exposure, so exposure should be minimized.If within 24 hours following application of a pesticide, a person experiences symptoms similar to common seasonal illness comparable to influenza, the person should contact a physician, appropriate licensed health care provider, or the California Poison Control System (1-800-222-1222).For further information, contact any of the following: for Health Questions – the County Health Department (telephone number) and for Regulatory Information – the Department of Pesticide Regulation (916-324-4100).”
  - (D) The approximate date, time, and frequency with which the pesticide will be applied.
  - (E) The following notification:
    “The approximate date, time, and frequency of this pesticide application is subject to change.”
- (2) At least 24 hours prior to application of the pesticide to the dwelling unit, the landlord or authorized agent shall provide the notice to the tenant of the dwelling unit, as well as any tenants in adjacent units that are required to be notified pursuant to paragraph (1), in at least one of the following ways:
  - (A) First-class mail.
  - (B) Personal delivery to the tenant, someone of suitable age and discretion at the premises, or under the usual entry door of the premises.
  - (C) Electronic delivery, if an electronic mailing address has been provided by the tenant.
  - (D) Posting a written notice in a conspicuous place at the unit entry in a manner in which a reasonable person would discover the notice.
- (3) (A) Upon receipt of written notification, the tenant may agree in writing, or if notification was electronically delivered, the tenant may agree through electronic delivery, to allow the landlord or authorized agent to apply a pesticide immediately or at an agreed upon time.
  - (B)
    - (i) Prior to receipt of written notification, the tenant and the landlord or authorized agent may agree orally to an immediate pesticide application if a tenant requests that the pesticide be applied before 24-hour advance notice can be given. The oral agreement shall include the name and brand of the pesticide product proposed to be used.
    - (ii) With respect to a tenant entering into an oral agreement for immediate pesticide application, the landlord or authorized agent, no later than the time of pesticide application, shall leave the written notice specified in paragraph (1) in a conspicuous place in the dwelling unit, or at the entrance of the unit in a manner in which a reasonable person would discover the notice.
    - (iii) If any tenants in adjacent dwelling units are also required to be notified pursuant to this subdivision, the landlord or authorized agent shall provide those tenants with this notice as soon as practicable after the oral agreement is made authorizing immediate pesticide application, but in no case later than commencement of application of the pesticide.
- (4)
  - (A) This subdivision shall not be construed to require an association, as defined in Section 4080, to provide notice of pesticide use in a separate interest, as defined in Section 4185, within a common interest development, as defined in Section 4100.
  - (B) Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), an association, as defined in Section 4080, that has taken title to a separate interest, as defined in Section 4185, shall provide notification to tenants as specified in this subdivision.
(c)
- (1) A landlord or authorized agent that applies any pesticide to a common area without a licensed pest control operator, excluding routine pesticide applications described in subdivision (d), shall post written notice in a conspicuous place in the common area in which a pesticide is to be applied that contains the following statements and information using words with common and everyday meaning:
  - (A) The pest or pests to be controlled.
  - (B) The name and brand of the pesticide product proposed to be used.
  - (C) “State law requires that you be given the following information:CAUTION – PESTICIDES ARE TOXIC CHEMICALS. The California Department of Pesticide Regulation and the United States Environmental Protection Agency allow the unlicensed use of certain pesticides based on existing scientific evidence that there are no appreciable risks if proper use conditions are followed or that the risks are outweighed by the benefits. The degree of risk depends upon the degree of exposure, so exposure should be minimized.If within 2 hours following application of a pesticide, a person experiences symptoms similar to common seasonal illness comparable to influenza, the person should contact a physician, appropriate licensed health care provider, or the California Poison Control System (1-800-222-1222).For further information, contact any of the following: for Health Questions – the County Health Department (telephone number) and for Regulatory Information – the Department of Pesticide Regulation (916-324-4100).”
  - (D) The approximate date, time, and frequency with which the pesticide will be applied.
- (2)
  - (A) The notice shall be posted before a pesticide application in a common area and shall remain posted for at least 24 hours after the pesticide is applied.
  - (B) Landlords and their authorized agents are not liable for any notice removed from a common area without the knowledge or consent of the landlord or authorized agent.
  - (C) If the pest poses an immediate threat to health and safety, thereby making compliance with notification prior to the pesticide application required in subparagraph (A) unreasonable, a landlord or authorized agent shall post the notification as soon as practicable, but not later than one hour after the pesticide is applied.
- (3) If a common area lacks a suitable place to post a notice, then the landlord shall provide the notice to each dwelling unit in at least one of the following ways:
  - (A) First-class mail.
  - (B) Personal delivery to the tenant, someone of suitable age and discretion at the premises, or under the usual entry door of the premises.
  - (C) Electronic delivery, if an electronic mailing address has been provided by the tenant.
  - (D) Posting a written notice in a conspicuous place at the unit entry in a manner in which a reasonable person would discover the notice.
- (4) This subdivision shall not be construed to require any landlord or authorized agent, or an association, as defined in Section 4080, to provide notice of pesticide use in common areas within a common interest development, as defined in Section 4100.
(d)
- (1) A landlord or authorized agent that routinely applies pesticide in a common area on a set schedule without a licensed pest control operator shall provide a tenant in each dwelling unit with written notice that contains the following statements and information using words with common and everyday meaning:
  - (A) The pest or pests to be controlled.
  - (B) The name and brand of the pesticide product proposed to be used.
  - (C) “State law requires that you be given the following information:CAUTION – PESTICIDES ARE TOXIC CHEMICALS. The California Department of Pesticide Regulation and the United States Environmental Protection Agency allow the unlicensed use of certain pesticides based on existing scientific evidence that there are no appreciable risks if proper use conditions are followed or that the risks are outweighed by the benefits. The degree of risk depends upon the degree of exposure, so exposure should be minimized.If within 24 hours following application of a pesticide, a person experiences symptoms similar to common seasonal illness comparable to influenza, the person should contact a physician, appropriate licensed health care provider, or the California Poison Control System (1-800-222-1222).For further information, contact any of the following: for Health Questions – the County Health Department (telephone number) and for Regulatory Information – the Department of Pesticide Regulation (916-324-4100).”
  - (D) The schedule pursuant to which the pesticide will be routinely applied.
- (2)
  - (A) The landlord or authorized agent shall provide the notice to both of the following:
    - (i) Existing tenants prior to the initial pesticide application.
    - (ii) Each new tenant prior to entering into a lease agreement.
  - (B) The landlord or authorized agent shall provide the notice to the tenant in at least one of the following ways:
    - (i) First-class mail.
    - (ii) Personal delivery to the tenant, someone of suitable age and discretion at the premises, or under the usual entry door of the premises.
    - (iii) Electronic delivery, if an electronic mailing address has been provided by the tenant.
    - (iv) Posting a written notice in a conspicuous place at the unit entry in a manner in which a reasonable person would discover the notice.
  - (C) If the pesticide to be used is changed, a landlord or authorized agent shall provide a new notice pursuant to paragraph (1).
  - (D) This subdivision shall not be construed to require any landlord or authorized agent, or an association, as defined in Section 4080, to provide notice of pesticide use in common areas within a common interest development, as defined in Section 4100.
(e) Nothing in this section abrogates the responsibility of a registered structural pest control company to abide by the notification requirements of Section 8538 of the Business and Professions Code.
(f) Nothing in this section authorizes a landlord or authorized agent to enter a tenant’s dwelling unit in violation of Section 1954.
(g) If a tenant is provided notice in compliance with this section, a landlord or authorized agent is not required to provide additional information, and the information shall be deemed adequate to inform the tenant regarding the application of pesticides.

(Added by Stats. 2015, Ch. 278, Sec. 2. (SB 328) Effective January 1, 2016.)

1940.9.

(a) If the landlord does not provide separate gas and electric meters for each tenant’s dwelling unit so that each tenant’s meter measures only the electric or gas service to that tenant’s dwelling unit and the landlord or his or her agent has knowledge that gas or electric service provided through a tenant’s meter serves an area outside the tenant’s dwelling unit, the landlord, prior to the inception of the tenancy or upon discovery, shall explicitly disclose that condition to the tenant and shall do either of the following:
- (1) Execute a mutual written agreement with the tenant for payment by the tenant of the cost of the gas or electric service provided through the tenant’s meter to serve areas outside the tenant’s dwelling unit.
- (2) Make other arrangements, as are mutually agreed in writing, for payment for the gas or electric service provided through the tenant’s meter to serve areas outside the tenant’s dwelling unit. These arrangements may include, but are not limited to, the landlord becoming the customer of record for the tenant’s meter, or the landlord separately metering and becoming the customer of record for the area outside the tenant’s dwelling unit.
(b) If a landlord fails to comply with subdivision (a), the aggrieved tenant may bring an action in a court of competent jurisdiction. The remedies the court may order shall include, but are not limited to, the following:
- (1) Requiring the landlord to be made the customer of record with the utility for the tenant’s meter.
- (2) Ordering the landlord to reimburse the tenant for payments made by the tenant to the utility for service to areas outside of the tenant’s dwelling unit. Payments to be reimbursed pursuant to this paragraph shall commence from the date the obligation to disclose arose under subdivision (a).
(c) Nothing in this section limits any remedies available to a landlord or tenant under other provisions of this chapter, the rental agreement, or applicable statutory or common law.
(Added by Stats. 1989, Ch. 861, Sec. 1.)

SECTION 1941.2 “TENANT’S DUTY OF HABITABILITY”

A landlord may not be responsible for repairing damages or dilapidation if the tenant is in substantial violations of his/her affirmative obligation under the law. The tenant, in good faith, shall:

• Properly operate all electrical, gas and plumbing fixtures, and keep them clean and sanitary.

• Not “willfully or wantonly destroy, deface, damage or impair any part of the structure or dwelling unit or the facilities, equipment or appurtenances thereto,” nor permit any other person to do this.

• Only use parts of the dwelling “for living, sleeping, cooking or dining…which are respectively designed or intended to be used for such occupancies.”

• Dispose of “all rubbish, garbage and other waste, in a clean and sanitary manner.”

• Keep that part of the premises which she occupies clean and sanitary “as the condition of the premises permits.”

1941.3.

(a) On and after July 1, 1998, the landlord, or his or her agent, of a building intended for human habitation shall do all of the following:
- (1) Install and maintain an operable dead bolt lock on each main swinging entry door of a dwelling unit. The dead bolt lock shall be installed in conformance with the manufacturer’s specifications and shall comply with applicable state and local codes including, but not limited to, those provisions relating to fire and life safety and accessibility for the disabled. When in the locked position, the bolt shall extend a minimum of¹³/₁₆ of an inch in length beyond the strike edge of the door and protrude into the doorjamb.This section shall not apply to horizontal sliding doors. Existing dead bolts of at least one-half inch in length shall satisfy the requirements of this section. Existing locks with a thumb-turn deadlock that have a strike plate attached to the doorjamb and a latch bolt that is held in a vertical position by a guard bolt, a plunger, or an auxiliary mechanism shall also satisfy the requirements of this section. These locks, however, shall be replaced with a dead bolt at least ¹³/₁₆ of an inch in length the first time after July 1, 1998, that the lock requires repair or replacement.Existing doors which cannot be equipped with dead bolt locks shall satisfy the requirements of this section if the door is equipped with a metal strap affixed horizontally across the midsection of the door with a dead bolt which extends ¹³/₁₆ of an inch in length beyond the strike edge of the door and protrudes into the doorjamb. Locks and security devices other than those described herein which are inspected and approved by an appropriate state or local government agency as providing adequate security shall satisfy the requirements of this section.
- (2) Install and maintain operable window security or locking devices for windows that are designed to be opened. Louvered windows, casement windows, and all windows more than 12 feet vertically or six feet horizontally from the ground, a roof, or any other platform are excluded from this subdivision.
- (3) Install locking mechanisms that comply with applicable fire and safety codes on the exterior doors that provide ingress or egress to common areas with access to dwelling units in multifamily developments. This paragraph does not require the installation of a door or gate where none exists on January 1, 1998.
  - (b) The tenant shall be responsible for notifying the owner or his or her authorized agent when the tenant becomes aware of an inoperable dead bolt lock or window security or locking device in the dwelling unit. The landlord, or his or her authorized agent, shall not be liable for a violation of subdivision (a) unless he or she fails to correct the violation within a reasonable time after he or she either has actual notice of a deficiency or receives notice of a deficiency.
  - (c) On and after July 1, 1998, the rights and remedies of tenant for a violation of this section by the landlord shall include those available pursuant to Sections 1942, 1942.4, and 1942.5, an action for breach of contract, and an action for injunctive relief pursuant to Section 526 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Additionally, in an unlawful detainer action, after a default in the payment of rent, a tenant may raise the violation of this section as an affirmative defense and shall have a right to the remedies provided by Section 1174.2 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
  - (d) A violation of this section shall not broaden, limit, or otherwise affect the duty of care owed by a landlord pursuant to existing law, including any duty that may exist pursuant to Section 1714. The delayed applicability of the requirements of subdivision (a) shall not affect a landlord’s duty to maintain the premises in safe condition.
  - (e) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect any authority of any public entity that may otherwise exist to impose any additional security requirements upon a landlord.
  - (f) This section shall not apply to any building which has been designated as historically significant by an appropriate local, state, or federal governmental jurisdiction.
  - (g) Subdivisions (a) and (b) shall not apply to any building intended for human habitation which is managed, directly or indirectly, and controlled by the Department of Transportation. This exemption shall not be construed to affect the duty of the Department of Transportation to maintain the premises of these buildings in a safe condition or abrogate any express or implied statement or promise of the Department of Transportation to provide secure premises. Additionally, this exemption shall not apply to residential dwellings acquired prior to July 1, 1997, by the Department of Transportation to complete construction of state highway routes 710 and 238 and related interchanges.

(Added by Stats. 1997, Ch. 537, Sec. 1. Effective January 1, 1998.)

1954.

(a) A landlord may enter the dwelling unit only in the following cases:

(1) In case of emergency.

(2) To make necessary or agreed repairs, decorations, alterations or improvements, supply necessary or agreed services, or exhibit the dwelling unit to prospective or actual purchasers, mortgagees, tenants, workers, or contractors or to make an inspection pursuant to subdivision (f) of Section 1950.5.

(3) When the tenant has abandoned or surrendered the premises.

(4) Pursuant to court order.

(5) For the purposes set forth in Chapter 2.5 (commencing with Section 1954.201).

(6) To comply with the provisions of Article 2.2 (commencing with Section 17973) of Chapter 5 of Part 1.5 of Division 13 of the Health and Safety Code.

(b) Except in cases of emergency or when the tenant has abandoned or surrendered the premises, entry may not be made during other than normal business hours unless the tenant consents to an entry during other than normal business hours at the time of entry.

(d) (1) Except as provided in subdivision (e), or as provided in paragraph (2) or (3), the landlord shall give the tenant reasonable notice in writing of his or her intent to enter and enter only during normal business hours. The notice shall include the date, approximate time, and purpose of the entry. The notice may be personally delivered to the tenant, left with someone of a suitable age and discretion at the premises, or, left on, near, or under the usual entry door of the premises in a manner in which a reasonable person would discover the notice. Twenty-four hours shall be presumed to be reasonable notice in absence of evidence to the contrary. The notice may be mailed to the tenant. Mailing of the notice at least six days prior to an intended entry is presumed reasonable notice in the absence of evidence to the contrary.

(2) If the purpose of the entry is to exhibit the dwelling unit to prospective or actual purchasers, the notice may be given orally, in person or by telephone, if the landlord or his or her agent has notified the tenant in writing within 120 days of the oral notice that the property is for sale and that the landlord or agent may contact the tenant orally for the purpose described above. Twenty-four hours is presumed reasonable notice in the absence of evidence to the contrary. The notice shall include the date, approximate time, and purpose of the entry. At the time of entry, the landlord or agent shall leave written evidence of the entry inside the unit.

(3) The tenant and the landlord may agree orally to an entry to make agreed repairs or supply agreed services. The agreement shall include the date and approximate time of the entry, which shall be within one week of the agreement. In this case, the landlord is not required to provide the tenant a written notice.

(e) No notice of entry is required under this section:

(1) To respond to an emergency.

(2) If the tenant is present and consents to the entry at the time of entry.

(3) After the tenant has abandoned or surrendered the unit.

(Amended by Stats. 2018, Ch. 445, Sec. 1. (SB 721) Effective January 1, 2019.)

8538.

(a) A registered structural pest control company shall provide the owner, or owner’s agent, and tenant of the premises for which the work is to be done with clear written notice which contains the following statements and information using words with common and everyday meaning:
- (1) The pest to be controlled.
- (2) The pesticide or pesticides proposed to be used and the active ingredient or ingredients.
- (3) “State law requires that you be given the following information: CAUTION—PESTICIDES ARE TOXIC CHEMICALS. Structural Pest Control Companies are registered and regulated by the Structural Pest Control Board, and apply pesticides which are registered and approved for use by the Department of Pesticide Regulation and the United States Environmental Protection Agency. Registration is granted when the state finds that, based on existing scientific evidence, there are no appreciable risks if proper use conditions are followed or that the risks are outweighed by the benefits. The degree of risk depends upon the degree of exposure, so exposure should be minimized.“If within 24 hours following application you experience symptoms similar to common seasonal illness comparable to the flu, contact your physician or poison control center (telephone number) and your pest control company immediately.” (This statement shall be modified to include any other symptoms of overexposure which are not typical of influenza.)“For further information, contact any of the following: Your Pest Control Company (telephone number); for Health Questions—the County Health Department (telephone number); for Application Information—the County Agricultural Commissioner (telephone number), and for Regulatory Information—the Structural Pest Control Board (telephone number and address).”
- (4) If a contract for periodic pest control has been executed, the frequency with which the treatment is to be done.
(b) In the case of Branch 1 applications, the notice prescribed by subdivision (a) shall be provided at least 48 hours prior to application unless fumigation follows inspection by less than 48 hours.
In the case of Branch 2 or Branch 3 registered company applications, the notice prescribed by subdivision (a) shall be provided no later than prior to application.
In either case, the notice shall be given to the owner, or owner’s agent, and tenant, if there is a tenant, in at least one of the following ways:
- (1) First-class or electronic mail, if an electronic mail address has been provided.
- (2) Posting in a conspicuous place on the real property.
- (3) Personal delivery.If the building is commercial or industrial, a notice shall be posted in a conspicuous place, unless the owner or owner’s agent objects, in addition to any other notification required by this section.The notice shall only be required to be provided at the time of the initial treatment if a contract for periodic service has been executed. If the pesticide to be used is changed, another notice shall be required to be provided in the manner previously set forth herein.
(c) Any person or licensee who, or registered company which, violates any provision of this section is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable as set forth in Section 8553.

(Amended by Stats. 2015, Ch. 303, Sec. 14. (AB 731) Effective January 1, 2016.)

Learn More about property and your rights below:

Property Rights and the Constitution – The General Nature of Property Rights

Landlord’s Right to Entry in California

Rules and Regulations Governing California Landlord – Tenant Laws – California Landlord / Tenant Laws

The Attorney’s Sworn Oath

“Civility” Oath Rule Adopted by Supreme Court

Lawyers’ Obligation of Candor to Opposing Parties and Third Parties

Code of Conduct for United States Judges

Suing for Misconduct – Know More of Your Rights

Rule 1.1 – Competence (DA REPRESENTS THE STATE)

Rule 1.2 – Assisting in a Crime

Rule 3.1 – Meritorious Claims & Contentions

Rule 3.4 – Fairness to Opposing Party and Council

Model Rule 3.8 pt.2 – Special Duties of Prosecutors

Learn More: ABA – Functions and Duties of the Prosecutor – Prosecution Conduct

Model Rule 4.1 – Truthfulness in Statements to Others

Model Rule 4.4 – Respect for the Rights of Others

Model Rule 5.2 Responsibilities of a Subordinate Lawyer

Model Rule 8.1 Bar Admission & Disciplinary Matters

Model Rule 8.2 – Judicial & Legal Officials

Model Rule 8.3 – Reporting Professional Misconduct

Model Rule 8.4 pt.1 – Lawyer Misconduct

ABA Formal Op. 493 pt.1 – Rule 8.4(g): Purpose, Scope & Application

Model Rule 8.4 pt.2 – Discrimination & Harassment

Attorney Ethics Rules – FOX 17 Know the Law

Property Rights and the Constitution – The General Nature of Property Rights

The Truth News — Mon, 23 Oct 2023 18:39:39 +0000

Property Rights and the Constitution

Lochner v. New York The general right to make a contract in relation to his business is part of the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment, and this includes the right to purchase and sell labor, except as controlled by the State in the legitimate exercise of its police power.Lochner v. New York The general right to make a contract in relation to his business is part of the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment, and this includes the right to purchase and sell labor, except as controlled by the State in the legitimate exercise of its police power.

“Right of protecting property, declared inalienable by constitution, is not mere right to protect it by individual force, but right to protect it by law of land, and force of body politic.” Billings v. Hall (1857), 7 C. 1.

“Constitution of this state declares, among inalienable rights of each citizen, that of acquiring, possessing and protecting property. This is one of primary objects of government, is guaranteed by constitution, and cannot be impaired by legislation.” Billings v. Hall (1857), 7 C. 1.

Amdt14.S1.5.3 Property Deprivations and Due Process

Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Like the liberty interest,¹ the concept of property rights has expanded beyond its common law roots, reflecting the Supreme Court’s recognition that certain interests that fall short of traditional property rights are nonetheless important parts of people’s economic well-being. For instance, in a case where household goods were sold under an installment contract and the seller retained title, the Court deemed the possessory interest of the buyer sufficiently important to require procedural due process before repossession could occur.² In another case, the Court held that the loss of the use of garnished wages between the time of garnishment and final resolution of the underlying suit was a sufficient property interest to require some form of determination that the garnisher was likely to prevail.³ The Court has also ruled that the continued possession of a driver’s license, which may be essential to one’s livelihood, is a protected property interest.⁴

A more fundamental shift in the concept of property occurred with recognition of society’s growing economic reliance on government benefits, employment, and contracts.⁵ Another relevant factor was the decline of the distinction between rights and privileges. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes summarized the distinction in dismissing a suit by a policeman who had been fired from his job for political activities: The petitioner may have a constitutional right to talk politics, but he has no constitutional right to be a policeman.⁶ Under that theory, a finding that a litigant had no vested property interest in government employment,⁷ or that some form of public assistance was only a privilege rather than a right,⁸ meant that no procedural due process was required before depriving a person of that interest.⁹ The reasoning was that, if the government was under no obligation to provide some benefit, it could choose to provide that benefit subject to whatever conditions or procedures it deemed appropriate.

There was some tension between the position that the government was free to attach conditions to benefits and another line of cases holding that the government could not require the diminution of constitutional rights as a condition for receiving benefits. That line of thought, referred to as the unconstitutional conditions doctrine, held that, even though a person has no ‘right’ to a valuable government benefit and even though the government may deny him the benefit for any number of reasons, it may not do so on a basis that infringes his constitutionally protected interests—especially, his interest in freedom of speech.¹⁰ Nonetheless, the two doctrines coexisted in an unstable relationship until the 1960s, when Court largely abandoned the right-privilege distinction.¹¹ By 1972, the Court declared that it had fully and finally rejected the wooden distinction between ‘rights’ and ‘privileges’ that once seemed to govern the applicability of procedural due process rights.¹²

Concurrently with the decline of the right-privilege distinction, the Court embraced a mode of analysis known as the entitlement doctrine, under which the Court erected procedural protections against erroneous deprivation of benefits the government had granted on a discretionary basis.¹³ Previously, the Court had limited due process protections to constitutional rights, traditional rights, common law rights, and natural rights. Under a new positivist approach, the Court might find a protected property or liberty interest based on any positive statute or governmental practice that gave rise to a legitimate expectation. This positivist doctrine can be seen in the 1970 case Goldberg v. Kelly, where the Court held that the government must provide an evidentiary hearing before terminating welfare benefits because such termination may deprive an eligible recipient of the means of livelihood.¹⁴ In reaching that conclusion, the Court found that welfare benefits are a matter of statutory entitlement for persons qualified to receive them.¹⁵ Thus, where the loss or reduction of a benefit or privilege was conditioned upon specified grounds, the Court found that the recipient had a property interest entitling him to proper procedure before termination or revocation.

At first, the Court’s emphasis on the importance of statutory rights to the claimant led some lower courts to apply the Due Process Clause by weighing the interests involved and the harm done to a person deprived of a benefit. However, the Court held that this approach was inappropriate. It explained, [W]e must look not to the ‘weight’ but to the nature of the interest at stake. . . . We must look to see if the interest is within the Fourteenth Amendment’s protection of liberty and property.¹⁶ To have a property interest in the constitutional sense, the Court held, it was not enough for a person to have an abstract need or desire for a benefit or a unilateral expectation. He must rather have a legitimate claim of entitlement to the benefit.¹⁷ The Court further explained that property interests are not created by the Constitution. Rather, they are created and their dimensions are defined by existing rules or understandings that stem from an independent source such as state law—rules or understandings that secure certain benefits and that support claims of entitlement to those benefits.¹⁸

Consequently, in Board of Regents v. Roth, the Court held that a public university’s refusal to renew a teacher’s contract upon expiration of his one-year term implicated no due process values because there was nothing in the university’s contract, regulations, or policies that created any legitimate claim to reemployment.¹⁹ By contrast, in Perry v. Sindermann, a professor employed for several years at a public college was found to have a protected interest, even though his employment contract had no tenure provision and there was no statutory assurance of it.²⁰ The Court deemed existing rules or understandings to have the characteristics of tenure, and thus to provide a legitimate expectation independent of any contract provision.²¹

The Court has also found legitimate entitlements in situations besides employment. In Goss v. Lopez, an Ohio statute provided for free education to all residents between five and twenty-one years of age and required school attendance; thus, the Court held that the state had obligated itself to provide students some due process hearing rights prior to suspending them.²² The Court explained, Having chosen to extend the right to an education to people of appellees’ class generally, Ohio may not withdraw that right on grounds of misconduct, absent fundamentally fair procedures to determine whether the misconduct has occurred.²³ The Court is highly deferential, however, to school dismissal decisions based on academic grounds.²⁴

The more an interest differs from the traditional understanding of property, the more difficult it is to establish a due process claim based on entitlements. In Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, the Court considered whether police officers violated a constitutionally protected property interest by failing to enforce a restraining order an estranged wife obtained against her husband, despite having probable cause to believe the order had been violated.²⁵ While noting statutory language that required that officers either use every reasonable means to enforce [the] restraining order or seek a warrant for the arrest of the restrained person, the Court resisted equating this language with the creation of an enforceable right, noting a long-standing tradition of police discretion coexisting with apparently mandatory arrest statutes.²⁶ The Court also questioned whether finding that the statute contained mandatory language would have created a property right, as the wife, with no criminal enforcement authority herself, was merely an indirect recipient of the benefits of the governmental enforcement scheme.²⁷

In Arnett v. Kennedy, a majority of the Court rebuffed an attempt to limit the expansion of due process with respect to entitlements.²⁸ The case involved a federal law that provided that employees could not be discharged except for cause. A minority of three Justices acknowledged that due process rights could be created through statutory grants of entitlements, but observed that the statute at issue specifically withheld the procedural protections the employee sought. Because the property interest which appellee had in his employment was itself conditioned by the procedural limitations which had accompanied the grant of that interest,²⁹ the employee would have to take the bitter with the sweet.³⁰ Thus, the minority would have held that Congress (and by analogy state legislatures) could qualify the conferral of an interest by limiting the process that might otherwise be required. The other six Justices, although disagreeing among themselves in other respects, rejected that reasoning. This view misconceives the origin of the right to procedural due process, Justice Lewis Powell wrote. That right is conferred not by legislative grace, but by constitutional guarantee. While the legislature may elect not to confer a property interest in federal employment, it may not constitutionally authorize the deprivation of such an interest, once conferred, without appropriate procedural safeguards.³¹

By contrast, in Bishop v. Wood, the Court accepted a district court’s finding that a policeman held his position at will, despite language setting forth conditions for discharge.³² Although the majority opinion was couched in terms of statutory construction, the majority appeared to come close to adopting the three-Justice Arnett position, and the dissenters accused the majority of having repudiated the majority position of the six Justices in Arnett.

Subsequently, however, the Court held that, because minimum [procedural] requirements [are] a matter of federal law, they are not diminished by the fact that the State may have specified its own procedures that it may deem adequate for determining the preconditions to adverse action.³³ The Court applied this analysis in Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co., in which a state anti-discrimination law required the enforcing agency to convene a fact-finding conference within 120 days of the filing of the complaint.³⁴ The commission inadvertently scheduled the hearing after the expiration of the 120 days, and the state courts held the requirement to be jurisdictional, requiring dismissal of the complaint. The Supreme Court noted that various older cases had clearly established that causes of action were property, and, in any event, the claim at issue was an entitlement grounded in state law and thus could only be removed for cause. That property interest existed independently of the 120-day period and could not be taken away by agency action or inaction.³⁵

Footnotes

Jump to essay-1See S1.5.2 Liberty Deprivations and Due Process.
Jump to essay-2 Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U.S. 67 (1972) (invalidating replevin statutes which authorized the authorities to seize goods simply upon the filing of an ex parte application and the posting of bond).
Jump to essay-3 Sniadach v. Family Fin. Corp., 395 U.S. 337, 342 (1969) (Harlan, J., concurring).
Jump to essay-4 Bell v. Burson, 402 U.S. 535 (1971) (holding that a license should not be suspended after an accident for failure to post a security for the amount of damages claimed by an injured party without affording the driver an opportunity to raise the issue of liability). Compare Dixon v. Love, 431 U.S. 105 (1977), with Mackey v. Montrym, 443 U.S. 1 (1979). But see Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sullivan, 526 U.S. 40 (1999) (no liberty interest in worker’s compensation claim where reasonableness and necessity of particular treatment had not yet been resolved).
Jump to essay-5See Laurence Tribe, American Constitutional Law 685 (2d. ed) (1988).
Jump to essay-6 McAuliffe v. Mayor of New Bedford, 155 Mass. 216, 220, 29 N.E.2d 517, 522 (1892).
Jump to essay-7 Bailey v. Richardson, 182 F.2d 46 (D.C. Cir. 1950), aff’d by an equally divided court, 314 U.S. 918 (1951); Adler v. Bd. of Educ., 342 U.S. 485 (1952).
Jump to essay-8 Flemming v. Nestor, 363 U.S. 603 (1960).
Jump to essay-9 Barsky v. Bd. of Regents, 347 U.S. 442 (1954).
Jump to essay-10 Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U.S. 593, 597 (1972). SeeSpeiser v. Randall, 357 U.S. 513 (1958).
Jump to essay-11SeeWilliam Van Alstyne, The Demise of the Right-Privilege Distinction in Constitutional Law, 81 Harv. L. Rev. 1439 (1968). A number of early cases involved the imposition of conditions on admitting corporations into a state. W. & S. Life Ins. Co. v. State Bd. of Equalization, 451 U.S. 648, 656–68 (1981)) (reviewing the cases). Some more recent cases have continued to apply the right-privilege distinction. See Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 108–09 (1976) (sustaining as qualification for public financing of campaign agreement to abide by expenditure limitations otherwise unconstitutional); Wyman v. James, 400 U.S. 309 (1971).
Jump to essay-12 of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 571 (1972).
Jump to essay-13The limitations were procedural and not substantive, meaning that Congress or a state legislature could still simply take away part or all of the benefit. Richardson v. Belcher, 404 U.S. 78 (1971); S. R.R. Retirement Bd. v. Fritz, 449 U.S. 166, 174 (1980); Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co., 455 U.S. 422, 432–33 (1982).
Jump to essay-14 397 U.S. 254 (1970).
Jump to essay-15at 261–62. See also Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976) (Social Security benefits).
Jump to essay-16 of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 569–71 (1972).
Jump to essay-17at 577.
Jump to essay-18
Jump to essay-19at 576–78.
Jump to essay-20 408 U.S. 593 (1972). SeeLeis v. Flynt, 439 U.S. 438 (1979) (finding no practice or mutually explicit understanding creating interest).
Jump to essay-21at 601.
Jump to essay-22 419 U.S. 565 (1975). Carey v. Piphus, 435 U.S. 247 (1978) (measure of damages for violation of procedural due process in school suspension context). See also Bd. of Curators v. Horowitz, 435 U.S. 78 (1978) (whether liberty or property interest implicated in academic dismissals and discipline, as contrasted to disciplinary actions).
Jump to essay-23at 574. See also Barry v. Barchi, 443 U.S. 55 (1979) (horse trainer’s license); O’Bannon v. Town Ct. Nursing Ctr., 447 U.S. 773 (1980) (statutory entitlement of nursing home residents protecting them in the enjoyment of assistance and care).
Jump to essay-24 Regents of the Univ. of Mich. v. Ewing, 474 U.S. 214 (1985). Although the Court assume[d] the existence of a constitutionally protectible property interest in . . . continued enrollment in a state university, it held that right is violated only by a showing that dismissal resulted from such a substantial departure from accepted academic norms as to demonstrate that the person or committee responsible did not actually exercise professional judgment. at 225.
Jump to essay-25 545 U.S. 748 (2005).
Jump to essay-26at 759. The Court also noted that the law did not specify the precise means of enforcement required; nor did it guarantee that, if a warrant were sought, it would be issued. The Court stated that such indeterminacy is not the hallmark of a duty that is mandatory. Id. at 763.
Jump to essay-27at 764–65.
Jump to essay-28 416 U.S. 134 (1974).
Jump to essay-29at 155 (Rehnquist and Stewart, JJ., and Burger, C.J.).
Jump to essay-30at 154.
Jump to essay-31at 167 (Powell, J., and Blackmun, J., concurring). See id. at 177 (White, J., concurring and dissenting); id. at 203 (Douglas, J., dissenting); id. at 206 (Marshall, Douglas, and Brennan, JJ., dissenting).
Jump to essay-32 426 U.S. 341 (1976).
Jump to essay-33 Vitek v. Jones, 445 U.S. 480, 491 (1980). See alsoCleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (1985).
Jump to essay-34 455 U.S. 422 (1982).
Jump to essay-35at 428–33. A different majority of the Court also found a denial of equal protection. Id. at 438.

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt14-S1-5-3/ALDE_00013749/#:~:text=No%20State%20shall%20make%20or,equal%20protection%20of%20the%20laws

America’s Founders understood clearly that private property is the foundation not only of prosperity but of freedom itself. Thus, through the common law, state law, and the Constitution, they protected property rights — the rights of people to acquire, use, and dispose of property freely. With the growth of modern government, however, those rights have been seriously compromised. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has yet to develop a principled, much less comprehensive, theory for remedying those violations. That failure has led to the birth of the property rights movement in state after state. It is time now for Congress to step in — to correct the federal government’s own violations and to set out a standard that courts might notice as they adjudicate complaints about state violations.

The Constitution protects property rights through the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments’ Due Process Clauses and, more directly, through the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause: “nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.” There are two basic ways government can take property: (1) outright, by condemning the property and taking title; and (2) through regulations that take uses, leaving the title with the owner — so‐called regulatory takings. In the first case, the title is all too often taken not for a public but for a private use; and rarely is the compensation received by the owner just. In the second case, the owner is often not compensated at all for his losses; and when he is, the compensation is again inadequate.

Over the past three decades, the Supreme Court has chipped away at the problem of uncompensated regulatory takings, requiring compensation in some cases; but its decisions were largely ad hoc, leaving most owners to bear the losses themselves. Thus, owners today can get compensation when the title is actually taken, as just noted; when the property is physically invaded by government order, either permanently or temporarily; when regulation for other than health or safety reasons takes all or nearly all of the value of the property; and when government attaches conditions to permits that are unreasonable, disproportionate, or unrelated to the purpose behind the permit requirement. But despite those modest advances, toward the end of its October 2004 term, the Court decided three property rights cases in which the owners had legitimate complaints, and in all three, the owners lost. One of those cases was Kelo v. City of New London, in which the city condemned Ms. Kelo’s property only to transfer it to another private party that the city believed could make better use of it. In so doing, the Court simply brushed aside the “public use” restraint on the power of government to take private property. The upshot, however, was a public outcry across the nation and the introduction of reforms in over 40 states. But those reforms varied substantially, and nearly all leave unaddressed the far more common problem of regulatory takings.

At bottom, then, the Court has yet to develop a principled and comprehensive theory of property rights, much less a comprehensive solution to the problem of government takings. For that, Congress (or the Court) is going to have to turn to first principles, much as the old common law judges did. We need to begin, then, not with the public law of the Constitution as presently interpreted, but with the private law of property.

Property: The Foundation of All Rights

It is no accident that a nation conceived in liberty and dedicated to justice for all protects property rights. Property is the foundation of every right we have, including the right to be free. Every right claim, after all, is a claim to some thing — either a defensive claim to keep what one is holding or an offensive claim to something someone else is holding. John Locke, the philosophical father of the American Revolution and the inspiration for Thomas Jefferson when he drafted the Declaration of Independence, stated the issue simply: “Lives, Liberties, and Estates, which I call by the general Name, Property.” And James Madison, the principal author of the Constitution, echoed those thoughts when he wrote, “as a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights.”

Much moral and legal confusion would be avoided if we understood that all of our rights — all of the things to which we are “entitled” — can be reduced to property. That would enable us to separate genuine rights — things to which we hold title — from specious “rights” — things to which other people hold title, which we may want for ourselves. It was the genius of the old common law, grounded in reason and custom, that it grasped that point. And the common law judges understood a pair of corollaries as well: property, broadly conceived, separates one individual from another; and individuals are independent or free to the extent that they have sole or exclusive dominion over what they hold. Indeed, Americans go to work every day to acquire property just so they can be independent.

Legal Protection for Property Rights

It would be to no avail, however, if property, once acquired, could not be used and enjoyed — if rights of acquisition, enjoyment, and disposal were not legally protected. Thus, common law judges, charged with settling disputes between neighbors, drew on principles of reason, efficiency, and custom to craft a law of property that by and large respected the equal rights of all.

In a nutshell, the basic rights they recognized, beyond acquisition and disposal, were the right of sole dominion — variously described as a right to exclude others, a right against trespass, or a right of quiet enjoyment, which all can exercise equally at the same time and in the same respect — and the right of active use, at least to the point where such use violates the rights of others to quiet enjoyment. Just where that point is will vary with the facts, of course, and that is the business of courts to determine, although legislatures can draw the broad outlines. Given our modern permitting regime, however, the point to be noticed here is that the presumption of the common law was ordinarily on the side of free use. People were not required to obtain a permit before using their property, that is, just as people today are not required to obtain a permit before speaking. Rather, the burden was on those who objected to a given use to show how it violated a right of theirs. That amounts to having to show that their neighbor’s use takes something they own free and clear. If they failed in that, the use could continue.

Thus, the common law limits the right of free use only when a use encroaches on the property rights of others, as in the classic law of nuisance and risk. The implications of that limit should not go unnoticed, however, especially in the context of modern environmental protection. Indeed, the belief, common today, that property rights are opposed to environmental protection is so far from the case as to be just the opposite: the right against environmental degradation is a property right. Under common law, properly applied, people cannot use their property in ways that damage their neighbors’ property — defined, again, as taking things those neighbors hold free and clear. Properly conceived and applied, then, property rights are self‐limiting: they constitute a judicially crafted and enforced regulatory scheme in which rights of active use end when they encroach on the property rights of others.

The Police Power and the Power of Eminent Domain

But if the common law of property defines and protects private rights — the rights of owners with respect to each other — it also serves as a guide for the proper scope and limits of public law — defining the rights of owners and the public with respect to each other. For public law, at least at the federal level, flows from the Constitution; and the Constitution flows from the principles articulated in the Declaration of Independence; and those reflect, largely, the common law. The justification of public law begins, then, with our rights, as the Declaration makes clear. Government then follows, not to give us rights through positive law but to recognize and secure the rights we already have through natural law. Thus, to be morally legitimate, the powers of government must be derived from and consistent with those rights.

The two public powers most often at issue in the property rights context are the police power — the power of government mainly to secure rights — and the power of eminent domain — the power to take property for public use upon payment of just compensation, as set forth, by implication, in the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause.

The general police power — the fundamental power of government — is derived from what Locke called the Executive Power, the power each of us has in the state of nature to secure our rights. Thus, as such, this legal power is legitimate since it is nothing more than the public law version of a moral power we already have, by right, which we gave to government to exercise on our behalf when we constituted ourselves as a nation. But its exercise is legitimate only insofar as it is used to secure rights and to provide certain “public goods” like national defense and clean air — narrowly defined as economists do, citing free‐rider problems, nonexcludability, and nonrivalrous consumption — and only insofar as its use respects the rights of others. Thus, while our rights give rise to the police power, they also limit it. We cannot use the police power for non‐police‐power purposes. It is a power mainly to secure rights through restraints or sanctions, not some general power to provide the public with goods and services more broadly defined.

A complication arises in the case of the federal government, however, because there is no general federal police power. Rather, the Constitution establishes a government of delegated, enumerated, and thus limited powers, leaving most powers, including the general police power, with the states or the people, as the Tenth Amendment makes clear. Consistent with constitutional principle, then, whatever power the federal government has to secure rights is limited to federal territory, is incidental to one of its enumerated powers, or is entailed mainly through the amendments. (See Chapter 15 for greater detail on this point.)

But if the police power is thus limited, then any effort to provide the public with goods and services more broadly must be accomplished under some other power, such as those, in the case of the federal government, that are enumerated in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. Yet that effort will be constrained by the Takings Clause, which requires that private property taken in pursuit of such ends — whether in whole or in part is irrelevant — must be accompanied by just compensation for the owner of the property. Otherwise the costs of the benefit to the public would fall entirely on the owner. Not to put too fine a point on it, that would amount to theft. Indeed, it was to prohibit that kind of thing that the Framers wrote the Takings Clause in the first place.

Thus, the power of eminent domain — which is not enumerated in the Constitution but is implicit in the Takings Clause — is an instrumental power: It affords a means that enables government, acting under some other power, to pursue other ends — building roads, for example, or saving wildlife. Moreover, unlike the police power, the eminent domain power is not inherently legitimate: Indeed, in a state of nature, prior to the creation of government, none of us would have a right to condemn a neighbor’s property, however worthy our purpose, however much we compensated him. Thus, it is not for nothing that eminent domain was known in the 17th and 18th centuries as “the despotic power.” It arises from practical considerations alone — to enable public projects to go forward without being held hostage to holdouts seeking to exploit the situation by extracting far more than just compensation. As for its justification, the best that can be said for eminent domain is this: the power was ratified by those in the original position; and it is “Pareto superior,” as economists say, meaning that at least one party (the public) is made better off by its use, as evidenced by its willingness to pay, while no one is made worse off, assuming the owner receives just compensation.

When Is Compensation Required?

We come then to the basic question: When do owners have to be compensated as a result of government actions? In general, there are four scenarios to consider.

First, when government actions incidentally reduce property values, but no rights are violated because nothing that belongs free and clear to the owner is taken, no compensation is due. If the government closes a military base or a neighborhood school, for example, or builds a new highway distant from the old one with its commercial enterprises, property values may decline as a result — but nothing was taken. We own our property and all the legitimate uses that go with it, not the value in our property, which is a function of many ever‐changing factors.

Second, when government acts, under its police power, to secure rights — when it stops someone from polluting, for example, or from excessively endangering others — the restricted owner is not entitled to compensation, whatever his financial losses, because the uses prohibited or “taken” were wrong to begin with. Since there is no right to pollute, no right was taken. Thus, we do not have to pay polluters not to pollute. Here again the question is not whether value was taken but whether a right was taken. Proper uses of the police power take no rights. They protect rights.

Third, when government acts not to secure rights but to provide the public with goods like wildlife habitat, scenic views, or historic preservation, and in so doing prohibits or “takes” some otherwise rightful use, then it is acting, in part, under the eminent domain power and does have to compensate the owner for any losses he may suffer. The principle here is quite simple: the public has to pay for the goods it wants, just like any private person would have to. Bad enough that the public can take what it wants by condemnation; at least it should pay for what it takes rather than ask the owner to bear the full cost of its appetite. It is here, of course, that modern regulatory takings abuses are most common, as governments at all levels try to provide the public with all manner of amenities, especially environmental amenities, “off budget.” As noted above, there is an old‐fashioned word for that practice — “theft” — and no amount of rationalization about “good reasons” will change that. Even thieves, after all, have “good reasons” for what they do.

Finally, when government, through full condemnation, takes for public use not simply some or all of the owner’s uses but the entire estate, including the title, compensation is clearly due.

Some Implications of a Principled Approach

Starting from first principles, then, we see that there is no difference in principle between the full use of eminent domain just described and a regulatory taking — between taking full title and taking only uses. Thus, the oft‐heard claim that the Takings Clause requires compensation only for “full” takings will not withstand scrutiny. Giving the clause a natural reading, it speaks simply of “private property.” As Madison wrote (above), “property” denotes all the uses or rights that can rightly be made of a holding. It does not denote simply the underlying estate. In fact, in every area of property law except regulatory takings, we speak of property as being a “bundle of sticks,” any one of which can be bought, sold, rented, bequeathed, what have you. Yet, to enable government to provide the public with goods “off budget” and thus “on the cheap,” takings law has clung to the idea that only if the entire bundle is taken does government have to pay compensation.

That view enables government to extinguish nearly all uses through regulation — and hence to regulate nearly all value out of property — yet escape the compensation requirement because the all‐but‐empty title remains with the owner. And it would allow a government to take 90 percent of the value in year one, then come back a year later and take title for a dime on the dollar. Not only is that wrong, it is unconstitutional. It cannot be what the Takings Clause stands for. The principle, rather, is that property is indeed a bundle of sticks, a bundle of rights: take one of those sticks and you take something that belongs to the owner. The only question then is how much his loss is worth.

Thus, when the Court in 1992 in Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council crafted what is effectively a 100 percent rule, whereby owners are entitled to compensation only if regulations restrict uses to a point where all value is lost, it went about the matter backward. It measured the loss to determine whether there was a taking. As a matter of first principle, the Court should have determined first whether there was a taking — whether otherwise legitimate uses were prohibited by the regulation — and only then should it have measured the loss. That addresses the principle of the matter. It then remains simply to measure the loss in value and hence the compensation that is due. In Lucas, since all uses were effectively taken, full compensation was due. The place to start, in short, is with the first stick, not the last dollar. That is especially so since most regulatory takings take only some uses, thus reducing the value of the property by less than its full value.

More generally, the principled approach to takings requires that the Court have a basic understanding of the theory of the matter and a basic grasp of how to resolve conflicting claims about use in a way that respects the equal rights of all. That is hardly a daunting task, as the old common law judges demonstrated, although the application of those principles in particular cases can be complicated, to be sure. But in general, as already noted, the presumption is on the side of active use until some plaintiff demonstrates that such use takes the quiet enjoyment that is his by right (and the defendant’s right as well). At that point the burden shifts to the defendant to justify his use: absent some defense like the prior consent of the plaintiff, the defendant may have to cease his use — or, if his activity is worth it, offer to buy an easement or buy out the plaintiff. Thus, a principled approach respects equal rights of quiet enjoyment — and hence environmental protection. But it also enables active uses to go forward — though not at the expense of private or public rights. Users can be as active as they wish, provided they handle the “externalities” they create in a way that respects the rights of others.

What Congress Should Do

As already noted, the application of these principles is often fact dependent and so is best done by courts. But until our courts, and the Supreme Court in particular, craft a more principled and systematic approach to takings, Congress can assist by drawing at least the broad outlines of such an approach as a guide both for the courts and, more directly, for federal agencies.

In this last connection, however, Congress should recognize that the regulatory takings problem begins with regulation. Doubtless the Founders did not anticipate the modern regulatory state, so they did not specify that regulatory takings are takings too and thus are subject to the Just Compensation Clause. They did not envision our obsession with regulating every human activity and our insistence that such activities — residential, business, what have you — take place only after a grant of official permission. In some areas of business today, we have almost reached the point at which everything that is not permitted is prohibited. That reverses our Founding principle: everything that is not prohibited is permitted — that is, “freely allowed,” not allowed only after obtaining a government permit.

Homeowners, developers, farmers and ranchers, mining and timber companies, firms large and small, profit seeking and not for profit, all have horror stories about regulatory hurdles they confront when they want to do something, particularly with real property. Many of those regulations are legitimate, of course, especially if they aim, preemptively, at securing genuine rights. But many more are aimed at providing some citizens with benefits at the expense of other citizens. They take rights from some to benefit others. At the federal level, such transfers are not likely to find authorization under any enumerated power. But even if constitutionally authorized, they need to be undertaken in conformity with the Takings Clause. Some endangered species, to take a prominent modern example, may indeed be worth saving, even if the authority for doing so belongs to states, and even if the impetus comes from a relatively small group. We should not expect a few property owners to bear all the costs of that undertaking, however. If the public truly wants the habitat for such species left undisturbed, let it buy that habitat or, failing that, pay the costs to the relevant owners of leaving their property unused.

In general, then, Congress should review the many federal regulations affecting private property to determine which are and are not authorized by the Constitution. If not authorized, they should be rescinded, which would end quickly a large body of regulatory takings now in place. But if authorized under some constitutionally enumerated power of Congress, the costs now imposed on particular owners, for benefits conferred on the public generally, should be placed “on budget.” Critics of doing that are often heard to say that if those goods did go on budget, we couldn’t afford them. What they are really saying, of course, is that taxpayers would be unwilling to pay for all the things the critics want. Indeed, the great fear of those who oppose taking a principled approach to regulatory takings is that once the public has to pay for the benefits it now receives “free,” it will demand fewer of them. It should hardly surprise that when people have to pay for something they demand less of it.

It is sheer pretense, of course, to suppose that such benefits are now free, that they are not already being paid for. Isolated owners are paying for them, not the public. As a matter of simple justice, Congress needs to shift the burden to the public that is enjoying the benefits. Once we have an honest, public accounting, we will be in a better position to determine whether the benefits thus produced are worth the costs. Today, we have no idea about that because all the costs are hidden. When regulatory benefits are thus “free,” the demand for them, as we see, is all but infinite.

But in addition to eliminating, reducing, or correcting its own regulatory takings — in addition to getting its own house in order — Congress needs to enact general legislation on the subject of takings that might help to restore respect for property rights and reorient the nation toward its own first principles. To that end, Congress should do the following.

Enact Legislation That Specifies the Constitutional Rights of Property Owners under the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause

As already noted, legislation of the kind recommended here would be unnecessary if the courts were reading and applying the Takings Clause properly. Because they are not, it falls to Congress to step in. Still, there is a certain anomaly in asking Congress to do the job. Under our system, after all, the political branches and the states represent and pursue the interests of the people within the constraints established by the Constitution; and it falls to the courts, and the Supreme Court in particular, to ensure that those constraints are respected. To do that, the Court interprets and applies the Constitution as it decides cases brought before it — often against the political branches or a state when an owner seeks either to enjoin a government action on the ground that it violates his rights or to obtain compensation under the Takings Clause, or both. Thus, it is somewhat anomalous to ask or expect Congress to right wrongs that Congress itself may be perpetrating. Is not Congress, in carrying out the public’s will, simply doing its job?

Yes, that is part of its job. But members of Congress swear to uphold the Constitution, which requires them to exercise independent judgment about the meaning of its terms. And in that connection, they need to recognize that we do not live in anything like a pure democracy. The Constitution sets powerful and far‐reaching restraints on the powers of all three branches of the federal government and, especially since ratification of the Civil War Amendments, on the states as well. Thus, the idea that Congress simply enacts whatever some transient majority of the population wants enacted, leaving it to the courts to determine the constitutionality of its acts, must be resisted. The oath of office is taken on behalf of the people, to be sure, but through and in conformity with the Constitution. Even if the courts fail to secure the liberties of the people, therefore, nothing in the Constitution prevents Congress from exercising the duties entailed by the oath of office. In fact, that oath requires Congress to step into the breach.

There is no guarantee, of course, that Congress will do a better job of interpreting the Constitution than the Court has done. In fact, given that Congress is one of the political branches and thus an “interested” party, it could very well do a worse job. That is why the Framers placed “the judicial Power” — entailing, presumably, the power ultimately to say what the law is — with the Court, the nonpolitical branch. But that is no reason for Congress to ignore its responsibility to make its judgment known, especially when the Court is clearly wrong, as it is here. Although nonpolitical in principle, the Court does not operate in a political vacuum — as it demonstrated in 1937, unfortunately, after Franklin Roosevelt’s notorious Court‐packing threat. If the Court can be persuaded to undo the centerpiece of the Constitution, the doctrine of enumerated powers, as it did after that extraordinary and unconscionable political interference, one imagines it can be persuaded by Congress to restore property rights to their proper constitutional status.

Thus, to start, Congress should revisit and rescind or correct legislation that results in uncompensated regulatory takings — and enact no such legislation in future. In addition, however, Congress should enact a more general statute that specifies the constitutional rights of property owners under the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause, drawing on common law principles to do so.

Follow the Traditional Common Law in Defining “Private Property,” “Public Use,” and “Just Compensation”

As we saw above, property rights are not protected by the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause alone — that is, by positive constitutional law. Indeed, during the more than two years between the time the Constitution was ratified and took effect and the time the Bill of Rights was ratified, it was the common law that protected property rights against both private and public invasion. Thus, the Takings Clause simply made explicit, against the new federal government, the guarantees that were already recognized under the common law. (Constitutional protection was implicit during that time, of course, through the doctrine of enumerated powers, for no uncompensated takings were authorized under the new Constitution.) And with the ratification of the Civil War Amendments — the Fourteenth Amendment’s Privileges or Immunities Clause, in particular — the common law guarantees against the states were constitutionalized as well. Thus, because the Takings Clause takes its inspiration and meaning from the common law of property, it is there that we must look to understand its terms.

“Private property.” The first of those terms is “private property”: “nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.” As every first‐year law student learns, “private property” means far more than a parcel of real estate. Were that not the case, property law would indeed be an impoverished subject. Instead, the common law reveals the many significations of the concept “property” and the rich variety of arrangements that human imagination and enterprise have made of the basic idea of private ownership. As outlined above, however, those arrangements all come down to three basic ideas — acquisition, exclusive use, and disposal, the three basic rights we have in property, from which more specifically described rights may be derived.

With regard to regulatory takings, however, the crucial thing to notice is that, absent contractual arrangements to the contrary, the right to acquire and hold property entails the right to use it as well. As Madison wrote, people have “a property” in their rights, including in their rights of use. If the right to property did not entail rights of use, it would be an empty promise. People acquire property, after all, only because doing so enables them to use it, which is what gives it its value. Indeed, the fundamental complaint about uncompensated regulatory takings is that, by thus eliminating some or all of the uses owners may make of their property, government makes the title they retain that much less valuable — even worthless in extreme cases. Who would buy property that cannot be used?

The very concept of “property” therefore, entails and denotes all the legitimate uses that can be made of the underlying estate, giving it value. And the uses that are legitimate are those that can be exercised consistent with the rights of others, private and public alike, as defined by the traditional common law. As outlined above, however, the rights of others that limit an owner’s uses depend often on the facts. Thus, legislation can state only the principle of the matter, not its application in specific contexts. Still, the broad outlines should be made clear in any congressional enactment. In particular, the term “private property” should be defined to include all the uses that can be made of property consistent with the common law rights of others. The only grounds that justify restricting uses without compensation are (1) to protect the rights of others; and (2) to provide narrowly defined “public goods,” where owners receive public benefits equivalent to the losses incurred by regulation. By contrast, when a particular owner’s uses are restricted to provide the general public with goods more broadly defined, the resulting loss in value should be compensated.

“Public use.” Turning now from regulatory takings to the full use of eminent domain, here the government condemns the entire property and takes title in order to give the property a “public use” — a military base, for example, or a public school or highway. Unfortunately, governments today too often use eminent domain for much broader purposes, and courts have sanctioned such condemnations by reading “public use” as “public benefit.” That has led to private‐public collusion against private rights as governments condemn private property for the benefit of other private users, either directly or by delegating their condemnation power to a quasi‐public or even a private entity. Those are rank abuses of the eminent domain power, amounting often to implicit grants of private eminent domain and to invitations to public graft and corruption. Typically, when a large private entity wants to expand, it goes to the relevant public agency and asks that a nearby property be condemned and title transferred to it, arguing that the expansion will benefit the public through increased jobs, business, taxes, what have you. No longer needing to bargain with the owners of the target properties in an effort to buy them, the entity simply asks or even pays the agency to condemn the properties “for the public good.”

Because eminent domain is a “despotic power,” it should be used rarely and only for genuinely public uses. That means uses that are broadly enjoyed by the public, rather than by some narrow part of the public; and in the case of the federal government, it means a constitutionally authorized use. In defining “public use,” however, facts matter, and sometimes there is no bright line. Nevertheless, certain general considerations can be noted. To begin, if the compensation is just, then no problem arises when title is transferred to the public for a genuine public use such as those mentioned above. Nor is there a problem when title is transferred to a private party — for example, to avoid the holdout situation that might arise with laying cable or telephone lines — provided the subsequent use is open to all on a nondiscriminatory basis, often to be regulated in the public interest. In such cases, were eminent domain available only when the public kept the title, the public would be deprived of the relative efficiencies of private ownership.

Beyond such cases, however, the public use restriction on employing eminent domain looms ever larger. Thus, condemnation for “blight reduction,” often a ruse for transferring title to a private developer, sweeps too broadly. If the “blighted” property constitutes an actual nuisance, it can be condemned under the police power, after all, without transferring title to another owner. A close cousin to the blight reduction rationale is the “economic development” rationale used in the infamous Kelo case and often used for the erection of privately owned sports stadiums; this rationale should never be allowed, whatever the claimed public benefit. Private economic development nearly always generates spillover benefits for the public, but that is no justification for using eminent domain. since private markets provide ample opportunities for obtaining the property needed for development the right way, by voluntary agreement. To avoid abuse and the potential for corruption, therefore, Congress needs to define “public use” rigorously, with reference to titles, use, and control.

“Just compensation.” Finally, Congress should define “just compensation” with an eye to its function: it is a remedy for the wrong of taking someone’s property. That the Constitution implicitly authorizes that wrong does not change the character of the act, of course. As discussed above, the rationale for this despotic power, even when properly used, is problematic. Given that, the least the public can do is make the victim of its use whole. That too will be a fact‐dependent determination, but Congress should at least make it clear that for compensation to be “just” and hence to make the owner whole, he must receive more than the “market value” of his property, the normal standard today. After all, the simple fact that the owner does not have his property on the market indicates that its value to him is greater than the market price. Moreover, his compensation should reflect the fact that his loss arises not by mere accident, as with torts, but from a deliberate decision by the public to force him to give up his property.

In the case of regulatory takings, however, it should be noted that not every such taking will require compensation for an owner. Minimal losses, for example, may be difficult to prove and not worth the effort. Moreover, some regulatory restrictions may actually enhance the value of property — say, if an entire neighborhood is declared “historic.” Finally, that portion of “just compensation” that concerns market value should reflect value before, and with no anticipation of, regulatory restrictions. Thus, in determining compensation, government should not benefit from reductions in value its regulations bring about. Given the modern penchant for regulation, that may not always be easy. But in general, given the nature of condemnation as a forced taking, any doubt should be resolved to the benefit of the owner forced to give up his property.

If Congress enacts general legislation that outlines the constitutional rights of property owners by following the common law in defining the terms of the Takings Clause, it will abolish, in effect, any real distinction between partial and full takings. Nevertheless, Congress should be explicit about what it is doing.

Treat Property Taken through Regulation the Same As Property Taken through Physical Seizure

The importance of enacting a unified and uniform takings law cannot be overstated. Today, we have one law for “full takings,” “physical seizures,” “condemnations” — call them what you will — and another for “partial takings,” “regulatory seizures,” or “condemnations of uses.” Yet there is overlap, too. Thus, as noted above, the Court has said that if regulations take all uses, compensation is due — perhaps because eliminating all uses comes to the same thing, in effect, as a “physical seizure,” whereas eliminating most but not all uses seems not to come to the same thing.

That appearance is deceptive, of course. In fact, the truth is much simpler — but only if we go about discovering it from first principles. If “property” signifies not only the underlying estate but all legitimate uses that by right can be made of it, then any government action that takes any one of those uses or rights is, by definition, a taking — requiring compensation for any financial losses the owner may suffer as a result. The issue is really no more complicated than that. There is no need to distinguish “full” and “partial” takings: every condemnation, whether full or partial, is a taking. Indeed, the use taken is taken “in full.” Imagine that the property were converted to dollars — 100 dollars, say. Would we say that if the government took all 100 dollars there was a taking, but if it took only 50 of the 100 dollars there was not a taking? Of course not. Yet that is what we say under the Court’s modern regulatory takings doctrine: as one justice put it, “takings law is full of these ‘all‐or‐nothing’ situations.”

That confusion must end. Through legislation specifying the rights of property owners, Congress needs to make it clear that compensation is required whenever government eliminates common law property rights and an owner suffers a financial loss as a result — whether the elimination results from regulation or from outright condemnation.

Provide a Single Forum in Which Property Owners May Seek Injunctive Relief and Just Compensation Promptly

The promise of the common law and the Constitution will be realized, however, only through procedures that enable aggrieved parties to press their complaints. Some of the greatest abuses today are taking place because owners are frustrated at every turn in their efforts to reach the merits of their claims. Accordingly, Congress should provide a single forum for owners to press their claims.

In its 1998 term, the Supreme Court decided a takings case that began 17 years earlier, in 1981, when owners applied to a local planning commission for permission to develop their land. After submitting numerous proposals over this period, each rejected, even though each satisfied the commission’s previous recommendation, the owners finally sued, at which point they faced the hurdles the courts put before them. Most owners, of course, cannot afford to go through such a long and expensive process, at the end of which the odds are still against them. But that process confronts property owners across the nation today as they seek to enjoy and then to vindicate their rights. If it were speech or voting or any number of other rights, the path to vindication would be smooth by comparison. But property rights have been relegated to a kind of second‐class status.

The first problem is the modern permitting regime. We would not stand for speech or religion or most other rights to be enjoyed only by permit. Yet that is what we do with property rights, which places enormous, often arbitrary, power in the hands of federal, state, and local “planners.” Driven by political goals and considerations, planning commissions open the application forum not only to those whose rights might be at stake but to those with interests in the matter. Thus is the common law distinction between rights and interests blurred and eventually lost. Thus is the matter transformed from one of protecting rights to one of deciding whose “interests” should prevail. Thus are property rights effectively politicized. And that is the end of the matter for most owners because that is as far as they can afford to take it.

When an owner does take it further, however, he finds the courts are often no more inclined to hear his complaint than was the planning commission. Federal courts routinely abstain from hearing federal claims brought against state and local governments, requiring owners to litigate their claims in state courts before they can even set foot in a federal court on their federal claims. Moreover, the Supreme Court has held that an owner’s claim is not ripe for adjudication unless (1) he obtains a final, definitive agency decision regarding the application of the regulation in question, and (2) he exhausts all available state compensation remedies.

Needless to say, planners, disinclined to approve applications to begin with, treat those standards as invitations to stall until the “problem” goes away. Then, if an owner does spend years and extraordinary expense jumping through those hoops and he gets into federal court at last, he faces the res judicata restriction of the federal Full Faith and Credit Act: the court will say that the case has already been adjudicated by the state courts. Finally, if the claim is against the federal government, the owner faces the so‐called Tucker Act Shuffle: he cannot get injunctive relief and compensation from the same court but must go to a district court for an injunction and to the Court of Federal Claims for compensation, each waiting upon the other to act.

The 105th and 106th Congresses tried to address those procedural hurdles through several measures, none of which passed both houses. Those or similar measures must be revived and enacted if the unconscionable way we treat owners — who are simply trying to vindicate their constitutional rights — is to be brought to an end. This is not an “intrusion” on state and local governments. Under the Fourteenth Amendment, properly understood and applied, those governments have no more right to violate the constitutional rights of citizens than the federal government has to intrude on the legitimate powers of state and local governments. Federalism is not a shield for local tyranny. It is a brake on tyranny, whatever its source.

Conclusion

The Founders would be appalled to see what we have done to property rights over the course of the 20th century. One would never know today that their status in the Bill of Rights was equal to that of any other right. The time has come to restore respect for these most basic of rights, the foundation of all of our rights. Indeed, despotic governments have long understood that if you control property, you control the media, the churches, the political process itself. We are not, of course, at that point yet. But if regulations that provide the public with benefits continue to grow, unchecked by the need to compensate those who bear the costs, we will gradually slide to that point — and in the process we will pay an increasingly heavy price for the uncertainty and inefficiency we create. The most important price, however, will be to our system of law and justice. Owners are asking simply that their government obey the law — both the common law and the law of the Constitution. Reduced to its essence, they are saying simply this: stop stealing our property; if you must take it, do it the right way — pay for it. That hardly seems too much to ask.

PROPERTY RIGHTS, HOUSING, AND THE AMERICAN CONSTITUTION: THE SOCIAL BENEFITS OF PROPERTY RIGHTS PROTECTION, GOVERNMENT INTERVENTIONS, AND THE EUROPEAN COURT ON HUMAN RIGHTS’ HUTTENCZAPSKA DECISION*

INTRODUCTION

The U.S. Constitution provides protection for private property owners when the government intervenes through official regulations restricting an owner’s rights in land or housing. When the government acts through regulatory intervention that restricts the private use of land and housing, the property rights of affected owners are protected under the Fourteenth Amendment and the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. These provisions apply regardless of the personal status or income of the affected private owner.

Government intervention by police power regulation of land and housing in the United States is constrained by judicial interpretation of the constitutional protection afforded private owners of property. The Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides that “[n]o person shall be . . . deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” The next section of this Article discusses the legal protection afforded private housing and landowners by the U.S. Constitution’s Takings Clause and the court decisions interpreting this provision.

Court on Human Rights’ Hutten-Czapska decision, which involved rent controls imposed on apartment housing in Poland.⁶The European Court ruled that rent controls violated the right to property in the European Convention on Human Rights. Over time, rent controls denied a housing owner any economically viable use of his property, which amounted to a disproportionate and impermissible benefit extraction of the owner’s interest in the property. The rationale of the Court’s decision closely parallels the U.S. Supreme Court’s analysis of the protection of private property under the U.S. Constitution.

The constitutional protection of private property rights in the United States is thought to promote economic prosperity and efficiency, as well as basic fairness and individual liberty.

https://mckinneylaw.iu.edu/iiclr/pdf/vol21p25.pdf

The General Nature of Property Rights

LEARNING OBJECTIVES

Understand the elastic and evolving boundaries of what the law recognizes as property that can be bought or sold on the market.
Distinguish real property from personal property.

Definition of Property

Property, which seems like a commonsense concept, is difficult to define in an intelligible way; philosophers have been striving to define it for the past 2,500 years. To say that “property is what we own” is to beg the question—that is, to substitute a synonym for the word we are trying to define. Blackstone’s famous definition is somewhat wordy:

“The right of property is that sole and despotic dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in total exclusion of the right of any other individual in the universe. It consists in the free use, enjoyment, and disposal of all a person’s acquisitions, without any control or diminution save only by the laws of the land.” A more concise definition, but perhaps too broad, comes from the Restatement of the Law of Property, which defines property as the “legal relationship between persons with respect to a thing.”

The Restatement’s definition makes an important point: property is a legal relationship, the power of one person to use objects in ways that affect others, to exclude others from the property, and to acquire and transfer property. Still, this definition does not contain a specific list of those nonhuman “objects” that could be in such a relationship. We all know that we can own personal objects like iPods and DVDs, and even more complex objects like homes and minerals under the ground. Property also embraces objects whose worth is representative or symbolic: ownership of stock in a corporation is valued not for the piece of paper called a stock certificate but for dividends, the power to vote for directors, and the right to sell the stock on the open market. Wholly intangible things or objects like copyrights and patents and bank accounts are capable of being owned as property. But the list of things that can be property is not fixed, for our concept of property continues to evolve. Collateralized debt obligations (CDOs) and structured investment vehicles (SIVs), prime players in the subprime mortgage crisis, were not on anyone’s list of possible property even fifteen years ago.

The Economist’s View

Property is not just a legal concept, of course, and different disciplines express different philosophies about the purpose of property and the nature of property rights. To the jurist, property rights should be protected because it is just to do so. To an economist, the legal protection of property rights functions to create incentives to use resources efficiently. For a truly efficient system of property rights, some economists would require universality (everything is owned), exclusivity (the owners of each thing may exclude all others from using it), and transferability (owners may exchange their property). Together, these aspects of property would lead, under an appropriate economic model, to efficient production and distribution of goods. But the law of property does not entirely conform to the economic conception of the ownership of productive property by private parties; there remain many kinds of property that are not privately owned and some parts of the earth that are considered part of “the commons.” For example, large areas of the earth’s oceans are not “owned” by any one person or nation-state, and certain land areas (e.g., Yellowstone National Park) are not in private hands.

Classification of Property

Property can be classified in various ways, including tangible versus intangible, private versus public, and personal versus real. Tangible property is that which physically exists, like a building, a popsicle stand, a hair dryer, or a steamroller. Intangible property is something without physical reality that entitles the owner to certain benefits; stocks, bonds, and intellectual property would be common examples. Public property is that which is owned by any branch of government; private property is that which is owned by anyone else, including a corporation.

Perhaps the most important distinction is between real and personal property. Essentially, real property is immovable; personal property is movable. At common law, personal property has been referred to as “chattels.” When chattels become affixed to real property in a certain manner, they are called fixtures and are treated as real property. (For example, a bathroom cabinet purchased at Home Depot and screwed into the bathroom wall may be converted to part of the real property when it is affixed.) Fixtures are discussed in Section 9.3 “Fixtures” of this chapter.

Importance of the Distinction between Real and Personal Property

In our legal system, the distinction between real and personal property is significant in several ways. For example, the sale of personal property, but not real property, is governed by Article 2 of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC). Real estate transactions, by contrast, are governed by the general law of contracts. Suppose goods are exchanged for realty. Section 2-304 of the UCC says that the transfer of the goods and the seller’s obligations with reference to them are subject to Article 2, but not the transfer of the interests in realty nor the transferor’s obligations in connection with them.

The form of transfer depends on whether the property is real or personal. Real property is normally transferred by a deed, which must meet formal requirements dictated by state law. By contrast, transfer of personal property often can take place without any documents at all.

Another difference can be found in the law that governs the transfer of property on death. A person’s heirs depend on the law of the state for distribution of his property if he dies intestate—that is, without a will. Who the heirs are and what their share of the property will be may depend on whether the property is real or personal. For example, widows may be entitled to a different percentage of real property than personal property when their husbands die intestate.

Tax laws also differ in their approach to real and personal property. In particular, the rules of valuation, depreciation, and enforcement depend on the character of the property. Thus real property depreciates more slowly than personal property, and real property owners generally have a longer time than personal property owners to make good unpaid taxes before the state seizes the property.

KEY TAKEAWAY

Property is difficult to define conclusively, and there are many different classifications of property. There can be public property as well as private property, tangible property as well as intangible property, and, most importantly, real property as well as personal property. These are important distinctions, with many legal consequences. source

What Are Property Rights, and Why Do They Matter?

What Are Property Rights?

Property rights define the theoretical and legal ownership of resources and how they can be used. These resources can be both tangible or intangible and can be owned by individuals, businesses, and governments.

In many countries, including the United States, individuals generally exercise private property rights or the rights of private persons to accumulate, hold, delegate, rent, or sell their property.

In economics, property rights form the basis for all market exchange, and the allocation of property rights in a society affects the efficiency of resource use.

Acquiring Rights to a Property

Individuals in a private property rights regime acquire and transfer in mutually agreed-upon transfers, or else through homesteading. Mutual transfers include rents, sales, voluntary sharing, inheritances, gambling, and charity.

Homesteading is the unique case; an individual may acquire a previously unowned resource by mixing his labor with the resource over a period of time. Examples of homesteading acts include plowing a field, carving stone, and domesticating a wild animal.

In areas where property rights don’t exist, the ownership and use of resources are allocated by force, normally by the government. That means these resources are allocated by political ends rather than economic ones. Such governments determine who may interact with, can be excluded from, or may benefit from the use of the property.

In the case of open-access property, no one owns or manages it such as waterways.

Private Property Rights

Private property rights are one of the pillars of capitalist economies, as well as many legal systems, and moral philosophies. Within a private property rights regime, individuals need the ability to exclude others from the uses and benefits of their property.

All privately owned resources are rivalrous, meaning only a single user may possess the title and legal claim to the property. Private property owners also have the exclusive right to use and benefit from the services or products. Private property owners may exchange the resource on a voluntary basis.

Special Considerations

Private Property Rights and Market Prices

Every market price in a voluntary, capitalist society originates through transfers of private property. Each transaction takes place between one property owner and someone interested in acquiring the property. The value at which the property exchanges depends on how valuable it is to each party.

KEY TAKEAWAYS

Property rights define the theoretical and legal ownership of resources and how they can be used.
Property can be owned by individuals, businesses, and governments.
These rights define the benefits associated with ownership of the property.

Suppose an investor purchases $1,000 in shares of stock in Apple. In this case, Apple values owning the $1,000 more than the stock. The investor has the opposite preference, and values ownership of Apple stock more than $1,000.

source

The Framers’ Understanding of “Property”

The Framers of the American Constitution venerated the right to property, both for its own sake and as a means of guaranteeing personal independence. Property was one with liberty and was a guarantee of people’s legal rights. The Supreme Court of the United States treats property as deserving far less protection than life or liberty currently receives, but the Framers believed that neither liberty nor property could exist without the other. The Supreme Court has forgotten the status that property had for the Framers. Reminding the Court of the Framers’ understanding can help to lift property out of the basement to which it has been relegated by contemporary American constitutional law.

KEY TAKEAWAYS

The Framers of the U.S. Constitution put a high value on an individual’s right to own property.
They believed that the right to property was both a guarantee of people’s legal rights and essential to liberty.
The U.S. Supreme Court has failed to give the right to property the same legal weight in modern times and needs to be reminded of its constitutional significance.

The Framers’ understanding of the concept of “property” is an evergreen subject, but it is of particular importance now. For the past few years, some Members of Congress and presidential candidates have lectured us about the alleged virtues of “socialism” or “democratic socialism,”1

The intent of this Legal Memorandum is to add to the ongoing discussion by examining how the Framers of our Constitution viewed the concept of property and then assessing where we stand today. Specifically, we need to answer three questions:

How did the Framers view private property?
Where are we today?
Since we are not in the position that the Framers intended, how do we remedy that problem?

How Did the Framers View Private Property?

How did the colonists view private property?3

In the 18th century, most Americans owned and lived off their own land.4

Agriculture was the principal industry. In fact, the opportunity to acquire land and live off of it was the main reason why colonists left England as well as other nations to come to the United States. The land here was ample, and it was available in fee simple, the type of land entitlement that gave the colonists complete and full ownership of the property, unlike what they could have had in England where all the fee simple title was in the crown and they would at best live at the sufferance of the king and, later, parliament. The opportunity to come and live off the land and in vast amounts was a tremendous attraction and a great value to the people who came here.

The best-known forms of property were, not surprisingly, personalty and realty, as well as incorporeal or future interests such as easements, remainders, and reversions.5

But it was not limited to those sorts of traditional forms that students learn about in the early part of a course on property law in their first year of law school. Some colonists worked as self-employed artisans or shop owners, writers or inventors, and merchants or financiers in a thriving colonial economy.6

The shortage of hard currency in the colonies, in fact, forced merchants to rely on commercial paper in order to engage in trade. The result was that early Americans understood the value of items such as book credit, promissory notes, bills of exchange, mortgages, securities, loan certificates, maritime insurance, monetized public debt, and the Lex Moratoria (or law merchant).7

Accordingly, the Founders’ generation understood that property included the right to possess, use, enjoy, and dispose of land, commodities, currency, or their equivalents.8

Our Founding generation also believed that “property” embraced goods earned by the sweat of one’s brow. The term included what “men have in their persons,” which meant the right to the fruits of one’s labors.9

ELLIS ACT

The Ellis Act is a provision in California Law that provides landlords in California with a legal way to “go out of business” short of selling the property to another landlord. The Ellis Act “was adopted by the California Legislature in 1985 after the California Supreme Court ruled that landlords do not have the right to evict tenants to go out of the business of being a landlord”.

Municipalities can regulate the Ellis Act eviction process to some extent. Those that do typically restrict the property from use as a rental property for a period of time and require that it go back under rent control provisions if it is returned to the rental market.

Learn More about property and your rights below:

Property Rights and the Constitution – The General Nature of Property Rights

Landlord’s Right to Entry in California

Rules and Regulations Governing California Landlord – Tenant Laws – California Landlord / Tenant Laws

The Attorney’s Sworn Oath

“Civility” Oath Rule Adopted by Supreme Court

Lawyers’ Obligation of Candor to Opposing Parties and Third Parties

Code of Conduct for United States Judges

Suing for Misconduct – Know More of Your Rights

Rule 1.1 – Competence (DA REPRESENTS THE STATE)

Rule 1.2 – Assisting in a Crime

Rule 3.1 – Meritorious Claims & Contentions

Rule 3.4 – Fairness to Opposing Party and Council

Model Rule 3.8 pt.2 – Special Duties of Prosecutors

Learn More: ABA – Functions and Duties of the Prosecutor – Prosecution Conduct

Model Rule 4.1 – Truthfulness in Statements to Others

Model Rule 4.4 – Respect for the Rights of Others

Model Rule 5.2 Responsibilities of a Subordinate Lawyer

Model Rule 8.1 Bar Admission & Disciplinary Matters

Model Rule 8.2 – Judicial & Legal Officials

Model Rule 8.3 – Reporting Professional Misconduct

Model Rule 8.4 pt.1 – Lawyer Misconduct

ABA Formal Op. 493 pt.1 – Rule 8.4(g): Purpose, Scope & Application

Model Rule 8.4 pt.2 – Discrimination & Harassment

Attorney Ethics Rules – FOX 17 Know the Law

Landlord’s Right to Entry in California

The Truth News — Wed, 18 Oct 2023 04:25:38 +0000

Landlord’s Right to Entry in California

The 24 HOUR NOTICE

Legal Reasons for Entry

Inspections
Improvements (incl. decoration)
Maintenance
Property Showings
Emergencies

Notice Requirement

Usually 24 Hours, Written
Verbal for Some Repairs
None Needed for Emergencies

Penalties for Illegal Entry

Court Injunction
Cost of Damages
Civil Fines
Breaking the Lease
Court + Legal Fees

Does a Landlord Have the Right To Enter a Rental Property in California?

California landlords have the right to enter a rental property for any of the following reasons: [1]

Inspecting the property.
Making improvements (including decorations).
Repairing or maintaining the property.
Showing the property.
Resolving an emergency.
Complying with a court order.

Can a Landlord Enter Without Permission in California?

California landlords can legally enter a rental property without permission. Notice requirements still apply, but permission isn’t needed to enter for inspection, improvements, repair, showings, emergencies, or compliance with a court process. [1]

Can a Landlord Enter Without the Tenant Present in California?

California landlords can enter without the tenant present. The tenant only needs to be present if the landlord wants to enter without notice for a non-emergency situation. [1] [2] 3]

Can a Landlord Show a House While Occupied in California?

California landlords can show an occupied house by giving proper notice. However, they must leave written evidence of entry for the renter after every showing; landlords will often leave a business card, for example. [1] [5]

How Often Can Landlords Conduct Routine Inspections in California?

California landlords have no specific limit on how often they can enter for inspections. The landlord isn’t allowed to enter unreasonably often, but what’s reasonable gets decided case by case.[1] [5]

How Much Notice Does a Landlord Need To Provide in California?

California landlords have to provide 24 hours of advance notice by default, unless there’s an emergency or the renter is present and agrees to the entry. For any longer or shorter notice periods, there must be evidence why the usual requirements shouldn’t apply. [2] [5]

Can a Landlord Enter Without Notice in California?

California landlords can only enter without notice in an emergency, unless the renter is present and agrees to the entry. [3]

How Can Landlords Notify Tenants of an Intention To Enter in California?

California landlords have to deliver written notice at least 24 hours in advance in most cases. This can be mailed at least six days before intended entry, or posted on the rental property rather than given by hand. The notice must describe the purpose and approximate time for entry. [2]

The landlord and renter can also agree verbally to entry for maintenance or services within one week. In that case, the 24-hour notice can be verbal. Verbal notice is also an option for property showings, up to four months after delivering written notice that the property is for sale. [4] [6]

Can a Tenant Refuse Entry to a Landlord in California?

California tenants can refuse entry to a landlord in the following non-emergency situations:[1] [2] [5]

There’s an invalid reason.
It’s not during business hours (8 AM-5 PM).
Proper notice wasn’t given.

A tenant can’t refuse entry to a landlord if it’s an emergency, or there’s been proper notice for one of the following intentions:

Inspecting the property.
Making improvements (including decorations).
Repairing or maintaining the property.
Showing the property.
Compliance with a court order (usually as part of an eviction).

What Happens If the Tenant Illegally Refuses Entry to the Landlord in California?

California landlords who are illegally refused entry can get a court injunction to force access, or deliver a three-day notice to comply and threaten the tenant with eviction. [7]

Can a Tenant Change the Locks Without Permission in California?

California tenants can change locks without permission if the lease doesn’t say otherwise. Note that the landlord still has a right to enter for specific reasons, so it’s recommended that renters provide copies of current keys. [1]

What Can a Tenant Do If the Landlord Enters Illegally in California?

California tenants have the following options when the landlord enters illegally: [8] [9]

Get a court order preventing further entry.
Move out and cancel the rental agreement (for severe violations that prevent ordinary use of the property).
Sue to recover damages.
Sue for a civil penalty (for “significant and intentional” violations).

Sources

1 Cal. Civ. Code § 1954(a) (2021)

“A landlord may enter the dwelling unit only in the following cases: (1) In case of emergency. (2) To make necessary or agreed repairs, decorations, alterations or improvements, supply necessary or agreed services, or exhibit the dwelling unit to prospective or actual purchasers, mortgagees, tenants, workers, or contractors or to make an inspection pursuant to subdivision (f) of Section 1950.5 [initial inspection prior to move-out]. (3) When the tenant has abandoned or surrendered the premises. (4) Pursuant to court order. (5) For the purposes set forth in Chapter 2.5 (commencing with Section 1954.201) [water-related inspections and improvements]. (6) To comply with the provisions of Article 2.2 (commencing with Section 17973) of Chapter 5 of Part 1.5 of Division 13 of the Health and Safety Code [flood/earthquake-proofing inspections and improvements].” Source Link
2 Cal. Civ. Code § 1954(d)(1) (2021)

“Except as provided in subdivision (e), or as provided in paragraph (2) or (3) [i.e.: property showings, tenant consenting to entry, and emergencies], the landlord shall give the tenant reasonable notice in writing of his or her intent to enter and enter only during normal business hours. The notice shall include the date, approximate time, and purpose of the entry. The notice may be personally delivered to the tenant, left with someone of a suitable age and discretion at the premises, or, left on, near, or under the usual entry door of the premises in a manner in which a reasonable person would discover the notice. Twenty-four hours shall be presumed to be reasonable notice in absence of evidence to the contrary. The notice may be mailed to the tenant. Mailing of the notice at least six days prior to an intended entry is presumed reasonable notice in the absence of evidence to the contrary.” Source Link
3 Cal. Civ. Code § 1954 (2021)

No notice of entry is required under this section: (1) To respond to an emergency. (2) If the tenant is present and consents to the entry at the time of entry.” Source Link
4 Cal. Civ. Code § 1954(d)(2) (2021)

“If the purpose of the entry is to exhibit the dwelling unit to prospective or actual purchasers, the notice may be given orally, in person or by telephone, if the landlord or his or her agent has notified the tenant in writing within 120 days of the oral notice that the property is for sale and that the landlord or agent may contact the tenant orally for the purpose described above. Twenty-four hours is presumed reasonable notice in the absence of evidence to the contrary. The notice shall include the date, approximate time, and purpose of the entry. At the time of entry, the landlord or agent shall leave written evidence of the entry inside the unit. Source Link
5 Cal. Civ. Code § 1954(b) & (c) (2021)

“Except in cases of emergency or when the tenant has abandoned or surrendered the premises, entry may not be made during other than normal business hours [8AM-5PM] unless the tenant consents to an entry during other than normal business hours… [additionally,] the landlord may not abuse the right of access or use it to harass the tenant. Source Link
6 Cal. Civ. Code § 1954(d)(3) (2021)

“The tenant and the landlord may agree orally to an entry to make agreed repairs or supply agreed services. The agreement shall include the date and approximate time of the entry, which shall be within one week of the agreement. In this case, the landlord is not required to provide the tenant a written notice. Source Link
7 Cal. Civ. Pro. § 1161(3) (2021)

“A tenant … is guilty of unlawful detainer: …When the tenant continues in possession, in person or by subtenant, after a neglect or failure to perform other conditions or covenants of the lease… and three days’ notice, excluding Saturdays and Sundays and other judicial holidays, in writing, requiring the performance of those conditions or covenants, or the possession of the property, shall have been served upon the tenant[.] … [The tenant] may perform the conditions or covenants of the lease or pay the stipulated rent, as the case may be, and thereby save the lease from forfeiture; provided, if the conditions and covenants of the lease, violated by the lessee, cannot afterward be performed, then no notice, as last prescribed herein, need be given to the lessee or the subtenant, demanding the performance of the violated conditions or covenants of the lease.” Source Link
8 Cal. Civ. Code § 1940.2 (2021)
- “(a) It is unlawful for a landlord to do any of the following for the purpose of influencing a tenant to vacate a dwelling: …
- “(4) Commit a significant and intentional violation of Section 1954 [tenant’s right to only endure the landlord’s specific, lawful entry]. …
- “(b) A tenant who prevails in a civil action, including an action in small claims court, to enforce his or her rights under this section is entitled to a civil penalty in an amount not to exceed two thousand dollars ($2,000) for each violation.” Source Link
9 Groh v. Kover’s Bull Pen, Inc., 221 Cal. App. 2d 611, (1963)

“A constructive eviction occurs when the acts or omissions to act of a landlord, or any disturbance or interference with the tenant’s possession by the landlord, renders the premises, or a substantial portion thereof, unfit for the purposes for which they were leased, or has the effect of depriving the tenant for a substantial period of time of the beneficial enjoyment or use of the premises.” Source Link

The Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides that “[n]o person shall be … deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law; nor shall be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

Steps a Landlord Must Take Before Entering Your Home

WRITTEN BY FRANCES BADAYOS ON MARCH 14, 2022. POSTED IN LANDLORD TENANT LAW.

Civ. Code § 1954 states that a landlord may enter a tenant’s home in the following situations:

► In case of emergency.

► To make necessary or agreed repairs, decorations, alterations or improvements, supply necessary or agreed services, or exhibit the dwelling unit to prospective or actual purchasers, mortgagees, tenants, workers, or contractors or to make an inspection pursuant to subdivision (f) of Section 1950.5.

► When the tenant has abandoned or surrendered the premises.

► Pursuant to court order.

► For the purposes set forth in Chapter 2.5 (commencing with Section 1954.201).

► To comply with the provisions of Article 2.2 (commencing with Section 17973) of Chapter 5 of Part 1.5 of Division 13 of the Health and Safety Code.

Civ. Code § 1954 further states “[t]he landlord may not abuse the right of access or use it to harass the tenant.”

Even if the landlord’s entry fits into one of categories above, the landlord is required in most situations to provide “proper” and “reasonable” notice regarding the entry.

HOW LONG BEFORE ENTRY IS NOTICE REQUIRED?

Civ. Code §1954 states that 24-hours’ notice prior to entry “shall be presumed to be reasonable notice in absence of evidence to the contrary.” This means that notice is required at least 24-hours prior to the desired entry by the landlord unless your lease provides otherwise.

ARE THERE OTHER RESTRICTIONS ON WHEN MY LANDLORD CAN ENTER?

Yes. The entry must be during “normal business hours.” (Civ. Code § 1954 (c).)

WHAT MUST BE INCLUDED IN THE NOTICE?

Civ. Code § 1954 requires that “[t]he notice include the date, approximate time, and purpose of the entry.”

HOW MUST THE NOTICE BE SERVED?

The notice can be (1) personally delivered to the tenant; (2) left with someone of a suitable age and discretion at the premises, or, left on, near, or under the usual entry door of the premises in a manner in which a reasonable person would discover the notice.

“The notice may be mailed to the tenant. Mailing of the notice at least six days prior to an intended entry is presumed reasonable notice in the absence of evidence to the contrary.”

CAN ME AND MY LANDLORD AGREE TO ENTRY WITHOUT NOTICE?

Yes. Tenants and landlords may agree to entry at a time and in a manner that does not conform with the requirements above.

ARE THERE ANY SITUATIONS WHERE NOTICE IS NOT REQUIRED?

Yes. Civ. Code § 1954 (e) states that no notice is required in the following situations:

► To respond to an emergency.

► If the tenant is present and consents to the entry at the time of entry.

► After the tenant has abandoned or surrendered the unit.

►Waterbeds and Smoke Detectors

The law also affords two other limited reasons for entry into the resident’s dwelling unit: to periodically inspect smoke alarms and to inspect waterbeds for compliance with state law.

For waterbed inspections, the law specifically provides that “… the owner, or the owner’s agent, shall have the right to inspect the bedding installation upon completion, and periodically thereafter, to insure its conformity with this section.” It is wise to specifically address these issues in the lease and clearly define what rights the owner or manager has in regard to entering the rented unit.

►Time of Entry

Time of entry unless in an emergency is also limited to normal business hours. Most judges construe “business hours” to mean between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, although an argument can be made that for leasing agents and property owners and managers, Saturdays and Sundays are normal “business hours.”

►Court Order

PUNK TENNANT complaining about him needing fixes but not letting you in to repair! no worries. go to court!

The fourth and final category allows entry by the owner when the entry is pursuant to a court order. This implies that the owner or manager cannot engage in self‑help if the resident refuses entry, even in cases where the owner is completely within their rights for the entry. Instead, the owner or manager must seek a court order prior to entry. To enforce the order, the Marshal or Sheriff would meet the owner at the premises to allow safe entry into the dwelling unit.

►Abandonment

The third category allows an owner or manager to enter onto the premises “when the tenant has abandoned or surrendered the premises.” It is not unusual to experience a resident who either moved out in the middle of the night or has indicated that he or she was moving but did not give final confirmation of the vacancy.

Abandonment, as defined by Black’s Law Dictionary, means that there must be “. . . an absolute relinquishment of the premises by the tenant consisting of act and intention.” These are sensitive issues and a look at the total circumstances is warranted before a decision to enter should be made. It is often difficult to determine if the tenant has abandoned the premises without taking a look inside. If there are objective facts which would lead a reasonable person to believe that the tenant had abandoned the premises, then you may enter based upon the belief of abandonment unless, of course, there is any indication that the tenant has not abandoned or surrendered the unit.

►Repairs, services, showing

The second category allows owners or their agents to enter into the premises to make necessary or agreed repairs or services or show the premises to prospective tenants or purchasers. This category also allows mortgagees, workmen and contractors to enter the premises.

Since the owner is responsible to keep the premises in a habitable condition, the owner may need access to the interior of the unit to maintain the unit’s habitable condition and should be able to make periodic inspections for specific purposes, i.e. to inspect electrical or plumbing fixtures in accordance with industry standards. Entry for “general inspections” is not listed in the categories of permissible reasons to enter.

An owner or manager may also enter the dwelling unit to make any agreed upon repairs or services. A Notice of Intent to Enter must first be delivered to the resident giving the resident “reasonable notice” of the date and time of the proposed entry. Effective January 1, 2003, requests of entry must be in writing. The notice of entry may be either personally delivered to the tenant, left with someone of a suitable age and discretion at the premises, or, left on, near or under the usual entry door of the premises in a manner in which a reasonable person would discover the notice. We recommend posting all four corners of the notice to the main entry way.

California law requires landlords to give the tenant “reasonable notice”. The law presumes twenty-four hours is reasonable. However, if the notice is only mailed, the law presumes that six days prior to an intended entry is reasonable. The only exception is in cases of an emergency or when the tenant has abandoned or surrendered the premises. In these events, entry need not be made during normal business hours and no prior notice is necessary.

Also, if the purpose of the entry is to exhibit the unit to prospective or actual purchasers of the property, the notice may be given orally, in person or by telephone, if the landlord has notified the tenant in writing within 120 days of the oral notice that the property is for sale and the tenant was informed they may be contacted to allow for an inspection. At the time of the entry, the landlord or agent is required to leave written evidence of the entry inside the unit.

Although the law presumes that twenty four hours is reasonable notice, but each case should be individually examined to determine what is reasonable under the circumstances. The court would measure the notice period by what a reasonable, prudent property manager or owner would have needed in like circumstances.

►Emergencies

The first, in cases of emergency, is only permitted when there is a true emergency which effects the health or safety of the resident or the protection of the premises from damage. It must be impractical to give notice in these situations. Courts are extremely sensitive to the right of privacy of residents and will carefully scrutinize the “emergency” which led to entry by the owner or manager. Entry under this category does not require that a notice of intent to enter be given to the resident prior to entry.

Re-Cap

Landlord Entering Your Unit

When a landlord rents out a property to a tenant, they give up possession of the property. By law, your landlord must respect your privacy. However, a landlord does have a right to enter in certain situations. You should cooperate with your landlord if he has a valid reason to request entry.

When the landlord can enter

Your landlord can enter your rental unit for these reasons:

24-hour notice required

The landlord must give you 24-hour advance written notice before entering. The notice should state a specific time of entry, which must be during normal business hours.

Emergencies

If there is an emergency, 24-hour advance notice is not required. For example, if your rental unit is on fire or is flooding, your landlord can enter without advance notice.

Abuse of the right to enter

The landlord cannot abuse the right of entry or use it to harass you. If you feel your landlord has abused the right of entry, you should discuss this with them. Show them this information. Ask them to provide written notice as required by law and to only enter for legitimate business purposes. If your landlord continues to violate the right to enter, you can contact the police and file a report. You can also call us for assistance.

Civil Code 1954

County of Los Angeles Department of Consumer and Business Affairs. Last change: Dec. 1, 2013

LANDLORD’S RIGHT OF ENTRY – RESIDENTIAL

When can an owner “lawfully” enter a rental unit without written Notice of Entry?
When is written Notice of Entry required prior to an owner “lawfully” entering a rental unit?
What constitutes proper written Notice of Entry.”?

A landlord’s right to enter his/her rental property is set forth in Civil Code section 1954, and may be modified by terms of the written lease agreement.
Right of Entry – without notice.

Civil Code section 1954(e) provides that a landlord may only enter a rental unit without written Notice of Entry under the following limited circumstances:

1. To respond to an emergency (i.e. fire, flood or emergency repair);
2. Tenant is present and consents to the entry (i.e. agreement);
3. Tenant has (a) abandoned or (b) surrendered the rental unit.
4. The Landlord obtains a Court Order for possession.

To show the place to potential buyers, tenants, or repair workers.
If you have given permission to enter.
If you have abandoned the premises, or your landlord has obtained a court order.

Right of Entry – with written notice.
Civil Code section 1954(a) provides that 24-hour prior written Notice of Entry is required before a landlord can “lawfully” enter a rental unit for the following reasons:

1. To make necessary and/or agreed upon repairs or improvements;
2. To show the rental unit to prospective tenants
3. To show the rental to lenders, appraisers or contractors;
4. For a pre-move out walk-through to evaluate damage at tenant’s request.

Contents of “Written Notice of Entry.”
Civil Code 1954(c) requires that the landlord’s written Notice of Entry contain the following information:

1. Name of Tenant
2. Address of Rental Unit
3. Date of Proposed Entry
4. Time of Proposed Entry
5. Purchase of Proposed Entry.

The written Notice of Entry must be served to the tenant at least 24 hours prior to the Date of Proposed Entry.
Service of “Written Notice of Entry.”

The written Notice of Entry may be served in any of the following manners:

1. Personally delivered to the Tenant;
2. Personally delivered to someone over 18 years old at the Premises;
3. Left “on, near or under” the usual entry door in a manner most likely to be discovered by the tenant.

Alternatively, the landlord can mail the written notice to the tenant. If mailed, then the landlord must be able to show that he/she mailed the notice at least six (6) days prior to the Date of Proposed Entry.
California law does not presently allow for e-mail Notice of Entry. 120 Day Notice of Entry to Show Property to Prospective Purchasers.

Special notice rules apply when the landlord is selling the rental unit. Those special rules are found in Civil Code section 1954(d)(2) which states as follows:
“If the purpose of the entry is to exhibit the dwelling unit to prospective or actual purchasers, the notice may be given orally, in person or by telephone, if the landlord or his or her agent has notified the tenant in writing within 120 days … that the property is for sale and that the landlord or agent may contact the tenant orally for the purpose described above.”
In other words, landlord can send a “120 Day Notice of Entry” immediately upon listing the rental unit for sale. Landlord may then simply give the tenant 24 hours oral or written notice that the rental unit will be shown to a prospective buyer. Landlord or the agent must then leave a business card after each visit during that 120 day period.

Learn More about property and your rights below:

Property Rights and the Constitution – The General Nature of Property Rights

Landlord’s Right to Entry in California

Congress should

pass either a joint resolution or a sense of the Congress resolution to guide federal agencies and influence courts, one that specifies the rights of property owners under the Constitution’s Takings and Due Process Clauses;
follow the traditional common law in defining “private property,” “public use,” and “just compensation”;
treat property taken through regulation the same as property taken through physical seizure; and
provide a single forum in which property owners may seek injunctive relief and just compensation promptly.