Forum Thread

I have a property in San Francisco and my tenant and his children want to move in without telling me.

8 10 June 17, 2018 at 12:40 AM in Finance
Deal
Score
0
2,304 Views

Thread Details

0 Deal Score
2,304 Views
I have some tenants who are moving out and want their children to move into their unit. They have asked me if they could add their .sons name to the check, because my property management company wont .accept a check with their childrens name on it, only his parents. Once I except the check from the son he is a tenant. What can I do if the son moves in without my permission? Should i tell him now once his parents moves out he can not move in. .Also the tenant has live there for a long time and the unit is in bad condition. If I rent to kids with the unit in bad condition could get in trouble?

7 Comments

1

Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.

This comment has been rated as unhelpful by Slickdeals users
Joined Feb 2007
L10: Grand Master
6,875 Posts
#2
You're in a state that has crazy laws. In my state, I can be forced to paint and some other things after 5 years.

I can also rent a "rough" unit to someone without trouble. what's that word...Slumlord! Not against the law, but whatever...

Let's add this up.

unit needs work...$$
tenant moves out...no $$$ and spend $$$ to update.
Parents move out, kids move in, all is happy...$$$
Kids want updating...kids pay $$$ and you spend $$$ updating

But

Kids move in, request updates and force you to move them in to a hotel while being updated...
or put the rent in escrow with the courts... then the court decides what the rent should have been.

What's the current rent compared to market rent
What would the rent be if you vacated the unit and updated
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
for those that hate spelling mistakes www.walmarts.comCool

bulb save money by checking your insurance every 2 years (and not every 20) Thanks Liberty Mutual for reminding me to shop. The $842 increase this year sums it up. Across the board increase for Ohio....whatever
This comment has been rated as unhelpful by Slickdeals users
Joined Nov 2014
L10: Grand Master
16,049 Posts
3,024 Reputation
Pro
#3
Quote from stufine
:
You're in a state that has crazy laws. In my state, I can be forced to paint and some other things after 5 years.
In my SF experience, it's the market that dictates if something has to be fixed and not so much the law. In an area with a shortage of rentals, which SF definitely is, landlords can get away with a lot. Even back in the .com days, which compared to today had plentiful rentals, landlords didn't do crap when renting out apartments. Every apt I got was a dump when I got it except for the corporate run one. That one was in great shape and clean. Other apartments not so much. One had a mound of trash in the middle of it and a toilet that needed flushing. The landlord even had the gall to charge me a cleaning fee when I left. I shot back that the apartment was in way better shape than when I got it with pictures proving it. This wasn't a "slum" apartment either. Today, that apartment rents for $6000/month. I paid the equivalent of that 20 years ago.

I once looked at a apartment that had a hole in the wall. Not a artistic statement hole but a ragged someone threw a dumbbell through the wall hole. I asked the landlord if he was going to fix that before renting it. He said "No. I don't have to." He didn't. During that open house, he had people fighting to give them their applications 5 minutes after the open house started.

If you have never tried to rent in a area as impacted as SF, you can't realize what it's like. You'll see 4 people sharing a room, deadbolts on walk in closets AKA "studio apts", people living in animal shelter night drops and bike lockers at train stations and of course plenty of people living in their cars on the street. While you may see some of this in other parts of the country, a big difference is that many people living this way in SF aren't unemployed. They have jobs and make over $100,000/year which in the Bay Area is basically the poverty level. The city even offers housing assistance up to $1800/month. Which is an inside joke since with $1800/month, you won't be able to find anything so the city really isn't offering you anything.

With a rental market like this, landlords don't have to fix squat and people will still be falling over themselves to rent it.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
This comment has been rated as unhelpful by Slickdeals users
Joined May 2017
L6: Expert
1,136 Posts
164 Reputation
#4
I would not add tenants kids to lease or take a check from them,then they can stay there 20 years,you also cant raise the rent more than 1%
refuse to take any checks from tenants relatives as you can get double the rent when tenant moves out,the tenant can move some one in while living there but hes probably moved out already ,I see you wrote to another website,dont accept a check from them,check to see if original tenant is living there or moved to elder home,
you don't want the kids on the lease,i would not even put anything in writing to the tenant it gives them a way to become a tenant as you have knolege of the person,let the management company deal with it,then hire an attorney ,you need to find out if original tenant moved out and where they are living

a person gains tenancy (or becomes a tenant) in an apartment by living there for 30 days and paying rent. They also gain all rights under rent control (if their building is under it)
CO-TENANT:
Tenant who may have moved in after the lease was signed, but has established a relationship with the landlord usually through payment of rent directly to the landlord and by requesting services such as repairs. A co-tenant is also someone who moved in with the master tenant and co-signed the lease.When the master and co-tenants move out, the subtenant may or may not receive a rent increase. If the subtenant moved in BEFORE 1/1/96, his/her rent increases only if the landlord gave him/her a 6.14 Notice (see paragraph below for a discussion on 6.14) within 60 days of knowing that the tenant lives there. If he/she moved in after 1/1/96, then the rent increases. The co-tenant, who gained his/her status by being added on to the lease after the original tenant moved in or by paying rent directly to the landlord, would not receive a rent increase unless the landlord gave him/her a 6.14. If that 6.14 was received after payment of rent was made to the landlord, then the co-tenant can try filing a petition against the increase at the Rent Board on the grounds that he had already gained co-tenancy.6.14 NOTICE
A landlord can serve a notice (called a 6.14 Notice, based on Section 6.14 of the Rent Board Rules and Regulations, ) on a subtenant saying that he recognizes that person merely as an "occupant," and that when the master- and co-tenants leave, the apartment will be treated as vacant and the rent can go up to market value. Every year after that market rent increase, the landlord can only raise the rent by the allowable amount.Section 6.14 Establishing Rental Rates for Subsequent Occupants
(Added March 7, 1989; amended August 29, 1989; Subsection (e) added February 14, 1995; repealed and adopted April 25, 1995, effective February 14, 1995; Subsections (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) amended and renumbered July 2, 1996; amended and renumbered April 25, 2000)
(a) Definitions. The following terms have the following meaning for purposes of this Section 6.14:
(1) "Original occupant(s)" means one or more individuals who took possession of a unit with the express consent of the landlord at the time that the base rent for the unit was first established with respect to the vacant unit.
(2) "Subsequent occupant" means an individual who became an occupant of a rental unit while the rental unit was occupied by at least one original occupant.
(3) "Co-occupant" for purposes of this Section 6.14 only, is a subsequent occupant who has a rental agreement directly with the owner.
(b) Subsequent Occupants who commenced occupancy before January 1, 1996; Co-occupants who commenced occupancy before, on or after January 1, 1996. When all original occupant(s) no longer permanently reside in the rental unit, the landlord may raise the rent of any subsequent occupant who resided in the unit prior to January 1, 1996, or of any subsequent occupant who is a co-occupant and who commenced occupancy before, on or after January 1, 1996, without regard to the limitations set forth in Section 37.3(a) of the Rent Ordinance if the landlord served on the subsequent occupant(s), within a reasonable time of actual knowledge of occupancy, a written notice that when the last of the original occupant(s) vacates the premises, a new tenancy is created for purposes of determining the rent under the Rent Ordinance. Failure to give such a notice within 60 days of the landlord's actual knowledge of the occupancy by the subsequent occupant(s) establishes a rebuttable presumption that notice was not given within a reasonable period of time. If the landlord has not timely served such a notice on the subsequent occupant(s), a new tenancy is not created for purposes of determining the rent under the Rent Ordinance when the last of the original occupant(s) vacates the premises.
(c) Subsequent Occupants who are not Co-occupants and who commenced occupancy on or after January 1, 1996, where the last Original Occupant vacated on or after April 25, 2000. When all original occupant(s) no longer permanently reside in a rental unit, and the last of the original occupants vacated on or after April 25, 2000, the landlord may establish a new base rent of any subsequent occupant(s) who is not a co-occupant and who commenced occupancy of the unit on or after January 1, 1996 without regard to the limitations set forth in Section 37.3(a) of the Rent Ordinance unless the subsequent occupant proves that the landlord waived his or her right to increase the rent by:
(1) Affirmatively representing to the subsequent occupant that he/she may remain in possession of the unit at the same rental rate charged to the original occupant(s); or
(2) Failing, within 90 days of receipt of written notice that the last original occupant is going to vacate the rental unit or actual knowledge that the last original occupant no longer permanently resides at the unit, whichever is later, to serve written notice of a rent increase or a reservation of the right to increase the rent at a later date; or
(3) Receiving written notice from an original occupant of the subsequent occupant's occupancy and thereafter accepting rent unless, within 90 days of said acceptance of rent, the landlord reserved the right to increase the rent at a later date.
Where the landlord has waived the right to increase the rent under subsection (c)(1) or (c)(3) above, the subsequent occupant to whom the representation was made or from whom the landlord accepted rent shall thereafter have the protection of an original occupant as to any future rent increases under this Section 6.14. Where the landlord has waived the right to increase the rent under subsection (c)(2) above, any subsequent occupant who permanently resides in the rental unit with the actual knowledge and consent of the landlord (if the landlord's consent is required and not unreasonably withheld) at the time of the waiver shall thereafter have the protection of an original occupant as to any future rent increases under this Section 6.14.
(d) Subsequent Occupants who are not Co-occupants and who commenced occupancy on or after January 1, 1996, where the last Original Occupant vacated prior to April 25, 2000. When all original occupants no longer permanently reside in a rental unit and the last of the original occupants vacated prior to April 25, 2000, the landlord may establish a new base rent for any subsequent occupants who are not co-occupants and who commenced occupancy of the unit on or after January 1, 1996 without regard to the limitations set forth in Section 37.3(a) of the Rent Ordinance if:
(1) The landlord served on the subsequent occupant(s), within a reasonable time of actual knowledge of occupancy, a written notice that when the last of the original occupants vacates the premises, the new tenancy is created for purposes of determining the rent under the Rent Ordinance. Failure to give such a notice within 60 days of the landlord's actual knowledge of the occupancy by the subsequent occupant(s) establishes a rebuttable presumption that notice was not given within a reasonable period of time; or
(2) The landlord is entitled to establish a new base rent under the Costa Hawkins Rental Housing Act, California Civil Code Section 1954.53(d), even if no notice was served on the subsequent occupant(s) pursuant to subsection (d)(1) above.
(e) Subsequent Occupants of Proposition I Affected Units. When all original occupant(s) no longer permanently reside in a Proposition I Affected Unit, the landlord may raise the rent of any subsequent occupant who resided in the unit prior to February 15, 1995 without regard to the limitations set forth in Section 37.3(a) of the Rent Ordinance if the landlord served on the subsequent occupant(s), on or before August 15, 1995, a written notice that when the last of the original occupant(s) vacates the premises, a new tenancy is created for purposes of determining the rent under the Rent Ordinance. If the landlord has not timely served such a notice on the pre-February 15, 1995 subsequent occupant(s) of the Proposition I Affected Unit, a new tenancy is not created for purposes of determining the rent under the Rent Ordinance when the last of the original occupant(s) vacates the premises. For subsequent occupants who commenced occupancy in a Proposition I Affected Unit on or after February 15, 1995, the provisions of subsections (a) through (d) above apply.
(f) This Section 6.14 is intended to comply with Civil Code Section 1954.50 et seq. and shall not be construed to enlarge or diminish rights thereunder.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
This comment has been rated as unhelpful by Slickdeals users
Joined Jan 2018
New User
8 Posts
10 Reputation
Original Poster
#5
What happens if the children already moved in and the parents are still paying rent. Can I still do anything about it. They did not change the name on check to the new tenants.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
This comment has been rated as unhelpful by Slickdeals users
Joined Nov 2006
disgruntled caveman
31,483 Posts
1,933 Reputation
#6
Quote from slickster111
:
What happens if the children already moved in and the parents are still paying rent. Can I still do anything about it. They did not change the name on check to the new tenants.
I assume subletting is against the terms of your lease. If it's not, you're screwed. If it is, they're breaking the lease.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
I heart slickdeals:

$12: 10 (good!) DVDs
$138: Zen X-Fi 32 gb
$4: ToyStory 1&2 BR/DVD + 2x TS3 movie tix
$45: 8 bags M&Ms+ 4Orville 6packs + 2 Redbox +3 blurays+ 2 DVDs+ 4 movie tix+ 1 Bisquick
$262: 50" LED TV
$281.99: mower+ 3 barstool+ 2 tailgate grill+ 6fertilizer+sawzall+4pillows+edger+swimsuit+2WiiU AfterglowPro +2sandals + sprinkler + 50' hose -- SYWR
One happy wife!
Running video game deal list: $155 bought me
3DS: DKCR, ALBW, PkmnY, MarioGolf, Starfox, FE:A
WiiU: NinLand, BatmanAC, AC4, W101, NG:RE, MK8, Pikmin 3, NSLU, 3DWorld, ZombiU
This comment has been rated as unhelpful by Slickdeals users
Joined Apr 2017
New User
5 Posts
10 Reputation
#7
I wouldn't listen to the guy who has only been on the tenant side of things. SF rent control laws are very draconian, we've been doing it for 30 years and have spent the last 5 years winding down to get out of the business. I suggest you look up Kim 2.0 and also the recent Proposition F to get an idea of how bad it is. Also the state ballot to remove Costa Hawkins Prop 10 will hurt even more in November.

I would not take their son's money or accept him as a tenant. The only reason they want him in is to try to take advantage of the rent controled price. Even if they forcibly put him there consult with a lawyer to to give him 6.14 notice which allows you to increase the rent to market once the original lessees move out. Tred carefully as the rent control laws have been amended over 200 times in San francisco and is extremely esoteric with landmines placed to trap small property owners. Personally given the high valuations in SF i suggest people sell and go to friendlier areas. The laws are such that only large corporate owners can operate, small owners get burned really bad.

Join the Small Propertu Owners Association, they are a great resource with up to date leases and advice. they meet 11 times a year and well worth the $79 annual membership. www.smallprop.org. They can probably recommend some lawyers but also provide much basic advice.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
This comment has been rated as unhelpful by Slickdeals users
Joined Nov 2008
Deal Pickle ( 0_o V)
1,127 Posts
432 Reputation
Pro
#8
Quote from slickster111
:
What happens if the children already moved in and the parents are still paying rent. Can I still do anything about it. They did not change the name on check to the new tenants.
They are trying to transfer the lease and put under the rental control.
As soon as you accept a check under the children's name, they are effectively a tenant regardless of the original lease.

Go by the lease and serve them a proper notice. If you let them stay, you are asking for a trouble.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
Page 1 of 1
1
Join the Conversation
Add a Comment
 
Copyright 1999 - 2018. Slickdeals, LLC. All Rights Reserved. Copyright / Infringement Policy  •  Privacy Policy  •  Terms of Service  •  Acceptable Use Policy (Rules)  •  Interest-Based Ads
Link Copied to Clipboard