Posts Tagged ‘landlord’

CitiApartments Pwned by City Attorney Dennis Herrera – $50K in Penalties for Obfuscation, Delay

Tuesday, February 2nd, 2010

Our three-term City Attorney Dennis J. Herrera has just released the news about how San Francisco recently won a little compensation to pay for all the extra work it’s doing to bring poorly-rated CitiApartments / Skyline Realty* to justice. Keep in mind that these penalties are not to punish (’cause that part will come later). No, no, this $50K is just to pay us back for the extra expenses we recently incurred due to relentless foot-dragging from the infamous Lembi Family et alia.

Poor Judge Munter had to spend half of the hearing deciding how to divvy up the penalties among all the interrelated defendants. Oh well.

Read all about it here, or below.

San Francisco’s Happy Warrior: His middle name is Jose, his son speaks Mandarin Chinese and he’s been working on gay legal issues for donkey’s years, at least since the 1990’s - do you think all that might help him if he decides to run for Mayor in 2011?

Pwned:

Herrera wins Court sanctions against CitiApartments for “obfuscation, delay.” Landlords’ defiance in the face of City Attorney’s ‘Herculean efforts’ triggers order to cooperate with discovery, pay $50K sanction

SAN FRANCISCO (Feb. 2, 2010) — City Attorney Dennis Herrera has won Court-ordered sanctions against a labyrinthine web of defendants involved in the operation of CitiApartments and Skyline Realty, the residential property management and investment behemoth Herrera first sued in 2006 for its stunning array of unlawful business practices.  The order, which was signed by San Francisco Superior Court Judge John E. Munter last month and obtained this morning, compels each of the two-dozen corporate, trust and individual defendants currently named in the suit to respond to discovery requests in compliance with rules of civil procedure, and to pay sanctions to the City totaling $50,129.50, which reflects San Francisco’s fees and costs to pursue its motion to compel.  Munter’s order requires all of the defendants to comply with the order by Feb. 19, 2010.

“CitiApartments deserved to be sanctioned for its continued defiance in this case, and I’m gratified to Judge Munter for calling these tactics exactly what they are — ‘obfuscation, delay and meritless objections,’” said Herrera.  “I hope this sanction sends a message to Frank Lembi, Walter Lembi and all of the defendants responsible for CitiApartments’ lawless conduct that there is a limit to judicial patience, and they’ve reached it.  This has been a long, difficult case to address what is perhaps the most egregious corruption of San Francisco’s residential housing market in modern history.  We remain committed to pursuing this case aggressively, and I hope these sanctions are a tipping point that hastens our progress toward a just outcome.”

All the gritty nitty, after the jump.

*Let me tell you something here, whenever you’re paying your monthly rent to “LSL Property Holdings II DE LLC” or something, don’t be surprised when you have trouble getting your deposit back. This case is a morass. Anywho, your defendants:

“Skyline Realty Inc., Citiapartments Inc., Citi Funding Group Inc., Citisuites LLC, Lembi Group Inc., Lembi Group Partners LLC, Urban Property Management, Inc., Citiwide Rentals, Inc., Frank Lembi, Walter Lembi, David Raynal, Taylor Lembi, Frank Lembi As Trustee Of The Frank E. Lembi Survivor’s Trust Dated February 17, 1984, As Restated On June 2, 1999, Frank Lembi, As Trustee Of The Olga Lembi Residual Trust Created Under The Provisions Of Part Three Of The Lembi Family Trust Dated February 17, 1984, Walter Lembi, As Trustee Of The Walter And Linda Lembi Family Trust Dated June 30, 2004, David Raynal, As Trustee Of The David M. Raynal Revocable Trust Dated May 9, 2002, 737 Pine DE LLC, 737 Pine B10 DE LLC, 737 Pine B10 Mezz DE LLC, 1155 LLC, Gaylord Hotel LLC, LSL Properties B14 DE LLC, LSL Property Holdings II DE LLC, LSL Property Holdings II Mezz LLC, Nob Hill Tower DE LLC, Nob Hill Tower Mezz DE LLC, Prime Apartment Properties LLC, Prime Apartment Properties B10 DE LLC, Prime Apartment Properties B10 Mezz DE LLC, Trophy Properties B10 DE LLC, Trophy Properties IV DE LLC, Trophy Properties IV B8A LLC, Trophy Properties IV Mezz DE LLC, Trophy Properties V LLC, Trophy Properties V DE LLC, Trophy Properties VI LLC, Trophy Properties IV B8A Manager LLC.”

(more…)

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in law | 2 Comments »

Revenge of the Subtenant – Rent Board Requires Master Tenant to Refund $10,800

Thursday, January 14th, 2010

Here’s the thing – if you’re renting a place in San Francisco and you’re paying your monthly rent to your roommate, chances are that you could be considered a subtenant and your roomy the “Master Tenant.”* Particularly when the rent for your unit is way undermarket, due to rent control let’s say, you might end up spending more for your space than the Master pays for the Master’s part of the apartment.

So if you’re paying $900 a month for your half of  a two-bedroom and your Master Tenant in the other room is only kicking in $100 (to pay $1000 total to the landlord for the whole place), then you can take steps to get some of that money back and lower your rent to boot.

“A subtenant who believes he or she is paying more than a proportional share of the total rent may file a Tenant Petition against the master tenant on that basis. If the subtenant prevails, the Administrative Law Judge will adjust the rent to the proportional share and order the master tenant to refund any rent overpayments.”

Is this a perfect system? No, but it’s what you end up with when your city has rent control.

Your San Francisco Rent Board just dealt with a subtenant/Master Tenant proportionality case. The names of the people involved aren’t important, but the situation is noteworthy, IMO. Let’s check it out.

Now, if you don’t like how the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) dealt with your case with your roomie, you can appeal to the board. As here, from the meeting of August 4, 2009:

“The subtenant’s petition alleging that he paid a disproportional share of the rent pursuant to Rules ß6.15C(3) was granted and the Master Tenant was found liable to the subtenant in the amount of $10,800.00. On appeal, the Master Tenant alleges that he was unaware of the requirement that the amount of rent paid must be proportional; that the decision will present him with a financial hardship; and that the subtenant is going to be evicted due to his uncooperative behavior. 

MSC: To deny the appeal on substantive grounds but remand the case for a hearing on the Master Tenant’s claim of financial hardship. (Gruber/Crow: 5-0)”

See? The sub won big-time, to the tune of five figures because the rent split determined by the Master Tenant wasn’t proportional according to a judge and the full board.

But the master came back to say the ruling would be a hardship for him. From the meeting of November 17, 2009:

“The subtenant’s petition alleging that he paid a disproportionate share of the rent was granted and the Master Tenant was found liable to the subtenant in the amount of $10,800.00.  The Master Tenant’s hardship appeal was granted and remanded for hearing.  In the remand decision, the ALJ finds sufficient hardship to order a repayment plan in the amount of $150.00 per month.  The Master Tenant again appeals, claiming that even the reduced amount will cause him severe hardship and possibly result in both tenants’ eviction from the premises.

MSC: To deny the appeal.  (Mosbrucker/Gruber:  5-0)”

Is this what you might call a Phyric victory? Maybe. It’s probably too early to tell. Oh well.  

Check the San Francisco Rent Board website for deets on the rules, or see you after the jump.

*The County of Los Angeles doesn’t want to buy equipment that has the term “master” written anywhere on it, like on a hard drive, a DVD burner or a brake cylinder. But in San Francisco, we freely label people “Master Tenants.” It’s our thing. 

(more…)

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in housing | 1 Comment »

City Attorney Dennis Herrera Sues Landlord for Breaking No-Eviction Agreement

Monday, April 20th, 2009

The Law says if you bust a deal, you must then face the wheel of Justice. Today’s news is that a judge might soon be ladling out steaming bowls of rich, creamy justice to local landlord Mark O’Flynn.

Sure seems that way. Unlike some complicated cases that I have a hard time getting a handle on, this one here is straight-up simple. How would you defend yourself against this kind of charge?

“Herrera Sues Defiant Landlord for Breaching Contract After Evicting Disabled Tenant. City funding of $38,165 for lead abatement required landlord to continue to rent unit to low- or moderate-income tenants.”

DJH last year at City Hall:

Click to expand

Read all about it:

City Attorney Dennis Herrera today filed suit against a landlord whose successful suit to evict a low-income disabled tenant and her family in January violated the terms of a contract that provided City funds to pay for lead hazard reduction work at the property. Mark O’Flynn received $38,165 through the City’s Lead Hazard Reduction Program under a July 2005 agreement that he would continue to rent his property at 1672 Great Highway for at least five years to low- or moderate-income tenants, as defined by U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development guidelines, or be required to refund to the City the entire grant amount.

According to the 12-page complaint filed in San Francisco Superior Court this morning, O’Flynn completed the lead hazard reduction work in September 2005, but prevented the tenants who had lived at the property in the Outer Sunset for nearly 30 years from resuming their tenancy while he continued to make renovations. When he finally allowed family members to move back into the unit in Feb. 2006, his incomplete work rendered the shower inaccessible to his disabled tenant for several additional months.

Approximately a year after completing the lead hazard reduction work, O’Flynn and his wife initiated owner move-in eviction proceedings against the tenants, but were rebuffed by two separate trial court judgments. Then, in Aug. 2008, the O’Flynns filed suit under the Ellis Act—a state law that authorizes landlords to evict tenants by removing units from the rental market for at least two years—this time winning a court-ordered eviction on Jan. 7, 2009. Because O’Flynn’s eviction proceedings against his tenants violated the terms of his grant agreement, the City has twice demanded repayment of the lead abatement funds. But O’Flynn has not responded to those demands.

“State law may allow landlords to evict tenants by going out of the rental business—but it doesn’t authorize grant recipients to break their contracts with the City,” Herrera said. “The Mayor’s Office of Housing administers the Lead Hazard Reduction Program to protect public health at rental units for low- and moderate-income tenants with children. It’s not a giveaway program for greedy landlords, and Mr. O’Flynn certainly knew that when he contracted to receive City grant funding. This lawsuit intends to get the City’s money back, and hopefully send a message that San Francisco expects its grant recipients to live up to their obligations—especially when it comes to protecting affordable housing.”

Herrera’s civil suit includes breach of contract and unjust enrichment allegations and seeks full compensatory damages in the sum of $38,165 plus additional costs and expenses to be determined, including the temporary relocation of O’Flynn’s tenants while the lead hazard reduction work was being completed. The case is City and County of San Francisco v. Mark O’Flynn, San Francisco Superior Court, filed April 20, 2009.

A copy of City Attorney’s filing is available on the website at http://www.sfgov.org/cityattorney/

Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off

Dennis Herrera Acts to Protect Tenants If Landlord Fails to Pay Utilities

Wednesday, February 25th, 2009

Here’s a little equation relevant for these times:

Declaration signed by Department of Building Inspection Director Vivian L. Day and City Attorney Dennis Herrera + California Civil Code + California Public Utilities Code = Your apartment building not getting cut off from utilities despite your deadbeat landlord not paying the bill.

Read all about it, below.

San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera addressing a large crowd in City Hall last year:

Declaration Triggers State Laws to Protect S.F. Tenants From Utility Shutoffs. Termination of Gas, Electricity Services Due to Owner Nonpayment Poses ‘Significant Threat’ to Public Health and Safety, City Finds

A declaration signed by Department of Building Inspection Director Vivian L. Day and City Attorney Dennis Herrera triggers provisions of state law that will protect tenants of master metered multiunit buildings in San Francisco from losing gas, heat and electricity services if their landlords stop paying their utility bills. The 2-page declaration issued today concludes that “the termination of private utilities at a master metered building will be automatically deemed to cause a significant threat to the health or safety of the residential occupants or the public,” and establishes that no such utilities be terminated to occupied master metered multiunit residential buildings in San Francisco because of the landlord’s failure to pay. The declaration will remain in effect through Dec. 31, 2010.

“Given the number of reports of utility shutoffs and the uncertainty in our economy, this declaration is a prudent and necessary step that protects not only tenants, but all San Francisco residents,” said City Attorney Herrera. “The state laws triggered by today’s action were enacted to protect public health and safety in circumstances exactly such as these. DBI Director Vivian Day and her staff deserve credit for their hard work to address these concerns proactively, and I appreciate, too, the efforts of community groups like the Housing Rights Committee of San Francisco to protect tenants during these difficult economic times.”

“We know from experience,” said DBI Director Day, “that interruption of utility services can cause
residents to try to make due with illegal generators and unauthorized heating devices, and that these pose significant health and safety risks to themselves and their neighbors. This declaration is an important step to eliminate such risks in the midst of the current foreclosure crisis. I am grateful to City Attorney Dennis Herrera for his leadership, the work of his office, and the pro-active efforts by community groups, to help the Department of Building Inspection protect the interests of all San Franciscans.”

While today’s declaration is not limited to residential buildings facing foreclosure, reported cases of utility shutoffs affecting tenants due to non-payment by landlords have spiked dramatically during the
recent housing foreclosure crisis. Findings cited in the City’s declaration note that “foreclosures have
increased by as much as 450% over the past year” in some San Francisco neighborhoods, and one tenant advocacy organization—the Housing Rights Committee of San Francisco—is “reporting that they are seeing an average of one case per day” of utility shutoffs to tenants through no fault of their own.
Today’s declaration follows a public memorandum Herrera issued on Jan. 16 outlining the rights of San
Francisco tenants under state and local law to remain in their rental units and continue to receive utility service when residential property owners face foreclosure by creditors or delinquency on utility bills. The 11-page memo issued to DBI Director Day, SFPUC General Manager Ed Harrington and Director of Public Health Dr. Mitch Katz identified legal provisions in California law that compel such privately owned utilities as PG&E to continue gas and electric service when a public health or building officer certifies it is necessary to protect life, health or safety.

The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, which operates the City’s publicly-owned water and
wastewater utilities, has a standing policy against shutting off utility services to its customers who are
tenants for non-payment by their landlord, and rather pursues collections by placing liens on delinquent
landlord’s building. SFPUC policy additionally affords tenants or their representatives the option of
establishing a new account for service, directly with the PUC, without being responsible for the past
delinquencies of their landlord.

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in housing | Comments Off

San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera Sides With Tenants During Foreclosure Crisis.

Friday, January 16th, 2009

Here’s the Message of the Year for tenants living in San Francisco – if your landlord defaults on his or her mortgage or fails to pay the utilities during these difficult times, it doesn’t necessarily follow that you will have to move out of your residence. City Attorney Dennis Herrera just created a big memo going over all the details, but if you’ve got a problem you shouldn’t worry about that – you should get help, possibly for free.

“Though the legal advice was issued as a published, public interest memorandum, Herrera urged tenants facing possible adverse consequences of property foreclosures to consult with private legal counsel or appropriate community organizations for information relating to their particular circumstances.  Resources that may be available to tenants dealing with these matters include the following:

* The Bar Association of San Francisco’s Lawyer Referral and Information
Service
Online: http://www.sfbar.org/lawyerreferrals/
Phone: (415) 989-1616

* The San Francisco Tenants Union
Online: http://www.sftu.org/
Phone: (415) 282-6622

* Housing Rights Committee of San Francisco
Online: http://www.hrcsf.org/
Phone: (415) 703-8634

* Comite De Vivienda (St. Peter’s Housing Committee)
Online: http://www.comitedevivienda.org/
Phone: (415) 487.9203

* Asian Law Caucus
Online: http://www.asianlawcaucus.org/
Phone: (415) 896-1701

* AIDS Housing Alliance
Online: http://www.ahasf.org/
Phone: (415) 552-3242

San Francisco’s happy warrior, keeping busy in 2009:

Here are the full deets.

Herrera Asserts Rights of S.F. Tenants During Foreclosure Crisis

Legal Memorandum Outlines Rights of Tenants to Stay in Rentals, Receive Utility Service When Property Owners Face Foreclosure
SAN FRANCISCO (Jan. 16, 2009) — City Attorney Dennis Herrera today issued a public memorandum detailing the rights of tenants in San Francisco under state and local law to remain in their rental units and continue to receive utility service when residential property owning landlords face foreclosure by creditors or delinquency on utility bills.

“It’s vitally important for tenants to know their rights and understand how to protect themselves from losing their homes if a landlord defaults on a mortgage or utility service,” Herrera said.  “Though San Francisco has been lucky so far to avoid the widespread crisis we’ve seen in other cities, foreclosures here are still on the rise.  State and local law affords tough protections for most tenants, and prudence dictates knowing your rights and the availability of legal and community resources in the event they’re needed.”

Herrera’s 11-page memo, which was issued to Acting Director of the Department of Building Inspection Vivian Day, PUC General Manager Ed Harrington and Director of Public Health Dr. Mitch Katz, holds that the San Francisco Rent Control Ordinance protects tenants in rent controlled units from evictions as a result of foreclosure on the deed of trust or mortgage of the building.

The memo confirms that existing policies of the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission shield all City tenants from termination of water and wastewater services when property owners become delinquent on payments, and identifies provisions of state and local law to compel such privately-owned utilities as PG&E to continue gas and electric service when a public health or building officer certifies its necessity to protect life, health or safety.  State and local law additionally provide for penalties for violations by private utilities of up to $1,000 per day, and recovery of attorneys’ fees for prevailing litigants.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Posted in housing | 2 Comments »

Attention California Renters: The Repair and Deduct Remedy is Hard

Thursday, August 21st, 2008

Here it is in today’s San Francisco Chronicle: “If landlord delays fixes, ‘repair and deduct.‘” Click on over and read what “Property Manager Robert Griswold” has to say.

So, all that is fair enough, as far as it goes. But, gees Louise, there are caveats galore that could be appended to the pithy advice found in the article.  How about a link to the California Department of Consumer Affairs, where they have all sorts of advice about reparing and deducting, including this:

“Each of these remedies has its own risks and requirements, so the tenant should use them carefully”

Or as a commenter at SFGate.com suggests, check out Berkeley’s Nolo, “your legal companion since 1971.”

The Nolo outlet at 950 Parker in Berkeley.

Now back in the day, you could guess at the law and everything would generally work out. But those days are over. Basic ideas that were burned into the California Constitution  in the 1800’s have been tinkered with incessantly. Thusly.

Now all that can be good or bad. If your former landlord is thinking about retaining your security deposit in bad faith, the law created by Senator Carole Migden’s old Assembly Bill 2330 might give him or her reason to pause. So that’s good.

But let’s say your flaky roommate took off for Tibet two months ago and left some of his stuff around – exactly how you go about handling things is important. Very important. If you guess at the law or use your own sense of what’s right, then you might make painful mistakes. That’s bad.

Ces’t la vie en Calfornia.

Anyway, If your landlord delays fixes, consider repairing and deducting. How’s that for a headline?

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in real estate | Comments Off