Chris Evans Archives - Page 2 of 2 - Gupta Evans and Ayres

Tag Archive for: Chris Evans

Airbnb and Short-Term Rentals in San Diego: The Ban that Never Was

November 1, 2018/in All Blog Posts, Real Estate/by Chris Evans

You have likely seen the signs around town — “Neighborhoods are for Neighbors, Not Vacation Rentals.” This phrase has become the mantra of “Save San Diego Neighborhoods,” the lead organization pushing back against San Diego’s rapidly expanding short term rental market. Save San Diego is an organization fighting to stop the “illegal conversion of San Diego homes to short-term vacation rentals.” In doing so, Save San Diego has been pushing the San Diego City Council to impose significant regulations with respect to short-term rentals such as Airbnb.

Mounting such a fight, however, has not come without its challenges. The primary group pushing back against Save San Diego to try and keep San Diego’s short-term rental market alive and thriving is “Share San Diego,” a coalition of San Diegans in support of short-term rentals. Naturally, Share San Diego is strongly supported by short-term rental companies, such as Airbnb and HomeAway. Short-term rental units generate nearly $300 million annually for San Diego homeowners and an additional $200 million for the surrounding businesses. For perspective, the San Diego Padres—San Diego’s only professional sports franchise—generated only $266 million in total revenue for all of 2017. Obviously, there is a lot at stake when trying to regulate an industry of this size.

Despite resistance from Share San Diego and other proponents of short-term rentals, Save San Diego looked like they achieved victory back in July and August of 2018 when the San Diego City Council voted to outlaw vacation rentals in secondary homes, limiting short-term stays to one’s primary residence only.

The victory, though, was only temporary.

In response to the City’s decision to regulate short term rentals, Share San Diego put together a referendum petition that garnered over 62,000 San Diegan signatures in support of challenging the regulations. The petition forced the City to either rescind the ordinance or to have a public vote on the ordinance. On October 22, 2018, as a result of the referendum, the San Diego City Council made its choice and voted 8-1 to rescind the newly minted short-term rental ordinance—the ordinance that the Council passed barely three months earlier.

The repeal of the short-term rental regulations marked a significant win for Share San Diego, Airbnb and other proponents of short-term rentals. Yet, while Share San Diego may be leading on the scoreboard as of today, Save San Diego and other opponents of the short-term industry will undoubtedly continue to advocate for new regulations. Consequently, the repeal of short-term rental regulations has created tremendous uncertainty with regard to how the City of San Diego will look to regulate short term rentals going forward, if at all, and poses the question of what in fact is best for San Diego.

How Did We Get Here

In March 2017, San Diego City Attorney Mara Elliott issued a memo wherein she determined that “any use that is not listed in the City’s zoning ordinance is prohibited.” As a result, because short-term rentals are not listed, it was concluded that the San Diego Municipal Code does not permit short-term rentals in any zone in the city—residential, commercial or otherwise. At that point, the issue appeared cut and dry—short-term rentals are illegal and, therefore, should no longer be allowed. Not quite. Despite this memo being issued, Mayor Kevin Faulconer’s office chose not to declare the short-term rentals illegal and instead decided to wait for regulations, which caused the “mini-hotels” to continue spread throughout San Diego.
The City Attorney’s memo and the fact that short term rentals continued to be permitted by the Mayor’s office created a vacuum of uncertainty that the San Diego City Council was forced to address.
On July 16, 2018, the San Diego City Council voted to outlaw vacation rentals in secondary homes, limiting short-term stays to one’s primary residence only, so long as the rentals do not exceed six months out of the year, the owner applied for a permit and paid an annual fee of $949. Notably, the regulation did not include any exemption for the areas of Mission Beach, where 44% of the homes are estimated to be short-term rentals, or Pacific Beach—areas that include a total of over 3,100 short-term rental homes.
On August 1, 2018, after a five hour long hearing where opponents of the regulation voiced their concern, the San Diego City Council reaffirmed its July 16^th decision. This put the new regulation on course to become effective in July 2019. The reaffirmation of the short term rental ordinance was viewed by Share San Diego as “a massive loss for both property rights and the tourism industry in San Diego” and a decision that “will leave thousands of short term rental hosts without a lifeline and even more small business crippled with losses in revenue and traffic.”
Backed by Airbnb and HomeAway, opponents of San Diego’s short-term rental ordinance organized to fight the new regulations—lawsuits were threatened, testimony was heard, organizations were formed and, ultimately, a referendum petition was circulated with goal of forcing San Diego to revisit its controversial short-term rental regulations.
On August 30, 2018, Share San Diego’s referendum seeking to overturn the short-term rental ordinance collected signatures from more than 62,000 San Diegans. Only 36,000 signatures were needed.
On October 8, 2018, Share San Diego’s referendum and its 62,000 signatures were certified by the San Diego City Clerk. The certification presented the San Diego City Council with two options: (1) rescind the short-term rental ordinance; or (2) place the ordinance up for a public vote at a future date, likely in 2020.
On October 22, 2018, the San Diego City Council voted 8 – 1 to rescind the July 16^th short-term rental ordinance. Given the delay a 2020 public vote would bring, in addition to the potential of incurring millions of dollars defending lawsuits filed by opponents of the ordinance, rescission of the ordinance and starting over was the preferred choice for both opponents and proponents of the regulation.
The City now has the option of adopting a new set of rules within the next year, but such rules would have to be substantially different from the ones that were repealed. What set of regulations would be “substantially different” is yet another unknown

What Are We Yelling About?!

When addressing the importance of the short-term rental market in San Diego, Share San Diego and other opponents of the short-term rental ordinance focus largely on the undeniable economic benefit that short term rentals bring to San Diego and property owners. Short-term rental hosts are of the position that they should have the right to use their properties as a way of supplementing their income. In addition to the direct supplemental income a property owner garners from renting their home short-term, the community itself receives an economic boost.

Specifically, in October 2017, Alan Nevin of the Xpera Group published a study focusing on the economic impact of short-term rentals in San Diego. The study concluded that short term lodging in the City of San Diego generated almost $500 million in spending ($300 million direct and $200 million indirect and induced spending), $700,000 in sales tax revenue and over 3,000 jobs[1]. San Diegans earned $5.2 million over Labor Day weekend alone as they hosted 15,000 travelers. For comparison, as stated above, the San Diego Padres generated $266 million in total revenue in 2017.

A common counter to the economic benefit that short-term rentals bring to San Diego is that the benefit is coming at the expense of San Diego hotels. However, the Xpera Group’s report concluded that not only do the majority of short-term renters stay seven nights or longer (i.e. longer than a typical hotel stay), but short-term rental nights made up only 2.7% of hotel nights in San Diego. Of that 2.7%, the report further concluded that the short-term rental nights did not pull from hotel nights because of the cost and location of where the short-term rental nights occurred. The conclusion, as set forth in the Xpera Group Report, is that the short-term rental market “has had a minimal or negligible effect on the hotel market.”

As a result, opponents of the short-term rental market and those that want to regulate the industry (i.e. Save San Diego Neighborhoods) shy away from trying to diminish the economic impact of the short-term rentals. Rather, the main argument put forth by proponents of short-term rental regulations is essentially that short-term rentals harm the character and stability of neighborhoods in a way that is inconsistent with City Planning and negatively impacts San Diego residents.

As posited by Save San Diego Neighborhoods, short-term rentals disrupt San Diego communities by creating businesses in areas that were designed and intended to be purely residential communities. Unlike even monthly rentals, a short-term rental involves significantly more moving parts and, more often than not, a different type of customer. The infrastructure (i.e. roads, law enforcement, garbage collection, utilities, community maintenance) needed to support a vacation renter, short term or otherwise, is fundamentally different than that which is required to support a residential tenant. When the frequency of vacation renters is drastically increased through short-term rentals, the strain on the communities’ infrastructure is exacerbated. At some point, the strain will become too much. Similar to the SDSU Mini Dorm issue, the character of neighborhoods and the stability of communities are necessarily and unavoidably jeopardized, or at the very least, transformed, by the proliferation of short-term rentals.

One of the other main policy arguments put forth by Save San Diego Neighborhoods is that short-term rentals drive up rental and housing costs for San Diego residents. As outlined in our prior article related to rent control, rents in San Diego have increased substantially over the last three years. The average rent in March of 2018 in San Diego was $1,887, which represented a 20% increase since 2015. The median cost of rent is simply much higher than the average San Diegan can afford, which is causing families to be pushed into suburban neighborhoods where rents tend to be lower. However, Save San Diego Neighborhoods argues the increase in short-term rentals removes thousands of otherwise available long-term rental homes from that market.

Similarly, from a homebuyer’s perspective, Save San Diego Neighborhoods argues the increase of short-term rentals is naturally drawing otherwise uninterested investors to the residential housing market. The average potential homeowner is then forced to compete with investors whose sole business model is based on valuations associated with vacation rentals. The California homeownership rate already lags around 10 percentage points below the national homeownership rate, 54.6% versus 64.2%. That means that Californians rent at a rate that is 10% higher than the national average. In a market where investors are already competing with primary residence holders for middle class housing, the ever-expanding short-term rental market provides yet another obstacle to middle class homeownership. Put another way, with the ease of short-term renting created through sites like Airbnb, what is to prevent Pacific Beach and Ocean Beach from becoming like Mission Beach where over 44% of the homes are used as vacation rentals?

The economic benefit cannot be denied and will continue to be the primary argument of Share San Diego and those in favor of short-term rentals in San Diego. Opponents of short-term rental regulations will not try to deny this fact. That is not to say, however, that the economic benefit cannot be outweighed by a more compelling interest. In this instance, that interest is preserving the character and stability of a community and preventing the fundamental, unanticipated transformation of communities.

Technology—Yet Another Layer

There is one other, overlapping reality to this ongoing short-term rental saga: technology. Similar to the taxi industry and Uber, short-term rentals existed long before AirBnb and HomeAway came along. Airbnb simply made short-term rentals much more accessible in the exact same way that Uber made ride-sharing so easy that it has become ubiquitous.

It is technology that has allowed the use of short-term rentals to expand throughout the world. In years past, without technology (read: Internet), the increase of short-term rentals in certain communities and neighborhoods may have moved at rate that allowed those communities to adapt and families to adjust. Now, the rapid expansion of short-term rentals at the rate seen by communities, such as San Diego, make it nearly impossible for those communities to keep pace and adjust appropriately.

The challenge, then, is not whether short term rentals should be regulated in San Diego, but, rather, how the short-term rentals should be regulated. Clearly, some boundaries need to be drawn in a way that allows residential communities and neighborhoods to support an increase in vacation renters. Both sides likely agree with this position.

However, government, especially at the local level, is extraordinarily poorly equipped to regulate technology. This is especially true in an emerging market where even those that are shaping the landscape of the technology cannot claim to have visibility beyond three or four years. This fundamental shortcoming is exacerbated by the political nature of the California housing market and the size of the short-term rental market. This does not even begin to address the legal implications of such a decision (another blog for another day). The technological component and the political considerations surrounding short-term rentals will make it extremely difficult for a local body of government, such as the San Diego City Council, to regulate.

To Sum It All Up

Share San Diego and Save San Diego Neighborhoods each present strong arguments in favor of their respective positions. However, the reality is that attempts by the City of San Diego to regulate the short-term rental industry will inevitably benefit one side over the other. Ultimately, because of the relative strength behind each side in this fight and the arguments each side presents, this matter is likely to be resolved through a ballot measure and public vote.

While the most recent short-term rental ordinance from July 2018 may have had a short life span, if any at all, the potential for compromise between the two sides—one that furthers each of their goals—is certainly within the realm of possibility and one that San Diego and its residents should strive to achieve.

[1] The 2017 figures increased from approximately $196 million in direct and indirect spending in 2015.

Reverse Veil Piercing: A Welcome Addition to the Creditor’s Collection Arsenal

September 18, 2018/in All Blog Posts, Corporate Litigation/by Chris Evans

In 2017, the California Court of Appeals ruled that creditors can directly pursue the assets of an LLC owned by a judgment debtor to satisfy the judgment. This process, known as “Reverse Veil Piercing,” marks a significant change in California law as it relates to collections and the way that the assets of an LLC are viewed in the eyes of the Courts. The ruling may also be indicative of how the Courts plan to treat closely held entities in the future.

In late 2017, California’s Fourth Appellate District concluded that “reverse veil piercing” may be used by creditors to add an LLC to a judgment the creditor has against an individual owner of the LLC. The decision, albeit narrow, was set forth in detail in Curci Investments, LLC v. Baldwin (2017) 14 Cal.App.5^th 214 and departed from the well-settled California law against reverse veil piercing set forth in the 2008 appellate decision, Postal Instant Press, Inc. v. Kaswa Corp. (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 1510. The Curci ruling grants creditors a significant new means of collecting a judgment that otherwise may be extraordinarily difficult, or impossible, to collect.

The Facts

The case of Curci Investments, LLC v. Baldwin involved Mr. James P. Baldwin. Mr. Baldwin was a real estate developer who over his lifetime was involved in hundreds of corporations and limited liability companies. One of the LLCs was named JPB Investments, LLC (JPB). Mr. Baldwin was the 99 percent owner of JPB, with his wife holding the remaining one percent. Mr. Baldwin was also the manager and CEO of JPB and controlled all of its decisions and actions, such as cash distributions to Mr. Baldwin and his wife. JPB’s exclusive purpose was to hold, invest and/or distribute the cash balances of Baldwin and his wife.

Mr. Baldwin defaulted under a $5.5 million promissory note. Curci, the owner of the note, filed suit and eventually obtained a judgment against Mr. Baldwin, personally, in the approximate amount of $7.2 million. When Curci obtained its judgment against Mr. Baldwin personally, Curci pursued several avenues to try and collect on the judgment. However, after exhausting most of its options, Curci was unable to receive any recovery on its judgment. With few options left, Curci filed a motion to expand the judgment to include one of Mr. Baldwin’s LLCs, JPB (above), based on the theory that JPB was the alter ego of Mr. Baldwin. In other words, Curci wanted to utilize “reverse veil piercing” to reach the assets of JPB and satisfy Curci’s judgment.

Hold That Thought…

A quick aside about alter ego and piercing the corporate veil. These concepts are not particularly new and have long been permissible in California[1]. As is well-recognized, a corporation or an LLC are considered a separate legal entity, distinct from its stockholders, officers and directors (or members and managers), with separate and distinct liabilities and obligations[2]. This affords the shareholders of a corporation, or the members of an LLC, protection from judgments against the corporation or LLC.

However, that legal separation (and protection) may be disregarded by the courts when the creditor shows the following exists:

Such a unity of interest and ownership between the corporation (or LLC) and its equitable owner that the separate personalities of the corporation and the shareholder do not in reality exist (based upon a variety of factors); and
Injustice will result if the acts in question are treated as those of the corporation (or LLC) alone[3].

If these prongs are demonstrated, the actions of the corporation or LLC will be deemed to be those of the persons or organizations actually controlling the corporation. This is known as “piercing the corporate veil”—the creditor is piercing the protective veil of the corporation or LLC to reach the assets of particular shareholders or members[4].

The concept Curci sought to utilize with respect to its judgment against Mr. Baldwin was the concept of reverse piercing of the corporate veil. The concept of reverse veil piercing is similar to traditional veil piercing in that when the ends of justice so require, and the foregoing two prongs are shown to exist, a court will disregard the separation between an individual and a business entity. However, rather than seeking to hold an individual responsible for the acts of an entity, reverse veil piercing seeks to satisfy the debt of an individual through the assets of an entity of which the individual is an insider.

Reverse Veil Piercing In California Before Curci

In Postal Instant Press, Inc. v. Kaswa Corp. (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 1510, 1513 (Postal Instant Press), the Court held that a third-party creditor may not reverse pierce the corporate veil to reach corporate assets to satisfy a shareholder’s personal liability. In deciding against allowing reverse veil piercing, the Court cited three concerns:

The effect of allowing judgment creditors to bypass standard judgment collection procedures;
The potential of harming innocent shareholders and corporate creditors (i.e. the non-debtor insiders of a corporation or LLC); and
Using an equitable remedy in situations where legal theories or legal remedies are available outweigh the wrong to the judgment creditor.

With the ruling in Postal Instant Press, reverse veil piercing in California was effectively dead, and it remained that way until Curci obtained its judgment against Mr. Baldwin.

The Curci Decision

In Curci, the Court acknowledged the above concerns, but distinguished the facts from those in Postal Instant Press. In doing so, the Court concluded that the three concerns were not present in the case before the Court. The distinction was grounded largely in the fact that Postal Instant Press was dealing with a corporation, whereas Curci was dealing with an LLC owned entirely by Mr. Baldwin and his wife.

The Court identified that a creditor does not have the same options against a member of an LLC as it has against a shareholder of a corporation. If the debtor is a shareholder of a corporation, the creditor can step straight into the shoes of the debtor, acquire the shares and then have whatever rights the shareholder had in the corporation, including the right to dividends, to vote, and to sell the shares. On the other hand, when the debtor is a member of an LLC, the creditor may only obtain a limited charging order to receive any distributions made to the member from the LLC. Here, because Mr. Baldwin had complete management and control over JPB, Mr. Baldwin could manipulate distributions such that no funds went to Mr. Baldwin, which is precisely what Mr. Baldwin had been doing to avoid the judgment.

Additionally, there was simply no “innocent” member of JPB that could be affected by reverse piercing. Mr. Baldwin held a 99 percent interest in JPB and his wife holds the remaining 1 percent interest, who, based on community property principles, was also liable for the debt owed to Curci.

Based on the above, the Court held that reverse veil piercing may be available to Curci with respect to JPB and sent the case back to the trial court to undertake the fact-driven analysis applicable to piercing a corporate veil. In parting words, the Court held that “the key is whether the ends of justice require disregarding the separate nature of JPB under the circumstances.”

What Now?

The ruling from the Court in Curci will likely be construed quite narrowly and only with respect to fact patterns largely mirroring the facts of Mr. Baldwin and his entity. Additionally, the ruling in Postal Instant Press should still be considered binding law with respect to corporations as the Curci ruling was almost entirely founded on the fact that the entity in question was an LLC. Even with the Curci ruling, when corporate entities and LLCs are structured and operated correctly, they will in all likelihood continue to exist separately from the individuals who form and manage them.

That said, the Curci ruling remains notable and opens the door to reverse veil piercing in California, which is a significant shift in California creditor law and a substantial change in the options previously available to creditors struggling to collect a judgment against an individual debtor. Those setting up corporate entities that will be largely controlled and operated by a single individual should keep the Curci case top of mind. Going forward, when a creditor is dealing with an individual judgment debtor actively misusing an LLC, one can all but guarantee that the creditor will now rely upon the Curci ruling to argue “the ends of justice” require reverse veil piercing to be permitted against the debtor’s LLC.

The materials available at this web site are for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Use of and access to this web site or any of the e-mail links contained within the site do not create an attorney-client relationship. The opinions expressed at or through this site are the opinions of the individual author and may not reflect the opinions of the firm or any individual attorney.

[1] Sonora Diamond Corp. v. Superior Court (2000) 83 Cal. App. 4th 523, 538

[2] Robbins v. Blecher (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 886, 892

[3] Sonora Diamond Corp. v. Superior Court, supra, 83 Cal. App. 4th at 538

[4] In addition to piercing the alter ego and piercing the corporate veil, there is a concept known as the Single-Enterprise doctrine which is also recognized in California. While well outside the scope of this article, the Single-Enterprise doctrine can be used to hold multiple, distinct legal business entities liable as if they were a single entity. See Las Palmas Associates v. Las Palmas Center Associates (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 1220, 1249-50.

San Diego Right To Know Ordinance: What Landlords Should Know Before Evicting Residential Tenants

July 20, 2018/in All Blog Posts, Real Estate/by Chris Evans

Landlords seeking to evict tenants within the City of San Diego are required to observe numerous eviction laws and guidelines imposed by the State of California that govern the eviction process. The laws already contain several nuances to which a landlord must strictly adhere or otherwise risk jeopardizing the eviction in question. However, in addition to the California eviction laws, a landlord must also strictly follow eviction laws adopted and imposed by the City of San Diego. One of such laws specific to the City of San Diego is the Tenants’ Right to Know Ordinance (the “RTK Ordinance”). San Diego Municipal Code Chapter 9, Article 8.

What Is It?

In 2004, the City of San Diego adopted the “Tenants Right to Know Ordinance,” which is a just cause eviction ordinance. The RTK Ordinance significantly impacts a landlord’s ability to terminate, or refuse to renew, the tenancy of a long-term residential tenant by requiring the landlord to provide cause for termination. Generally, the RTK Ordinance states that if a landlord wants to terminate a residential tenancy of more than two years, the landlord must have one of nine enumerated reasons for doing so and must inform the tenant of such reason at the time of serving the requisite notice under California law. The stated purpose of the RTK Ordinance is “to promote stability in the San Diego rental housing market and limit adverse impacts on long-term residential tenants displaced and forced to find replacement housing in the expensive and limited San Diego housing market.

The RTK Ordinance, San Diego Municipal Code Section 98.0730, states the following nine reasons upon which a landlord can rely to terminate or refuse to renew a tenancy consist of the following:

Nonpayment of rent;
Violation of Obligation of Tenancy;
Nuisance;
Illegal Use;
Refusal to Renew Lease;
Refusal to Provide Access;
Correction of Violations/Necessary Repairs or Construction;
Withdrawal All Rental Units from the Rental Market;
Owner or Relative Occupancy

For example, if a landlord wanted to end a residential month-to-month tenancy that has lasted for over two years and that pertains to a property in the City of San Diego, the landlord could only do so if one of the foregoing reasons existed. If one of the reasons existed, the landlord would serve the proper notice to the tenant as ordinarily required under California law (i.e. 3-day, 30-day, 60-day notice, whichever the case may be), and the landlord must include the specific reason for termination in the notice. This differs from the general practice in California wherein a landlord can terminate a month-to-month tenancy by simply providing a 30-day or 60-day notice, for any reason and such reason need not be given to the tenant.

Challenges to Interpretation.

At first glance, the RTK Ordinance appears relatively straightforward in that the typical reasons for terminating a tenancy match those permitted by the RTK Ordinance. However, problems may arise due to the ambiguous terminology used in the RTK Ordinance.

For example, while it is clear that the RTK Ordinance applies only to tenancies of more than two years in duration, it remains unclear whether the RTK Ordinance applies solely to month-to-month tenancies, or whether the RTK Ordinance also applies to fixed term tenancies. Our office is of the opinion that the RTK Ordinance is limited to the month-to-month tenancies given the fact that a fixed term tenancy automatically terminates without notice. However, the issue has yet to be litigated and could pose costly and time-consuming problems to a landlord looking to evict a tenant if a tenant, rightly or wrongly, sought to challenge the issue.

Additionally, further ambiguity arises where a landlord relies on the “Correction of Violation” cause to terminate a tenancy. The RTK Ordinance provides that a valid cause to terminate a tenancy exists if the landlord needs possession of the property in order to make “necessary repairs and construction” to the property in question. This obviously begs the question of what is “necessary,” which is not surprisingly undefined in the RTK Ordinance. Again, the issue has yet to be sufficiently litigated to create any sort of certainty around the issue for landlords seeking to evict.

Summary.

The RTK Ordinance is a very tenant-friendly ordinance that creates further nuance to the eviction procedures in the City of San Diego. The RTK Ordinance imposes additional burden on a landlord seeking to evict a residential tenant. Should an unlawful detainer be filed, the RTK Ordinance also provides a mechanism for the tenant to challenge the eviction by alleging as an affirmative defense that the landlord failed to abide by the RTK Ordinance. For instance, if the tenant contests the reason provided by the landlord in the notice (i.e. tenant contends he or she was not causing a nuisance), the tenant can allege the landlord did not abide by the RTK Ordinance and would bear the burden of proving that the landlord did not follow the RTK Ordinance.

Landlords need to be cognizant of the requirements of the RTK Ordinance in order to smoothly and efficiently evict a long-term residential tenant. Failure to adhere to the provisions of the RTK Ordinance could substantially and negatively impact a landlord. At a minimum, the landlord will suffer the lost time and inconvenience of having to serve a new notice that includes proper cause for eviction. If the landlord has gone so far as to actually commence an unlawful detainer suit based on the bad notice, the consequences can potentially be far worse. Not only will the tenant win the eviction case and the landlord will have to start the entire process over again, thus losing more time and rent, but a successful win for the tenant could subject the landlord to paying the tenant’s costs and attorneys’ fees.

The creation of the RTK Ordinance affirmative defense also creates a level of unpredictability for landlords when renting properties in the City of San Diego. Naturally, landlords will need to assess this potential risk and unpredictability associated with the RTK Ordinance and will take such risk into account when renting their properties to potential tenants.

Given the above, if you want to terminate a long-term residential tenancy, be sure to consult a real estate litigation attorney to help ensure that you are in compliance with the provisions of the RTK Ordinance and California eviction law.