Legal Corner Q & A
By Various Authors
Q. A woman was attacked outside one of my buildings recently. Several tenants are discussing installing a sensor light at their expense. If I allow them to hire a contractor to install a light, am I at risk due to a possible interpretation of the rent ordinance that may see the expenditure as an illegal rent increase?
A. First of all, there is always risk in allowing tenants to hire someone to perform work on your property. For example, if the contractor is not paid, a mechanics’ lien can be recorded against the property. You also have an interest in controlling the quality of any work done.
Second, you should check to make sure that you have adequate insurance coverage for any liability claims relating to security. Recent court decisions have increasingly imposed liability on owners for such injuries if there was notice to the owner (forseeability) and an ability to exercise “control” over the area.
There is a general duty to maintain the premises in a safe condition relating to such specifics as dead bolt locks, operable window security, and/or locking devices (Civil Code Section 1941.3). I presume that the sensor light would be on your property, yet also illuminate other areas beyond the boundaries of your property.
To answer your question, I don’t see much risk that the tenants would be successful in claiming an illegal rent increase. Under Section 37.2(g) of the Rent Ordinance, “rent increases” are defined as any additional moneys “demanded” or “paid for rent.” In this case, you neither demanded rent, nor actually were paid for rent, although your building received a benefit and may be safer as a result of the lighting expenditure.
I also don’t believe that the expenditure would be considered “rent” under the broad definition in Section 37.2(p) since you are not requiring or requesting them to install the lighting. That section states: “The consideration, including any bonus, benefits or gratuity, demanded or received by a landlord for or in connection with the use or occupancy of a rental unit...including, but not limited to monies demanded or paid for…housing services of any kind…” Of course, there is always a risk that a tenant advocate will assert such a shaky claim before the Board.
—Lawrence M. Scancarelli
Q. Must every notice of rent increase sent via the U.S. mail have its own declaration of service attached to it, or can I do one single declaration of service form for all tenants in my units if I send them out on the same day? It would simplify my paperwork if I could.
A. Although a single declaration of service might suffice, depending on how it is formatted, it would most likely be a difficult document to interpret and potentially very confusing. I would strongly suggest that a separate proof-of-service be used for each individual notice of rent increase given. Certainly you can use a standard, yet individualized, fill-in-the-blanks format. Moreover, if the mailing will be sent to all your units on the same date, the only thing that would need to be filled out individually would be the blanks for the name and individual apartment address of the tenants. By attaching an individual proof-of-service to each notice of rent increase, you will simplify matters immensely and eliminate any potential for the tenant to later attack the notice for vagueness, ambiguity, or some other similar defect. But remember that the proof-of-service actually must be attached and sent to the tenant with the rent increase so that the tenant will know when the mailing occurred and how to calculate the time period.
— Saul M. Ferster
Saul M. Ferster can be reached at 863-2678. Lawrence M. Scancarelli can be reached at 415-398-1644. The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the viewpoint of the SFAA or the SF Apartment Magazine.