Can my new landlord give me the boot?

January 2, 2008 12:24 PM

I've lived in my apartment for almost two years, on a month - to - month lease signed when the previous tenant left. While I can't claim to have been the perfect tenant, I've certainly never done anything that can get me evicted. Last month the building sold to a new owner, with whom I'd met and seemed friendly, but I've been wary of the situation nonetheless, never having much reason to trust landlords. So, this morning, the other shoe dropped...

She has decided to move a dance studio into the space below me, and wants to soundproof the floors and remodel my apartment and my next door neighbor's apartment. She informed me (didn't ask, or discuss, simply said point blank) that I have the option to either move out permanently on the first of February, or I can find a place to live for two months while she does the construction and come back in April.

If I "choose" to come back, she says my rent will be increasing by ninety dollars a month, and she'll disallow smoking (while I dont smoke, many of my friends and guest do, and I try to accommodate them) and pets (I have a cat, which the previous landlord allowed).

I've spent the morning going through Oregon's housing law ( http://landru.leg.state.or.us/ors/090.html ) and trying to reach my local Housing Authority, but I can't seem to find anything that clarifies my rights in this situation.

There are a few more specifics adding to my personal situation:

1. I live in one of the most up-scale, liberally-minded communities on the west coast, and spent a long time finding a livable apartment in my price range. Moving out on any short notice would mean moving at least 30 miles away. I'd rather not do this since I moved 3000 miles from NYC specifically to live in this community.

2. I would be open-minded about living somewhere else while the place was remodeled, but:
a. I have no idea how to find a place that will rent to me for 60 days; and
b. I'm not sure I can afford the rent increase when I returned.

Basically, I'd prefer not to have to fight my landlord, but if I really have to, I'm prepared to go as far as I reasonably (legally) can. Anyone out there have any suggestions?

posted by softriver to Law & Government (21 answers total)

Best answer: Look for a local tennants-rights organization to advise you. A quick googling turned up Oregon Community Alliance of Tennants.
posted by winston at 12:29 PM on January 2, 2008

Maybe you can clarify, but I am not sure what you think is illegal about the situation. You are on a month to month lease, so her raising the rent is not something you can fight. She has giving you 30 days notice of when you are going to be temporarily evicted, and as you noted, you are month to month anyway, so you don't have much legal recourse there. Pets/Smoking is not anything covered by law (at least that I am familiar with), and is owner discretion.
posted by ShootTheMoon at 12:30 PM on January 2, 2008 [1 favorite]

You have a month-to-month lease, so technically the landlord can decide to not renew the lease after any given month. Your rental agreement should state the required amount of time the landlord needs to notify you in advance of terminating the lease, but 30 notice is fairly standard.
posted by burnmp3s at 12:31 PM on January 2, 2008

It sounds like to me that the new landlord has every right to terminate your lease - especially since it is month-to-month. It sounds like she's being nice giving you the option to move back into a newly remodeled unit.

Is there an option that you could get a roommate making the upped rent not a big deal? As for the cat - could you get a letter of recommendation from the previous landlord stating that the cat was never a nuisance, is nice and clean, etc. and then offer an additional $25.00 per month for cat rent? She may or may not go for it, but it might be worth a try.

I really think the landlord is within her rights giving you these options even though it really sucks for you.

Best of luck
posted by Sassyfras at 12:32 PM on January 2, 2008 [1 favorite]

Best answer: Just chiming in here to tell you to go see a lawyer or local tenants rights organization (as winston said) and ignore anything else people tell you here.

For example, I don't know if ShootTheMoon is an Oregon housing lawyer giving legal advice when he/she says "Pets/Smoking is not anything covered by law (at least that I am familiar with), and is owner discretion," but that certainly is not the case here in New York, where the law forbids a landlord (even a new landlord) from prohibiting pets where the pet has been in residence for more than 3 months and not hidden by the tenant. This is so even if the lease explicitly disallows pets or if there is no lease and the tenant is month-to-month. The tenant is also allowed reasonable replacement pets in the event the pet dies. I have no idea if that's a quirk of New York law or not, but it's just one thing you might want to know: if you were in New York she couldn't legally evict your cat without evicting you as well. IAAL. I am not your lawyer and I know less than nothing about Oregon landlord-tenant law -- the foregoing was just an example from New York to show you how odd these laws can be. Please ignore the green and see a lawyer or other professional about your rights.
posted by The Bellman at 12:37 PM on January 2, 2008 [2 favorites]

Response by poster: Bellman - I found a spot in the legal code here that states my cat can't be used to evict me, I just wasn't sure if an interruption in tenancy could give her some legal angle. I'm also not sure if there is (legally) an interruption in tenancy if I'm moved out for remodeling.

I'm checking into the group winston linked for me, but mostly this seems like one of those rare situations people don't consider. Hopefully someone from their hotline will give me a call back soon. I have a week to work this out, but when my home is threatened, I tend to go into aggressive combat mode. (Normally I'm a very chill guy... really)
posted by softriver at 12:46 PM on January 2, 2008

You're in a tough spot being month-to-month. In New York, even a month-to-month tenant can hold things up for a long time before a formal eviction is permitted, since the housing court goes slowly. Tenants here sometimes successfully use that to their advantage in negotiations, especially when the landlord wants them out temporarily for some reason. For example, in New York it is not legal for the landlord simply to throw you stuff on the street and padlock the place, even if she does terminate the lease, and the process of getting the necessary court orders takes time, so negotiation is usually a better path for everyone.

This varies a lot from state to state, which is one reason I was so adamant about taking the Green (myself included) with a large grain of salt here. I'm sure the tenant's rights folks in your state will be able to help you out. Best of luck!
posted by The Bellman at 12:54 PM on January 2, 2008

Seconding the Community Alliance Of Tenants. I used to volunteer for them and they really know their stuff. From my experience working there though, I know one thing. In Oregon, the landlord is allowed a 30 day no cause eviction for any reason or no reason. It was one of the most frustrating things for people working there to deal with.
When they wrote the landlord/tenant laws here, they didn't bother to invite any tenants organizations to the discussion, just the landlord groups.
posted by smithygreg at 1:02 PM on January 2, 2008

In Minnesota, she's have to give you a 30 day notice on a month-to-month lease, and it can be for any reason. I'd say she isn't being formal enough, yet what she's doing would be fine here.
I'd say you are being given notice to move out either way, and she's basically saying "and if you need a place in a couple months, we might have a vacancy... here's the new rent and rules."
posted by thilmony at 1:29 PM on January 2, 2008

On a month-to-month lease, you don't have any right to keep living beyond the month you've paid for. The landlord can stop renting to you whenever they want provided they give enough notice (in BC it's 60 days, sounds like consensus here in 30 for Oregon). I went through a similar situation about a year ago, only there were no good intentions on the part of the landlord. Hit up my MeFiMail if you want the whole story, but the long and short of it is, there aren't that many ways to "win" against a landlord if you don't have a long-term lease.

Even if it's determined that legally they can't raise the rent, must grandfather in the pets and smoking, the landlord can still refuse to keep renting the apartment to you. It's discussed here, but basically there's isn't any legal way to force the landlord to keep renting unless the eviction was due to retaliation (which would be hard to prove, as they are going to be performing renovations).

What's the outcome you're looking for here? You might have the most luck negotiating with the landlord and "giving in" on the things that aren't a big deal like smoking in exchange for letting you keep the cat and maybe only increasing the rent $50/month (or whatever the legal limit is). Just be warned that given Oregon's 30 days no cause evictions, if you are really obstinate, they'll likely just give you thirty days to get out and not offer you a chance to return when the renovations are complete. If they want you out, they're going to get you out. You might be able to stall things with legal action, but you'll just be delaying the inevitable.
posted by Nelsormensch at 1:30 PM on January 2, 2008

From the OP's link to Oregon's housing law:

90.427 Termination of periodic tenancies; landlord remedies for tenant holdover.

(2) The landlord or the tenant may terminate a month-to-month tenancy by giving to the other, at any time during the tenancy, not less than 30 days’ notice in writing prior to the date designated in the notice for the termination of the tenancy.

Note it says written notice. If your landlord hasn't provided that, you may have longer than she thinks.

When you want to inform her of her oversight depends on what you want to do here. If you want to come back in April, it's best to be upfront with her from the start. Get a lease and get it in writing what changes she'll be making to the apartment (what you're going to be paying a higher rent for) and when you'll be able to move in. For your cat, try offering more as a deposit before you offer to pay higher rent. Finding tenants is a hassle for landlords, so maybe you can negotiate more time before you have to move and storage for your stuff. I'd still check everything over with the local tenants' advocacy group before you sign, and I'd ask them what recourse you'd have if the repairs aren't done by the time you need to move back in.
posted by hydrophonic at 1:34 PM on January 2, 2008

Are you in Portland? Portland craigslist has a sublet section.

I wouldn't notify the landlord of the written notice just yet. A month is not a long time to look for a new place and you may need to buy some time. Not the most straightforward way to handle things, I know, but in my experience landlords don't do anything to merit any consideration.

Honestly, the remodeling sounds like it could be a scam to get you out or to sign you to a drastically different lease. But talk to the landlord, see if there's any negotiating room on either the cat or the rent. If not, then you should start looking immediately.
posted by electroboy at 1:56 PM on January 2, 2008

You're not being evicted, the landlord is choosing to not renew your month-to-month agreement.
posted by 0xFCAF at 2:02 PM on January 2, 2008

I went through something similar last year here in California. I went to a tenant's-rights advocate and they sent me some paperwork that essentially told me the landlord was well within his rights. If Oregon is similar to California, then tenants on a month-to-month lease can have the terms of their tenancy changed so long as the landlord gives sufficient advanced notice.
posted by lekvar at 2:12 PM on January 2, 2008

I was a landlord in Wisconsin and used a month-to-month lease. I agree you could easily put off reminding her that she needs to give you written notice. However, she has the right to say (in writing) "move out in 30 days" just as you had the right to move out with 30 days' written notice to her. A month-to-month lease goes both ways. I'm not sure that you would have more rights than the landlord in this case.

If you do want to move back in and can negotiate terms you agree with, get a year-long lease.
posted by PatoPata at 2:14 PM on January 2, 2008

Bellman is right. Ignore ALL advice on this thread. Seek a local tenant's right's organization or an attorney as indicated above. Only comptent legal advice should be listened too in questions involving leases.
posted by Ironmouth at 2:48 PM on January 2, 2008

While I can't claim to have been the perfect tenant, I've certainly never done anything that can get me evicted.

Yes you have - you are a renter of a property someone else owns. Within the limits of the law and your contract with them, they can ask you to leave so they can do something else with the property.

It's a pain in the ass to move and depressing to do it on someone else's timetable, but don't take it personally. Feel some small amount of gratitude that she's decided to renovate and soundproof rather than simply put a dance studio in below you and tell you to enjoy the noise.

Odds are good she needs to provide you written notice, which could give you some negotiating room if you just need more time. However you need to follow the above advice and talk to a local tenant's association - not all states and cities will require very strict proof that you received that written notice. So you may want to consider all the possibilities, up to and including the chance that you assert your rights and she or some other person (including law enforcement) act outside the law and cause you to be ejected from where you're living.

In other words, you really should prepare for the worst and not rely 100% on things working out the way the law says they should. People violate the law all the time, including landlords. Being right is little consolation if you're on the street or cut off from your possessions without a back-up plan.
posted by phearlez at 3:36 PM on January 2, 2008 [1 favorite]

i had the almost EXACT same situation this summer. i''m in a different state but i determined after talking to free tenants legal aid that i was SOL since i was basically tenant at will, similar to employee at will only this is where you live and it sucks. sorry.
posted by Soulbee at 4:45 PM on January 2, 2008

While I can't claim to have been the perfect tenant, I've certainly never done anything that can get me evicted.

Yes you have... they can ask you to leave so they can do something else with the property.

A LOT of tenants get this point muddled, and then get understandably upset when they believe they're being "evicted", so let's be really clear: the OP is not being evicted. The current contract is automatically renewing each month until either party ends it. The parties are considering whether to end it now. That's all.

It sounds like a pretty considerate landlord, actually, if she's giving options and advance notice of new terms instead of just ending things flat-out. The reason she didn't ask you about the remodeling decision is because it's solely her decision to make, her financial risk to bear. As much as you love your home, it's someone else property to do with whatever they think best.

Yes, she's not given written notice and if you push this thing into court (by forcing her to open eviction proceedings to get you out) that may be a point you could argue to (assuming you can prove it) get your stay extended just long enough for her to give properly written notice. But otherwise, I doubt this fact is of any real world value.

Keep focus on the immediate problem: one way or another, you need new housing. At least short-term, possibly permanently. You may be able to secure a bit more time, or negotiate more feasible terms for the new lease (all contracts are negotiable! you've merely heard her initial offer -- for heaven's sake, give her a counter before giving up so easily!). But the bottom line is that cancellation at any time, without cause, is what month-to-month is for. It's unlikely you'll find a law to circumvent that fact.

Which means that right now you need to be protecting the good reference you've earned from this landlord. Personally, I've never seen a rental app that didn't want name and number of the last two landlords, especially where the current tenancy has been as here under two years. So since you could be moving a second time this year, for god's sake maintain goodwill and open communication with the landlord if at all possible. If she books a contractor for Feb 1st, and doesn't find out 'til then that you're not ready to depart, things are going to get ugly FAST.

She's played it straight with you; responding in kind is your best hope of assuring a drama-free ending, and preserving any chance of return.

Have you asked her why these changes are happening now? 'Cuz it sounds like an effort to minimize friction between the upstairs and downstairs worlds. If you have a noise-free pet, and don't mind dance studio noise, perhaps you both can avoid a big nuisance.
posted by nakedcodemonkey at 9:47 PM on January 2, 2008

Re question 2a: two problems there.

One, construction schedules are notorious for falling behind. It's very hard to predict that stuff accurately. Two months could turn into three months once they discover what surprise await under the flooring or behind a wall. Any temporary accommodation you arrange needs to have plenty of wiggle room on its end date.

Two, extended stay hotels are your most flexible option but they're expensive, and the cat may have to be boarded separately.

Check on Craigslist. There are often people who need a short-term roomie, or a responsible house sitter.
posted by nakedcodemonkey at 9:59 PM on January 2, 2008

Response by poster: Just for the record, I am currently playing things safe despite my frustrations with the suddenness of the situation. I've been amiable and requested she fax/e-mail me the new rental agreement and some basic plans for the remodel.

I figured this would allow me to make the most informed decision possible, even if it's a choice between undesirable options.

The real crux of my frustration probably centers on a larger pattern in this community, as our location and reputation as a liberal/artistic place to live is encouraging upscale Californians who are unfamiliar with the community (and attracted to the lower cost of living) to invest heavily in real estate, pushing out the very people who make this community a great place to live. I know it's inevitable, but it's a damn shame.
posted by softriver at 10:16 PM on January 2, 2008