Help me respond to my landord about lease renewal, rent increase

January 25, 2020 11:58 AM

My lease ends at the end of January. My landlord is increasing the rent and also wants me to sign a new lease. The rent increase is legal but he hasn't given proper notice. I don't want to sign a new lease. Please help me craft a firm and polite response.

This is in California. My lease is up at the end of January. We pay our rent on time and generally take good care of the place. We have called the landlord several times for things that have broken, but none of it has been our fault. Last Wednesday (January 22nd) my landlord texted me with this message:

As you know it's now time to renew the lease for 2020. Just to let you know that due to continual maintenance and improvements cost on the property, we decided to increase the rent $75 each month. We will soon prepare the new lease paper but want to make sure if you willing to sign lease again this year. Please let us know soon.

We may be moving in the next few months so I don't want to sign a new lease. The original lease explicitly states that it converts to month-to-month after the initial term is up. The rent increase is fine (not overly burdensome, and expected after a year lease), but 30 days written notice (hand-delivered or sent via US mail) is required by California law before any rent increase can take effect. I responded to the text message with this:

Thanks for letting me know. We'll look for the official notice of the rent increase in the mail. My wife is waiting to hear about a possible new assignment at work, so we'll let you know as soon as we can about signing a new lease.

Today he sent me a lease extension to sign, saying all the terms are the same except the rent is $75 more, starting February 1st, and specifying a further one year term. I'm trying to write a polite but firm response indicating that (a) I'm not willing to sign a new lease (but I do want to continue month-to-month), and (b) they have to follow the proper procedures to increase the rent. These are small-time landlords (a married couple, no other rental properties), so there's a good chance they don't really understand the law. Here's what I've got so far:

Hi [name],

My understanding is that the existing lease automatically becomes month-to-month after the initial one year term is over. There is some chance we'll be moving in the next year, so we're not able to commit to a further one-year term at this time, although we will continue to live at the property on a month-to-month basis with the same terms, as the lease states.

About the rent increase: California law requires 30 days written notice, either delivered personally or via the mail, before the increase can take effect. See Section 827 of the California Civil Code:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=CIV&sectionNum=827.

We'll keep our eyes out for the official notice.

Thanks,
number9dream

Any suggestions/improvements most welcome. I'm trying to stay on good terms while at the same time enforcing my rights under the law.

posted by number9dream to Human Relations (22 answers total)

My previous comment (hopefully deleted) is inapplicable and misleading. It should be ignored. I missed the fact that your post explicitly indicates the lease converts to month-to-month.

You should include in your letter the lease provisions for month-to-month tenancy to remind your landlord of the specifics. It's surprising how often landlords don't actually retain copies of their leases for their own reference, so your landlord might not actually know of that.

I will note, however, that the landlord has the option of terminating your lease with the same 30 days notice (with one year tenancy) or 60 days (with more than one year tenancy). So, although you are likely able to avoid paying $75 for the next month, their options include evicting you now. Given that you have already indicated you may be leaving, they are faced with having to get a new tenant anyway. They may choose to just do so sooner rather than later. I doubt they would do that, but it is their "best alternative to a negotiated agreement".
posted by saeculorum at 12:24 PM on January 25, 2020 [7 favorites]

I think your responses are great. You're actually helping your landlord by educating them! The only issue is they could decide to not renew (but then they need to go through that process and they clearly don't know the rules there.

If this did go to court, you would most likely win because in my experience judges do not like landlords who don't follow the law on service. It's like the very first basic thing they should get right!

Also, keep everything in writing! When I was a residential landlord everything was done via mail (evictions etc were posted or personally served and mailed with proof of mailing!)
posted by vespabelle at 12:29 PM on January 25, 2020 [1 favorite]

I like your letter, but strike "There is some chance we'll be moving in the next year". This is unnecessary detail that could come back to bite you. Say the part about the lease going to month-to-month, and add "so we're unable to sign a new year-long lease at this time and will continue with month-to-month tenancy".
posted by brainmouse at 12:42 PM on January 25, 2020 [9 favorites]

"We need to go month-to-month for now" was our response a couple of years ago when we were waiting to hear back on some possible changes. We did re-up the lease after a bit, offering to sign two years to lock in the rent increase for that duration.

Like, he can dislike it (because it's uncertain) but it's also normal and shouldn't be shocking even if they are newbies. I think we did end up signing something that said we were going month to month, so that he had a specific record of that for his insurance or whatever.
posted by Lyn Never at 1:22 PM on January 25, 2020

Month to month means either party can terminate the lease with 30 days notice. I don't think you should send that letter to your landlord, primarily because I don't really think you have any leverage. If you convert to a month to month and they want you out, they'll wait 30 days and serve you with a notice to quit.

I think you should try and negotiate with them.
posted by Fidel Cashflow at 1:31 PM on January 25, 2020 [8 favorites]

California very recently (effective Jan 1 2020) passed a statewide Just Cause for Eviction law so the above comments about the landlord’s right to terminate with 30 or 60 days’ notice may not apply. Under Oakland’s laws, at least, it is considered “eviction” if you require a tenant to sign a new lease that is substantially different from their current one or else move out. Because this statewide law is new, I can’t tell easily if this is also the case for all of CA now.
posted by needs more cowbell at 2:23 PM on January 25, 2020 [10 favorites]

I think your note is fine, although as a California tenant I've never had a landlord ask for a new lease. Note that the landlord has to give *60* days notice for month to month tenants who have been in an apartment at least a year.
posted by pinochiette at 2:26 PM on January 25, 2020 [1 favorite]

As others above, I also want to warn you about the month-to-month thing. Both parties can terminate a month-to-month agreement (with adequate notice, as spelled out in the law or the lease). Thus, it could come back to bite you if the landlord decides he wants you out: you'd have to scramble to find somewhere temporary to live for a few months before you (maybe) move. I wonder whether it would make more sense to read the lease and see if it has a provision for terminating a lease early (e.g. a specific fee charged). And if the new lease doesn't have that, perhaps you could request that and then sign the one-year lease, rather than going month-to-month. I guess it would depend on the likelihood you might move, as well as your risk tolerance. I've paid a month's rent before to terminate a lease, and a tenant of mine also paid a month's rent for the same purpose. My sense is that this amount is somewhat typical.

Also, my understanding (as a landlord) is that month-to-month typically goes for higher rent because of the flexibility that the tenant gains. When one set of my tenants went month-to-month after their year lease ended, their rent went up $75. I offered them another year-long lease to sign, but they wanted the flexibility of month-to-month because they thought might be moving to a different city, and were happy to pay for the privilege. So I wouldn't be surprised if your rent goes up another X amount beyond your annual $75 increase if you go month-to-month.
posted by ClaireBear at 2:52 PM on January 25, 2020 [1 favorite]

ClaireBear has it. Rent can be increased again in a month or three months, on a month-to-month.

Nothing wrong with suggesting a new six-month lease.
posted by megatherium at 2:55 PM on January 25, 2020 [6 favorites]

I think megatherium's idea of a six-month lease is ideal. Given you don't have much leverage, I'd mention to your landlord the 30 days' notice for a rent increase, but say that as a sign of goodwill you'd be willing to start paying the new rent 1 February if you can agree to a six-month lease. I would do this because if your landlord doesn't agree to a six-month lease, your options will probably be substantially worse (likely: sign a new one-year lease, or go month-to-month and have your landlord give you notice now that you have to be out by end of February because he's irritated with you about this and/or he views you as a problem tenant with maintenance requests or whatever).
posted by ClaireBear at 3:35 PM on January 25, 2020 [1 favorite]

Also, OP: regarding your proposed phrasing: We'll keep our eyes out for the official notice. Your landlord already gave you official notice. You're right that this increase has to start 1 March, not 1 February, but the notice of rent increase is given. So I wouldn't include that phrase. To me it sounds adversarial. The rest of your letter sounds rather adversarial too. As you address your landlord, I'd just keep in mind the fact that you don't have all that much leverage here, and you're basically asking for a favor (either a shorter lease, or month-to-month where your landlord doesn't terminate your lease in a month or two).
posted by ClaireBear at 3:39 PM on January 25, 2020 [2 favorites]

Many of these comments don't seem familiar with California law, especially the recently passed AB 1482. Now, month to month tenancies generally are protected from random evictions by the "just cause for eviction" provisions therein.

However, one of the just causes is declining to sign a lease with substantially the same terms. So he could respond to your refusal by starting the eviction process, unless you're in a jurisdiction with tighter rules. I therefore agree with people that you don't have that much legal leverage.

You should also evaluate the rent increase against the limits locally and in that bill -- what percentage is it? It sounds like maybe you already checked that.

I agree with advice to avoid positioning yourselves as legal opponents unless it's necessary. Be aware of your rights, etc., of course. But sending them code sections makes things a little more fighty than they need to be. Especially when you'd like them to do you a favor of dropping the lease renewal request, you don't want them to react to your letter by forwarding the whole thing over to their attorney to deal with. Have you tried "would it be possible for us to go month-to-month until X Date?" Maybe they think a rent increase requires a new lease and haven't considered that. Similarly, yes, they should send you a form with a rent increase, but the lease renewal documents might arguably count as that, and anyway the only meaningful difference to you there is a Feb vs March start date (or maybe March 1 plus a couple days prorated). Instead of playing games and directing them to try again, why not just say something about didn't they mean to say March 1, since California requires 30 days of notice? (plus five days for mailing)

One possible reply:

"Hi! Thank you for the offer to extend our lease. We enjoy living here and appreciate how prompt you have been whenever maintenance requests have arisen. We're waiting to hear about whether my wife might receive a promotion that would require us to move, so would it be possible to let the lease revert to month-to-month status? We'd of course give you 30 days notice if that happened, and it might not. We're fine with the rent increasing by $75, but didn't you mean to have that start on March 1st, since California law requires 30 days advance notice?"

Back to this whole lease extension thing. How bad would it be to just sign it? Does it specify costs if you break it early? If not, and if you can find a subleaser with good credit when you move, then there are basically no damages for the landlord to charge you for. I'm sure there are landlords out there who would still try to charge you something. (And landlords who pay a management company do usually have to pay one month's rent to the company at tenant turnover, so those LLs would have damages. But it sounds like your LLs manage it themselves.) Anyway, that's another option to consider, if they don't want to go month to month -- just sign the lease and cross that bridge when / if you come to it.
posted by slidell at 4:33 PM on January 25, 2020 [8 favorites]

California law requires 30 days written notice, either delivered personally or via the mail
A text message probably does not meet this requirement, which is why they are asking for something in the mail.
posted by soelo at 4:34 PM on January 25, 2020 [4 favorites]

^ Agreed, and good point. But the lease renewal documents might? Were they sent in the mail or by email?
posted by slidell at 4:39 PM on January 25, 2020

I want to stress, as I always do, that landlord-tenant law is super jurisdiction-specific, so you will want to seek CA-specific advice. That said, multiple general points (I am not your lawyer):

(a) Section 827 applies on its face, at least, only to tenancies that are month-to-month or less. The most favorable interpretation there will most likely only save you a month's rent increase, since you received the new lease by mail (or, if you didn't, you'll be getting it by mail if you send that email!).

(b) The length of a lease is absolutely a relevant term. You are refusing to sign a renewal lease on identical terms (except rent, see below), so it's really not clear to me that you would have any protection under a just-cause eviction law once you've gone month-to-month. I mean, I'm sure there will be court cases interpreting the new law that will sort this out, but there is a good argument that you wouldn't, especially as the renewal lease was offered prior to the expiration of the old lease.

(c) It appears that the new rent control law allows for an increase of 5% plus inflation annually. I'm guessing from the location that your rent increase is likely to be compliant with that, but just in case.

Since you don't seem to completely appreciate the implications, I wanted to stress, as others have, that, assuming you're not covered by just cause, month-to-month gives you both optionality and your landlord may or may not be inclined to try to terminate before you're ready to go. Therefore, if your relationship with your landlord has otherwise been good, I would try to avoid sounding aggro where not necessary. E.g., would you rather save the $75 for one month or stay on as long as you need to? On the other hand, if you're feeling your oats and want to be that court case, Godspeed with an adversarial approach, but even if your landlords grit their teeth and accept it on the theory that you'll be moving soon, it might not be a pleasant experience.
posted by praemunire at 4:45 PM on January 25, 2020 [2 favorites]

Best answer: If you have a good relationship with your landlord, I might try having an informal conversation.

Last year, my landlord wanted to know what we were doing at the end of the lease, and we had really wanted to buy a house but it didn't work out. We both wanted us to renew the lease, but we managed to come to an agreement to rent for 6 months and then have another 6 months option with 60 days notice. If we don't find a house by the end, we'll do something similar for next year. Everybody wins.

Maybe you end up agreeing to sign a year lease but have an option to terminate with X days notice by paying a penalty fee. You will obviously want to check your local laws and such.

I would nth that if you're going to ask for trying to terminate the lease early, you should probably just eat the $75 so you're not starting this year on the wrong foot. That's nothing compared to what you're going to pay if this goes south.
posted by cali59 at 6:30 PM on January 25, 2020 [3 favorites]

Response by poster: I appreciate all the advice so far. I'll try to tone down the perceived aggression. It's not intended, but if that's what everybody is reading into it, I guess that's what the landlords will hear too.

Regarding the "official notice" business, yes, my understanding is that text messages and emails don't count.

The $75 is not that much in the big scheme of things, so maybe it's worth dropping that bit.

The thing I'm really confused about is this: isn't it totally normal for a lease to revert to month-to-month? This is provided for in the law and also stated explicitly in the lease. Does this not happen in real life or what?
posted by number9dream at 9:01 PM on January 25, 2020

Yes, it is 100% normal for a lease to go to month to month after the first year. In fact, I think every lease I've ever had (so that'd be half a dozen at least) has done this.

As a lay person, the idea that you have to sign a new lease because it's substantially the same doesn't make sense. It isn't the same because you are now in a month to month phase and if you signed you'd be back to being in the year phase.
posted by nirblegee at 9:19 PM on January 25, 2020

isn't it totally normal for a lease to revert to month-to-month?

It's totally normal in my experience as a renter. But I've seen talk in property management guides about Renewing the Lease as a thing, so it could be that. (It's more important for LLs in places where vacancies are a bigger problem.) But since your landlords are mom & pop and don't appear to know the law (or even that there is law that they should know), I'm not sure they're even reading the books, so who knows where they got that idea. Maybe as renters they always wanted lease renewals for the security. Also, if I'm correctly understanding your location, the city is now requiring LLs to offer one-year lease terms, so maybe they think that applies to them.
posted by slidell at 9:30 PM on January 25, 2020

Leases commonly provide for a reversion to month-to-month because that is the present gap-filler law in many U.S. states (that is, in the absence of contractual provision, that's what happens anyway), landlords like it better than automatic renewal for a longer term in a case where there's by definition already been some breakdown in the process, and to not include such a provision leaves the parties open to whatever the legislature may decide to change the gap-filler rule to. But as both parties tend to want the security and predictability (in the absence of problems, most landlords don't want to have to deal with the possibility of vacancy and the cost of re-renting; most renters who aren't anticipating big life changes are not so silly as to choose to leave themselves open to be forced to move on 30-60 days' notice), most leases don't end up just lapsing to month-to-month. It's not like a gym membership--both parties benefit from predictability of tenure!

As the new just cause law basically gives a month-to-month tenant of six months or more the free option to terminate, without a corresponding option to the landlord to do the same, and there are annual caps on rent increases now so that the renewals don't offer the same extra chance to hike up the rent, I wouldn't be surprised if the month-to-month tenancy virtually disappeared in California, except in situations where the landlord anticipated an extremely short term (never more than five months, probably mostly exploitative arrangements). I guess we'll see. Unfortunately, it's unlikely that this rule would apply to OP's situation. And, as I think about it more, it may mean that OP's landlord will be reluctant to explicitly agree to a new month-to-month lease, because right now the landlord has the right to terminate, but if they actually agree to go month-to-month on new terms, they might lose it. It's really not clear.
posted by praemunire at 11:45 PM on January 25, 2020 [1 favorite]

Response by poster: Just to close this thread out: I went and had an informal chat with the landlords and everything went fine. They agreed we can go month-to-month and that we can start paying the increased rent in March, after the 30 days notice period ends. They are going to send over a document confirming that it's month-to-month and indicating the start date for the new amount.

Thanks for helping me beanplate it all, folks.
posted by number9dream at 6:27 PM on January 26, 2020 [6 favorites]

Response by poster: Before I mark this resolved, just want to clear one thing up from one of the comments:

(a) Section 827 applies on its face, at least, only to tenancies that are month-to-month or less. The most favorable interpretation there will most likely only save you a month's rent increase, since you received the new lease by mail (or, if you didn't, you'll be getting it by mail if you send that email!).

It's true that Section 827 only applies to month-to-month tenancies, that is the point: while the lease is in effect they actually cannot raise the rent at all.
posted by number9dream at 12:45 PM on February 24, 2020