California landlords cannot require tenants to pay rent in cash

The issue of requiring a residential tenant in California to pay their rent in cash is the topic of this blog post. A residential landlord in California cannot require any tenant to pay their rent in cash at the beginning of a lease as long as the premises being rented are residential. Many landlords in California do in fact demand that their tenants pay their rent in cash every month. However, unless the tenant has previously paid the landlord with a bad check, demanding that a tenant in California pay their rent in cash is prohibited by California law.

However there are exceptions to this general rule as will be shown by this blog post.

California Civil Code section 1947.3(a)(1) states in pertinent part that “a landlord or a landlord’s agent shall allow a tenant to pay rent and deposit of security by at least one form of payment that is neither cash nor electronic funds transfer.”

However there is an exception to this rule if the tenant has previously presented the landlord with a bad check or another bad form of payment. This exception is found in Civil Code section 1947.3(a)2) which states in pertinent part that, “A landlord or a landlord’s agent may demand or require cash as the exclusive form of payment of rent or deposit of security if the tenant has previously attempted to pay the landlord or landlord’s agent with a check drawn on insufficient funds or the tenant has instructed the drawee to stop payment on a check, draft, or order for the payment of money.”

In these cases the landlord may require that a residential tenant pay their rent in cash as California Civil Code section 1947.3(a)(2) further states that, “If the landlord chooses to demand or require cash payment under these circumstances, the landlord shall give the tenant a written notice stating that the payment instrument was dishonored and informing the tenant that the tenant shall pay in cash for a period determined by the landlord, not to exceed three months, and attach a copy of the dishonored instrument to the notice. The notice shall comply with Section 827 if demanding or requiring payment in cash constitutes a change in the terms of the lease.” (Emphasis added.)

Note that Civil Code section 827 requires at least 30 calendar days notice of any change in the terms of the lease. And any such notice must be served in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure section 1162 which means that the notice must be served in the same manner as a three-day notice.

A tenant cannot waive the provisions of Civil Code section 1947.3 as subdivision (e) states that, “(e) A waiver of the provisions of this section is contrary to public policy, and is void and unenforceable.”

As shown above a landlord in California cannot require a tenant to pay rent in cash for more than three months under any circumstances. After three months they must accept rental payments by other means such as a check or money order.

Attorneys or parties in California who would like to view more than 250 sample legal documents for California and Federal litigation offered for sale can click the link shown below.

http://www.scribd.com/LegalDocsPro/documents

Attorneys or parties in California who would like more information on a sample legal document package designed for tenants in California containing over 20 sample documents and selling for only $59.99 can use the link shown below.

http://legaldocspro.net/?page_id=430

The author of this blog post, Stan Burman, is an entrepreneur and freelance paralegal who has worked in California and Federal litigation since 1995 and has created over 245 sample legal documents for California and Federal litigation. If you are in need of assistance with any California or Federal litigation matters, Mr. Burman is available on a freelance basis. Mr. Burman may be contacted by e-mail at DivParalgl@yahoo.com for more information. He accepts payments through PayPal which means that you can pay using most credit or debit cards.

To view over 245 sample legal documents for sale by the author of this blog post visit the following link:  http://www.scribd.com/LegalDocsPro

*Do you want to use this article on your website, blog or e-zine? You can, as long as you include this blurb with it: “Stan Burman is the author of over 245 sample legal documents for California and Federal litigation and is the author of a free weekly legal newsletter. You can receive 10 free gifts just for subscribing. Just visit http://freeweeklylegalnewsletter.gr8.com/ for more information.

Follow the author on Twitter at: https://twitter.com/LegalDocsPro

You can view sample legal document packages for sale by going to http://www.legaldocspro.com/downloads.aspx

DISCLAIMER:

Please note that the author of this blog post, Stan Burman is NOT an attorney and as such is unable to provide any specific legal advice. The author is NOT engaged in providing any legal, financial, or other professional services, and any information contained in this blog post is NOT intended to constitute legal advice.

The materials and information contained in this blog post have been prepared by Stan Burman for informational purposes only and are not legal advice. Transmission of the information contained in this blog post is not intended to create, and receipt does not constitute, any business relationship between the author and any readers. Readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel.

 

 

Posted in affirmative defenses to eviction, answer to unlawful detainer in California | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Expungement of California Lis Pendens

Expungement of a California Lis Pendens is the topic of this blog post. Expunging a Lis Pendens in California is authorized by Code of Civil Procedure section 405.30. The technical name for a Lis Pendens is a notice of pendency of action. The term Lis Pendens is more commonly used and is Latin for pending lawsuit.

The statutes governing this notice are found in Code of Civil Procedure sections 405.1 through 405.39.

The most common grounds for expunging a Lis Pendens in California are that the complaint does not state a real property claim as required by California law. There are other grounds although this blog post will focus on situations where the complaint does not state a real property claim.

Code of Civil Procedure section 405.20 authorizes the recording of a Lis Pendens.

Code of Civil Procedure section 405.4 states that, “Real property claim” means the cause or causes of action in a pleading which would, if meritorious, affect (a) title to, or the right to possession of, specific real property or (b) the use of an easement identified in the pleading, other than an easement obtained pursuant to statute by any regulated public utility.”

The recording of a Lis Pendens against a real property clouds the title and prevents any transfer of the real property. Therefore, the Lis Pendens procedure is abused quite frequently. As a result several California Courts of Appeal have stated that the history of the legislation indicates a legislative intent to restrict rather than broaden the application of the remedy.

The California Courts of Appeal have held that causes of action with equitable liens do not state a real property claim if those causes of action act only as an alternative or collateral means to collect money damages as the real purpose of the statutes is to provide notice of pending litigation and not to provide plaintiffs with more leverage for use in negotiating a settlement.

Causes of action for money only do not state a real property claim in California.

Once the motion to expunge has been filed the burden is on the plaintiff to show that at least one of the causes of action of their complaint states a real property claim. The Court must order the notice expunged if the complaint does not state a real property claim. The prevailing party on the motion to expunge is entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 405.38.

Attorneys or parties in California who would like to view a portion of a 14 page sample motion to expunge a Lis Pendens sold by the author can see below

The author of this blog post, Stan Burman, is an entrepreneur and freelance paralegal who has worked in California and Federal litigation since 1995 and has created over 245 sample legal documents for California and Federal litigation. If you are in need of assistance with any California or Federal litigation matters, Mr. Burman is available on a freelance basis. Mr. Burman may be contacted by e-mail at DivParalgl@yahoo.com for more information. He accepts payments through PayPal which means that you can pay using most credit or debit cards.

To view over 245 sample legal documents for sale by the author of this blog post visit the following link:  http://www.scribd.com/LegalDocsPro

*Do you want to use this article on your website, blog or e-zine? You can, as long as you include this blurb with it: “Stan Burman is the author of over 245 sample legal documents for California and Federal litigation and is the author of a free weekly legal newsletter. You can receive 10 free gifts just for subscribing. Just visit http://freeweeklylegalnewsletter.gr8.com/ for more information.

Follow the author on Twitter at: https://twitter.com/LegalDocsPro

You can view sample legal document packages for sale by going to http://www.legaldocspro.com/downloads.aspx

DISCLAIMER:

Please note that the author of this blog post, Stan Burman is NOT an attorney and as such is unable to provide any specific legal advice. The author is NOT engaged in providing any legal, financial, or other professional services, and any information contained in this blog post is NOT intended to constitute legal advice.

The materials and information contained in this blog post have been prepared by Stan Burman for informational purposes only and are not legal advice. Transmission of the information contained in this blog post is not intended to create, and receipt does not constitute, any business relationship between the author and any readers. Readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel.

Posted in California civil litigation, California foreclosure, California freelance paralegal, law and motion | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Court order determining succession to property in California

A Court order determining succession to property in California is the topic of this blog post. This is also known as a summary or simplified probate proceeding as it is much quicker and less expensive than a standard probate proceeding in California.

The statutes in California governing a court order determining succession to property are found in Probate Code Sections 13150 through 13158. A California summary probate is initiated by the filing of a petition in the superior court for an order determining succession to real or personal property.

The petitioner must wait until at least 40 days have elapsed since the death of the decedent before filing the petition, and the gross value of the decedent’s real and personal property in California may not exceed $150,000. See Probate Code section 13151. This limit was only $100,000 prior to January 1, 2012. Note that a probate referee must complete and sign an inventory and appraisal certifying the amount of the gross value of the estate which must then be filed with the Court along with the petition.

Certain property is not counted in calculating the gross value of the estate as the value of the estate is calculated using the exclusions listed in Probate Code section 13050 which states in pertinent part that the following property is excluded:

Real property located outside California;

joint tenancy property;

property that goes outright to a surviving spouse;

life insurance, death benefits, and other assets not subject to probate that pass to named beneficiaries;

multiple-party accounts and payable-on-death accounts;

registered manufactured or mobile homes;

any numbered vessel;

registered motor vehicles;

salary including vacation pay due the decedent up to $15,000;

amounts due decedent for services in the armed forces, and

property held in trust, including a revocable living trust.

The simplicity of filing a petition to determine succession to real or personal property is a huge bonus. In some counties a hearing on the petition can be scheduled within 4-6 weeks from filing depending on the court calendar. The cost is much less than a standard probate no publication is required in an adjudicated newspaper although notice of the petition must be given to any heirs and all beneficiaries listed in any will.

The author of this blog post, Stan Burman, is a freelance paralegal who has worked in California and Federal litigation since 1995. If you are in need of assistance with any California or Federal litigation matters including Probate matters, Mr. Burman is available on a freelance basis. Mr. Burman may be contacted by e-mail at DivParalgl@yahoo.com for more information. He accepts payments through PayPal which means that you can pay using most credit or debit cards.

To view over 255 sample legal documents for sale by the author of this blog post visit the following link: http://www.scribd.com/LegalDocsPro

*Do you want to use this article on your website, blog or e-zine? You can, as long as you include this blurb with it: “Stan Burman is the author of over 245 sample legal documents for California and Federal litigation and is the author of a free weekly legal newsletter. You can receive 10 free gifts just for subscribing. Just visit: http://freeweeklylegalnewsletter.gr8.com/

View sample legal document packages for sale here: http://www.legaldocspro.com/downloads.aspx

DISCLAIMER:

Please note that the author of this blog post, Stan Burman is NOT an attorney and as such is unable to provide any specific legal advice. The author is NOT engaged in providing any legal, financial, or other professional services, and any information contained in this blog post is NOT intended to constitute legal advice.

The materials and information contained in this blog post have been prepared by Stan Burman for informational purposes only and are not legal advice. Transmission of the information contained in this blog post is not intended to create, and receipt does not constitute, any business relationship between the author and any readers. Readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel.

Posted in California freelance paralegal, California legal topics, California Probate | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

California spousal property petition

A California spousal property petition is the topic of this blog post. This petition allows
assets inherited by a surviving spouse or registered domestic partner in California to be transferred with a simplified procedure that is known as a Spousal or Domestic Partner Property Petition. The code sections governing the passage of property to a surviving spouse without administration in California are found in Probate Code sections 13500 through 13660.

Because the standard proceedings for administration of an estate in California are very costly and take a minimum of 7-8 months in most counties, the spousal property petition is very advantageous and a useful shortcut.

The petition must be submitted to the probate court for approval; however the process is fairly simple and much faster than regular probate. There is no limit on the value of property that can be transferred this way.

A spousal property petition may be filed even though no other proceedings for the administration of the estate are pending. However, if a standard probate proceeding has already been filed and is pending the petition may be filed in that proceeding and may request an order that administration of all or part of the estate is not necessary for the reason that all or part of the estate is property passing to the surviving spouse. See Probate Code § 13650.

Boostlikes.com offers low cost Facebook likes starting at just $27.00! For more information visit their website at: https://boostlikes.com

The author of this blog post, Stan Burman, is a freelance paralegal who has worked in California and Federal litigation since 1995. If you are in need of assistance with any California or Federal litigation matters including Probate matters, Mr. Burman is available on a freelance basis. Mr. Burman may be contacted by e-mail at DivParalgl@yahoo.com for more information. He accepts payments through PayPal which means that you can pay using most credit or debit cards.

To view over 255 sample legal documents for sale by the author of this blog post visit the following link: http://www.scribd.com/LegalDocsPro

*Do you want to use this article on your website, blog or e-zine? You can, as long as you include this blurb with it: “Stan Burman is the author of over 245 sample legal documents for California and Federal litigation and is the author of a free weekly legal newsletter. You can receive 10 free gifts just for subscribing. Just visit: http://freeweeklylegalnewsletter.gr8.com/

View sample legal document packages for sale here: http://www.legaldocspro.com/downloads.aspx

DISCLAIMER:

Please note that the author of this blog post, Stan Burman is NOT an attorney and as such is unable to provide any specific legal advice. The author is NOT engaged in providing any legal, financial, or other professional services, and any information contained in this blog post is NOT intended to constitute legal advice.

The materials and information contained in this blog post have been prepared by Stan Burman for informational purposes only and are not legal advice. Transmission of the information contained in this blog post is not intended to create, and receipt does not constitute, any business relationship between the author and any readers. Readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel.

Posted in California Probate | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Attorney verification of eviction complaints in California

Attorney verification of unlawful detainer (eviction) complaints in California is the topic of this blog post. Many landlord attorneys routinely verify eviction complaints as a matter of course and think nothing of it. However this may leave the eviction complaint vulnerable to a motion to strike the entire complaint. Thus any defendant in California served with an eviction complaint should be sure to examine the complaint to determine if the landlord or an attorney verified the complaint. The verification should also be closely examined to determine if it is a “boilerplate” verification. A boilerplate verification which is used by many attorneys may be vulnerable as many do not comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 446 which requires the attorney to state the reasons why the verification is not made by one of the parties.

Code of Civil Procedure section 446 states in pertinent part that, “In all cases of a verification of a pleading, the affidavit of the party shall state that the same is true of his own knowledge, except as to the matters which are therein stated on his or her information or belief, and as to those matters that he or she believes it to be true; and where a pleading is verified, it shall be by the affidavit of a party, unless the parties are absent from the county where the attorney has his or her office, or from some cause unable to verify it, or the facts are within the knowledge of his or her attorney or other person verifying the same. When the pleading is verified by the attorney, or any other person except one of the parties, he or she shall set forth in the affidavit the reasons why it is not made by one of the parties.” (Emphasis added.)

The plain language of Code of Civil Procedure section 446 clearly states that the only situations in which an attorney verification of an unlawful detainer complaint, or any other California complaint is proper is when the plaintiff is absent from the county where the attorney has his or her office or is otherwise unable to verify the complaint; or the facts are within the personal knowledge of the attorney verifying the complaint. A California Court of Appeal has also stated this in a published case.

Another California Court of Appeal has stated that unless the client’s absence from the county makes it impractical or impossible to have the client sign the verification, an attorney cannot verify a pleading on behalf of their client. In that case the Court of Appeal specifically held that in cases where the client can be reached by mail, verification by an attorney is not allowed.

Because of the advanced means of communication possible today there are essentially very few situations where a client is truly unavailable to sign a verification.

The proper way to attack a California eviction complaint that has been verified by the attorney for the landlord is to file a motion to strike the entire complaint on the grounds that the attorney verification is improper and therefore the complaint is not drawn in conformity with the laws of the State of California.

Attorneys or parties in California who would like to view a portion of a sample motion to strike an eviction complaint that includes an objection to the attorney verification sold by the author can see below.

The author of this blog post, Stan Burman, is a freelance paralegal who has worked in California and Federal litigation since 1995. If you are in need of assistance with any California or Federal litigation matters, Mr. Burman is available on a freelance basis. Mr. Burman may be contacted by e-mail at DivParalgl@yahoo.com for more information. He accepts payments through PayPal which means that you can pay using most credit or debit cards.

To view over 255 sample legal documents for sale by the author of this blog post visit the following link: http://www.scribd.com/LegalDocsPro

*Do you want to use this article on your website, blog or e-zine? You can, as long as you include this blurb with it: “Stan Burman is the author of over 255 sample legal documents for California and Federal litigation and is the author of a free weekly legal newsletter. You can receive 10 free gifts just for subscribing. Just visit: http://freeweeklylegalnewsletter.gr8.com/

View sample legal document packages for sale here: http://www.legaldocspro.com/downloads.aspx

DISCLAIMER:

Please note that the author of this blog post, Stan Burman is NOT an attorney and as such is unable to provide any specific legal advice. The author is NOT engaged in providing any legal, financial, or other professional services, and any information contained in this blog post is NOT intended to constitute legal advice.

The materials and information contained in this blog post have been prepared by Stan Burman for informational purposes only and are not legal advice. Transmission of the information contained in this blog post is not intended to create, and receipt does not constitute, any business relationship between the author and any readers. Readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel.

Posted in California civil litigation, California evictions, California unlawful detainer, law and motion, motion to strike unlawful detainer complaint | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment