Actually, this one has not happened to me, but it could have.   But this actually happened to one of our FAA members.  I am grateful to him for this lesson, and will describe it as best as I can.

The tenant had been a problem, for years.   It was one relatively small breach-of-contract after another, such as violation of the parking rules.  It was one complaint after another.   And the case ultimately turned on one of those complaints.

Because of the string of violations and complaints, the owner finally just decided to end the frustration by evicting the tenant, and filed the appropriate papers in the Pasadena court to begin the process.  The tenant in this case went further than most.  He answered the complaint,  and requested a jury trial.  With the help of the local fair housing office, he had an attorney to represent him at the trial.

The tenant prevailed (and this was a big surprise to me), based on the theory of retaliatory eviction.

OK, so maybe it was retaliatory as the tenant was not currently in violation of any provision of his contract, but it had (and I stress the word “had”) been my understanding that retaliatory evictions only applied in situations where the tenant had complained to some sort of governmental or regulatory agency.  Here, the tenant had only complained to the owner.    The jury, with the help of the judge, essentially held that the owner could not evict without “just cause”.  In other words, the finding was that there could be no eviction unless the tenant was in current violation of some provision of his lease.

Of course it was unusual to have a jury trial over an eviction.   What is not surprising is that a judge and a jury can have whatever outcome they think is right.

The new lesson from all of this is clear:  if you are going to evict a tenant, it had better be for a good reason.    Non-payment of rent remains a very good reason to evict   However, if it is a behavioral issue, such as noise or parking or pets, I would recommend that the owner have very good documentation, both of the on-going violation,  and  showing a clear attempt to warn the tenant of the problem before initiating an eviction process.

Prepare for an eviction as if “just cause” were the criteria.  It makes good business-sense to me.

The owner in this case was very smart.  He had followed advice that I and others had written about by limiting potential legal fees to $500 in his rental contracts, in the event he lost in court.  This advice originally came to me from Craig Doolittle of AAA Lessor Services.  Thank you, Craig.

Dear Readers: This article is the 154th in a series based on the lessons we have learned the hard way.  The contents of these articles are merely opinions of the writer.  They are not intended as specific legal advice and should not be relied upon for that purpose.  Our practice is in constant refinement as we adjust the way we operate in an ever- changing rental market.  I always appreciate your questions, comments, suggestions, and solutions.

Contact C. Finley Beven, CPM, CCAM, JD.

Beven & Brock Property Management Co., Inc.

99 S. Lake Avenue,  Pasadena.  (626) 243-4145   ….