Facts: Under a local rent ordinance, a landlord files a notice of intent to withdraw property from the rental market with the local rent board. At the same time, the landlord issues a notice of termination of tenancy to the tenant occupying the property under a rental agreement. The termination notice details the tenant’s right to re-rent the property if the landlord returns it to the market and further refers the tenant to the local rent ordinance for more information. The tenant fails to vacate by the termination date and the landlord files an unlawful detainer (UD) action.

 
Claim: The tenant seeks to invalidate the landlord’s UD action, claiming the landlord failed to adequately inform them of their re-rental rights under the local rent ordinance since the termination notice did not specifically address the tenant’s re-rental rights under future owners of the property.

 
Counterclaim: The landlord claims the termination notice provided to the tenant properly informed them of their re-rental rights since the notice explicitly referred the tenant to the local rent ordinance governing re-rental rights for more information.

 
Holding: A California superior court holds the landlord’s termination notice properly and fairly addressed the tenant’s re-rental rights under the local rent ordinance since the landlord’s notice directly referred the tenant to the rent ordinance for more information, and thus was not required to provide express notice of a tenant’s re-rental rights under future owners. [Naylor v. Superior Court (Hirsch) (2015) 14 C 4150]

 
Editor’s note: The local rent ordinance is under the City and County of San Francisco Rent Board.

 

Read the text of the case.