Does a no-fault eviction ordinance requiring a landlord to pay relocation fees on their eviction of a month-to-month tenant constitute an unlawful taking by the city?

Ballinger v. City of Oakland

Facts: A city ordinance requires landlords subject to just cause eviction requirements to pay a tenant holding a month-to-month tenancy prescribed relocation fees when the landlord terminates the tenancy. A landlord serves a proper 60-day notice to vacate on a tenant holding occupancy under a month-to-month tenancy agreement. The landlord pays the tenant relocation fees as called for by the ordinance and demands a refund from the city, which the city rejects.

Claim: The landlord claims the ordinance is unenforceable and the city needs to reimburse them for the relocation fees they paid the tenant since the relocation fee is an unconstitutional taking of their money.

Counterclaim: The city claims the ordinance is enforceable since it regulates the relationship between landlords and tenants.

Holding: The ninth circuit court of appeals holds the landlord’s payment of relocation fees under a city ordinance when terminating a month-to-month tenancy is not an unlawful taking and the landlord is not entitled to a refund since the tenant relocation fee ordinance is a proper exercise of the city’s police power. [Ballinger v. City of Oakland (2022) 24 F4th 1287]

Read Ballinger v. City of Oakland here.

Related Reading:

Property Management

Chapter 27: Just cause evictions under the Tenant Protection Act