Rental Agreements Enrage Beverly Hills Tenants

Dozens of apartment dwellers in Beverly Hills are enraged over a new rental agreement sent to them recently by the city’s biggest landlord, Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald T. Sterling.

The leases, scheduled to become effective Oct. 1, would change the tenants’ last month’s rent to a security deposit and would allow Sterling to deduct 6% of their monthly rent from the security deposit if the tenants don’t pay their rent on time.

The leases also place restrictions on the hours tenants can watch television, play musical instruments or stereos, and requires tenants to get written permission from the apartment manager if visiting children or relatives stay for an extended length of time.

But many of the tenants, after seeking legal counsel, say Sterling has a better chance of getting Danny Manning, the first player selected in the recent National Basketball Assn. draft, to sign a new contract than getting them to agree to the new terms.

“Mr. Sterling has arbitrarily and unilaterally changed the lease agreements but told the tenants that there is no change,” said Herm Shultz, president of the Beverly Hills-based Concern for Tenants Rights. “The whole thing is ludicrous. But he’s managed to scare a lot of these people to death. They’re doing some arm-twisting, but they’re trying to seem nice while they’re doing it.”

‘Clarify’ Agreements

Robert Steele, chief executive officer of Beverly Hills Properties, which manages Sterling’s properties in the city, said that the new lease is little more than an attempt to “clarify” the oral or written agreements that many of the tenants have been living with for the last two decades.

“The new lease simply clarifies what is the law and is sound business practice,” Steele said. “We’ve just tried to make it a lot easier for the tenants to understand. It’s basically the same agreement that they had before. I would have thought that they would appreciate to have it written down for them.”

However, Sheldon Sacks, legal adviser for Concern for Tenants Rights, said the leases have had the opposite effect. Sacks has told tenants to return them unsigned to Sterling’s property management company. He said the new leases are not legally binding unless signed and that Sterling has no authority to arbitrarily enforce new rules. Sacks said the new leases contain a dozen changes from previous written or oral agreements.

Steele maintains that the new leases are legal and can be enforced whether or not the tenants sign it. He said the leases are based on a standard agreement used throughout California.

Several tenants said they were upset by the wording in a notice attached to the new lease that says the agreement “includes substantially the same terms as (the) current month-to-month or oral rental agreement.” In addition, the notice says the tenants have 30 days after receiving the agreement to comply with the new terms. As a result, Shultz said, several tenants have already signed the new lease.

‘Surprised and Shocked’

One tenant who has lived in one of Sterling’s apartment buildings on North Palm Drive for seven years, said he was “surprised and shocked” by the new lease, because it was never discussed with the tenants.

“After you live in a building for seven years in good standing, it doesn’t make sense to me why they would want to modify the agreement unilaterally,” said the tenant, who asked not to be identified for fear of retribution. “There’s no rhyme or reason for them to do it. Now, if we were to be late with the rent check by one day, we would be charged a $126 penalty. I find that quite offensive.

Said Sacks: “The question is, if the contract is the same as the oral or written agreements, then what’s the need for the new lease?”

Sterling, who owns more than 550 rental units in Beverly Hills, has never been the city’s most popular landlord. In 1986, Sterling imposed 30% rent increases at some of his apartments. The action prompted the City Council to limit rent increases to 10% per year, a figure many renters still believe is too high and many apartment owners believe is not high enough.

Bitter Parody

Sterling’s latest move was the focus of a bitter parody written by Shultz in the latest Concern for Tenants Rights newsletter. In it, Shultz outlined several changes in the new lease agreement “by the Order of His Gougeship the King,” and makes fun of some of the terms in the lease, which says televisions, musical instruments and stereos may only be played between 7:30 a.m. and 10:30 p.m.

“Hear Ye! Hear Ye! Hear Ye!,” Shultz wrote. “By the order of his majesty Donald T. Sterling and his royal court decree, that you no longer shall celebrate the Beverly Hills Diamond Jubilee or the quiet enjoyment of your own domicile. His landlordship further decrees that now all residential tenants shall be subservient to the crown.”

The newsletter, which describes the tenants as “subjects,” goes on to say that those who do not comply with the terms “shall be lashed with an eviction notice.”

Steele, who declined to say how many copies of the lease were sent out, said the agreement was put together so that all of tenants were bound by the same terms. He said some tenants who have been living in Sterling’s apartments for 18 years or more had leases that differ from those of renters who had lived there for five years or less.

Standard Agreement

“We wanted to make one standard agreement for all of our tenants,” Steele said. “From now on, whatever time you came in, this will be our lease. That way there can be no disputes.”

Steele stopped short of saying that they would try to evict any tenants who refused to sign the new lease. However, the new agreement says that tenants can be evicted for failure to comply with one or more of the terms in the lease.

“We intend to enforce the lease to the letter of the law,” he said. “If some of the tenants have a different opinion and want to seek legal counsel, that’s fine, but we’re going to enforce it.”

Sacks said the matter is likely to be settled in court.

“Much of the contract is contrary to law,” Sacks said. “The tenants are under no legal obligation to sign this unless they have a prior written agreement, which is expiring. This whole thing is just an intimidation tactic to force people to sign it and done in such a way that tenants would be stop from exercising their legal rights.”