Trouble With Sublessor’s Offer: Is It Legal?

QUESTION: I have a chance to move into a rent-controlled apartment in Venice but there are a few problems.

For one thing, I would be subletting the apartment for more money than the actual rent, with the excess money going to the sublessor. Is this legal?

I would also like answers to the following questions:

What are my rights as a sublessee? Who is responsible for repairs? Can I live there indefinitely? Can he raise the rent more than one time a year?

Since I must make a decision in early December, your early response would be greatly appreciated.

ANSWER: I’ll assume that this plan has the approval of the owner. It may be precluded in the tenant’s lease or rental agreement. If so, forget it. If unauthorized subtenants are prohibited, the tenant of record, the sublessor, as well as you, could be evicted for violating the agreement.

The city’s rent law allows landlords to raise rents annually and upon vacancies, but that doesn’t apply in this case. Similarly, the sublessor could not raise rents more than once a year without justification, such as the result of a capital improvement, like a new roof, made to the property.

The sublessor of this apartment would be defined as the new landlord by the RSD of the City of Los Angeles, but he could not charge you more than the legal rent for the unit as set by the RSD.

As a sublessee, the good news is that you have all of the rights of a tenant. The bad news is that those rights include the right to be evicted if the sublessor wants the apartment back for his use, or close family members’ use (owner occupancy). In that circumstance, you could not live there “indefinitely.”

As for most repairs, the sublessor, your immediate landlord, would be responsible for making them, or having them made, for you. He would likely turn to the owner to have them made, which translates into an extra level of communication that could slow the response time.

Tenant’s Leaking Car Grounds for Eviction

Q: I need advice on how to handle a problem with a tenant whose car leaks oil onto my newly poured, concrete driveway. I asked her nicely several times to park on the street until she gets the oil leak fixed, but she won’t comply.

She did buy a drip pan to catch the leaking oil, but it still leaks to and from her parking space.

Our written rental agreement says, “Resident is not to park any vehicle on the property if such vehicle leaks or discharges any fluids. Resident is responsible for oil leaks and other vehicle discharges. Resident shall be charged for cleaning or damages if deemed necessary by the owner.”

I need some advice on how to proceed. What can I do?

A: Since your rental agreement so clearly bans autos with leaking fluids on the property, your problem is simplified. You need to serve the renter with a “3-Day Notice to Perform Covenant,” (comply with the written provision in the rental agreement), or quit (move out).

Be sure to clearly articulate the grievance and her breach of agreement. You should reference in the notice the paragraph in the agreement about leaking fluids that you cited, and although not legally required, as a practical matter you should serve her the notice at least twice before trying to evict her if she doesn’t comply with it.

Eviction is the only remedy available to you to solve the problem if she won’t comply with your notice.

To pay for the oil cleanup you may either deduct money from the tenant’s security deposit or sue her in small claims court.

Rent Control Not Tied to 5% Vacancy

Q: I am the owner of an apartment building in Rancho Park that is under Los Angeles city’s rent control ordinance and I have a question for you.

I read in your Nov. 8 column that the vacancy rate is “6%-9% across town.” When rent control was passed it was passed as an emergency measure that was to be rescinded when the vacancy rate in the city of Los Angeles reached 5%.

Since the vacancy rate is now above 5%, why does the City of Los Angeles still have rent control?

A: According to Michael Hembres, assistant director of the Los Angeles Rent Stabilization Division (RSD), “(The program) was never tagged to terminate at 5% or any other vacancy rate.”

“The law was originally passed as a six-month moratorium and extended as a temporary ordinance, pending an Environmental Impact Report, and then it was passed as a permanent ordinance in 1982.”

Real estate attorney Peter J. Kaplanis said that no such 5% provision became the law, notwithstanding the fact that part of the city’s justification for passing the rent law was that the city’s vacancy rate was “under 5%,” a federal standard for a healthy rental market. Kaplanis said that such a termination provision would be fair in view of the city’s reasoning. He also said that such a provision was unsuccessfully sought by owners.