Court action is dismissed ‘with prejudice.’ Say what?

Question: During the last six months I fell behind in my rent because of a serious illness. I have lived here for more than 10 years and have always had a good relationship with my property owner, who reluctantly filed a court eviction. Fortunately we were able to resolve the matter during the court process and I was able to stay. I paid the past-due rent and the court action was dismissed “with prejudice.” What does this phrase mean?

Answer: This worked out for you on several levels.

The phrase “with prejudice” means that the court case was dismissed for a substantive reason and the plaintiff (your property owner) is barred from bringing an action on this same claim. (In other words, end of story.) This, however, does not prevent someone from filing a new action for future violations, such as nonpayment of rent.

The other dismissal designation is “without prejudice.” This means the action for this violation or cause can be re-filed within the statute of limitations, if the plaintiff wishes.

The eviction case will still appear on your credit report, unless you are designated as the “prevailing party” within the meaning of Code of Civil Procedure Section 1161.7. In order to protect your credit, this stipulation or agreement should always be included with the dismissal form.

It’s illegal to rent only to teachers

Question: During winter and summer school breaks, I occasionally rent out rooms in my house to teachers who are in town for continuing education classes. Generally the teachers stay from a week to a month. Would any fair housing laws apply?

Answer: Yes. The fair housing laws apply to temporary or seasonal rentals, as well as to time shares, cooperatives, shelters and other nontraditional housing. You should be aware that you cannot limit the rental of your rooms based on any of the categories protected under anti-discrimination laws.

A policy of renting only to teachers could have an illegally disproportionate effect based on familial status, source of income and other protected categories under the law.

Landlord seeks $90 door-key fee

Question: My manager has given me a 30-day written notice that I must pay a nonrefundable $90 fee for my key. I know that as a month-to-month tenant, the landlord can change my rental terms, but isn’t this fee excessive?

Answer: A nonrefundable fee is not appropriate as a rental condition. Fees are permissible only if charged at the time that the landlord incurred the cost to replace the key or re-key the locks. Any such fee must be reasonably limited to the landlord’s actual cost if you lose or do not return a key when you vacate.

At first glance, the amount of this fee looks excessive, but if it includes the cost of re-keying the lock as a security measure, rather than just replacing the key, it might be reasonable.

On the other hand, if the money was requested as a guarantee against some future key loss, it must be treated as a deposit and would be subject to the normal deposit rules, including the fact that it could not be characterized as “nonrefundable.” This means only actual expenses arising from replacing the key or locks could be charged and the remainder of the deposit would be subject to a mandatory refund 21 days after a tenant vacates. This additional money would count against the overall ceiling for deposits, which is a total of two months’ rent for an unfurnished apartment.

--

This column is prepared by Project Sentinel, a rental housing mediation service. Questions may be sent to 1055 Sunnyvale-Saratoga Road, Suite 3, Sunnyvale, CA 94087, but cannot be answered individually. For housing discrimination questions, complaints or help, call the Southern California Housing Rights Center at (800) 477-5977.