Jump to content


Photo

Whats wrong with LA Superior Courts??????


  • Please log in to reply
4 replies to this topic

#1 N8VLAson

N8VLAson

    New Member

  • Members
  • 1 posts

Posted 12 December 2012 - 06:15 AM

Los Angeles Tenancy. Rent Control. Eviction Process initiated by successor of Original Landlord Oct. 2012. New Landlord involvement to property began Dec. 2009. Lease Agreement executed in 2001 with original Landlord.& family (Mother, Father, Son, And Daughter named on Lease individually and as the "Park Family").
Parents moved into Senior Housing Apt. Oct. 2012. New Landlord informed me that I had to move out when parents moved.I informed him that I believed I had the right to stay.
Landlord immediately initiated eviction process. I made a claim with the Los Angeles Housing Dept.and an Investigation was started. I contacted the original landlord and she submitted to all parties( including LAHD) a notarized affidavit confirming my Authorized Tenancy and Terms of the original executed lease. After 11 years, No One had a copy of the executed lease. I had billing statements dating back to 2003. I also found rent checks in my name for this property. LAHD ruled in my favor. I was sent a certified letter from the investigator and told to present it to the judge when i arrived to court.

The Landlord presented a document unsigned and in my mothers name only to the court as the Lease agreement
He presented a 30 day notice to move (unsigned) in my mothers name. I wasn't mentioned or named in the notice.

Superior court in Los Angles ruled in favor of the plaintiff (landlord).

Attempted to File a motion to vacate judgement, arrived at filing clerks 10 minutes late on the last day to file.
(clerks are at windows but it's 4:10 pm and nothing can be done.

11 years , Never late on rent. Never a problem, I have to vacate by tomorrow.. What is going on? What is the purpose of LAHD? Rent Control? Housing Authority?




.

#2 pg1067

pg1067

    Platinum Contributor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 45,802 posts

Posted 12 December 2012 - 07:58 AM

Your questions appear to be rhetorical, so I'm unsure what the purpose of your post is. You appear to be asking us to comment on the correctness of a court decision that we have not read, and based solely on your rather scattershot explanation of some of the relevant facts. All that said, the most compelling piece of information in your post appears to be that there is no signed lease naming you as a tenant. Am I right about that?

#3 Guest_FindLaw_Amir_*

Guest_FindLaw_Amir_*
  • Guests

Posted 12 December 2012 - 10:25 AM

Not sure what your legal issue is concerning. Could you please clarify?

#4 Tax_Counsel

Tax_Counsel

    Platinum Contributor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,630 posts

Posted 12 December 2012 - 11:58 AM

Lease Agreement executed in 2001 with original Landlord.& family (Mother, Father, Son, And Daughter named on Lease individually and as the "Park Family").


How do you know who were the tenants on the lease if you don't have a copy of the lease? More importantly, how were you going to prove that you were a tenant on the lease if you didn’t keep a copy of it? This is one of the reasons why the tenant needs to keep a copy of the signed lease for as long as he/she resides there.

And what was the term of the lease agreement? I'll bet it wasn’t for more than 11 years. If the lease term expired and no new lease was entered into, then the tenancy converts to month-to-month. Under a month-to-month tenancy, either party can end the lease agreement by providing the necessary notice to the other party. In most states, only one month’s advance notice is needed. In California, it might be more as I recall. So, absent some local ordinance that says a landlord needs some kind of good cause to terminate the tenancy, the landlord could boot you out of there anyway by terminating the month-to-month tenancy. The bottom line is that it doesn’t sound like you convinced the court that you were a tenant with a right to stay there. Nothing in your post suggests that the court was obviously incorrect in its decision. Obviously you don’t like the decision, but you have a stake in the outcome and thus are almost certainly biased in the matter. In most litigation cases, the losing party feels the court got it wrong.


Attempted to File a motion to vacate judgement, arrived at filing clerks 10 minutes late on the last day to file.
(clerks are at windows but it's 4:10 pm and nothing can be done.


If you are late, you're late and nothing can be done to fix that. This is why I tell people never to wait until the last minute to file anything with the court. Any delay on the way to the court when you are racing to meet a deadline can make you late and prevent you from filing on time, with the result that the court cannot consider whatever it is you wanted to file.

Did you try to get any legal help with contesting the eviction? Even if you could not afford a lawyer, there are likely a variety of places in L.A. that might have provided some free or low cost legal assistance for this.

#5 pg1067

pg1067

    Platinum Contributor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 45,802 posts

Posted 12 December 2012 - 02:47 PM

And what was the term of the lease agreement? I'll bet it wasn’t for more than 11 years. If the lease term expired and no new lease was entered into, then the tenancy converts to month-to-month. Under a month-to-month tenancy, either party can end the lease agreement by providing the necessary notice to the other party. In most states, only one month’s advance notice is needed. In California, it might be more as I recall. So, absent some local ordinance that says a landlord needs some kind of good cause to terminate the tenancy, the landlord could boot you out of there anyway by terminating the month-to-month tenancy.


It is correct that more than 30 days' notice is required for a tenancy that has lasted longer than a year; 60 days is required. Also, given the poster's vague references to the L.A. Housing department and "rent control," it may well be that he/she lived in a residence that was subject to Los Angeles's rent control ordinance, which, if it were applicable, would mean that the landlord could not legally evict simply by giving notice (indeed, the L.A. rent control ordinance is relatively draconian toward landlords). However, I agree that it appears that the poster failed to prove he/she was a tenant with a right to possession and, even if that decision was wrong, failed to file a timely appeal.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users