Sample Our Newsletter

San Francisco tenants not complying with their lease terms do not need to be given extra time to fix their behavior, according to California's First Appellate District of Appeal. Perhaps San Franciscans can recall waking up to orange skies. We do. It was a bizarre experience. It's just as bizarre that in an age when laws and political rhetoric fall squarely on tenants' side, we finally have some good news to report to housing providers.

Although there is a deluge of landlording regulations, be grateful that we have an independent judiciary that can review them and in this case, shoot down unreasonable ones that fly in the face of state law.

In 2022, Dean Preston, San Francisco's most prolific author of tenant protections, floated the idea of a "cooling-off period" for evictions since we were still dealing with the residue of COVID.

Rather than serving a three-day notice to demand rent or fix other lease violations, housing providers were to provide a 10-day warning letter before going through the traditional eviction process beginning with a 3-day notice.

The courts said "whoa, hold on. Not so fast. There is a statewide procedure to follow and you can't tamper with it."
There is an eternal tug-of-war between state and local governments regarding what kind of power they assert and whether state law preempts local law. In a city predominately comprised of renters, San Francisco politicians have always pushed that envelope. Often, they have lost.

Not so beholden by political whims, the state legislature carved out carefully choreographed steps for carrying out the eviction process.

Initially, the courts chimed in on one of the foremost obligations of tenants, which is to pay rent. A judge ruled that a 10-day warning period flew in the face of state law that clearly states that if a properly served 3-day notice to pay rent or quit is served and the tenant does not pay the rent, the landlord has perfected his/her right to commence an unlawful detainer (eviction) action.

But what about other lease violations? Can tenants buy extra time?
Most recently, it has been determined that no, tenants should not be given a grace period. What are we talking about? For the answer, we turn to San Francisco's Ordinance No. 18-22 that addresses:

• violating a material term of the tenancy;
• allowing a nuisance that is severe, continuing, or recurring;
• using the unit or permitting the unit to be used for any illegal purpose;
• refusal to execute a written extension or renewal of the lease under the same terms as existed previously;
• refusal to allow the landlord to access the unit as required by state or local law.
• Moving forward, San Francisco rental property owners can revert to the traditional means of escorting bad actors out of their rental units with no need to give them extra time to cure the violation.

Parting thoughts and insights
When we serve a 3-day notice, we need to take into account weekends and judicial holidays, which don't count as days.

Also, note that some acts are not curable, such as when the behavior is so egregious that the tenant cannot correct the behavior and get a clean slate. Think violence, firing a gun, arson, drug dealing, prostitution, threats, and the like. When there is an imminent threat to public health and/or safety, we can proceed with an eviction action without delay.