Category: Landlord/Tenant

For years, landlords have treated background-check disclosures as routine paperwork, important, yes, but rarely the focal point of litigation. A recent California appellate decision makes clear that assumption is no longer safe.

Tenant screening has become a pressure point for regulators, advocates, and courts alike. Applicants routinely pay screening fees without seeing the reports used to evaluate them or fully understanding how their information is collected and shared. In response, courts have increasingly emphasized transparency and informed consent.

In a published YEAR opinion reviving more than 100 tenant lawsuits, the California Court of Appeal held that technical violations of the Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act (ICRAA) can support statutory liability even when tenants were approved and suffered no actual harm. In other words, the problem was not what happened to the applicants. It was how the background check was disclosed.

For housing providers, this decision sends a clear message: tenant screening forms are no longer back-office documents. They are front-line litigation risk.

The Case That Changed the Conversation

In Yeh v. Barrington Pacific, LLC, the California Court of Appeal confronted a question: can tenants sue landlords under ICRAA without showing that they were denied housing, harmed financially, or otherwise injured?

The plaintiffs were rental applicants who paid screening fees, passed background checks, and became tenants. They did not claim inaccurate reports, identity theft, or adverse leasing decisions. Instead, they alleged that the landlord’s background-check disclosures failed to meet ICRAA’s procedural requirements such as properly identifying the reporting agency, describing the scope of the investigation, and explaining how tenants could obtain copies of their reports.

The trial court dismissed the cases, reasoning that the plaintiffs could not point to any concrete harm. The Court of Appeal disagreed.

The appellate court revived the tenants’ ICRAA claims, holding that the statute allows tenants to pursue statutory recovery based on the violation of disclosure rights alone. At the same time, the court affirmed dismissal of the plaintiffs’ Unfair Competition Law claims, which still require economic loss.

The result is a technical split: ICRAA claims may proceed even when broader consumer-protection theories fail.

Why This Decision Matters Right Now

What makes Yeh consequential is its focus on process rather than outcome. The court did not ask whether the tenants were treated unfairly in the leasing decision. It asked whether the statutory disclosure rules were followed. That shift dramatically lowers the barrier to litigation and raises the stakes for compliance.

Put simply: a landlord can “do everything right” substantively and still face liability if the paperwork is wrong.

This Didn’t Come Out of Nowhere: The Legal Backdrop

Although Yeh grabbed attention because of its scale, it fits neatly into a longer line of California decisions reinforcing ICRAA’s teeth.

The Supreme Court Settled ICRAA’s Enforceability

In Connor v. First Student, Inc., the California Supreme Court rejected arguments that ICRAA was unenforceable due to overlap with other consumer-reporting statutes. The Court made clear that regulated entities may have to comply with multiple disclosure regimes, and that ICRAA is here to stay.

Courts Have Applied ICRAA to Housing Providers Before

In Bernuy v. Bridge Property Management Co., the Court of Appeal treated ICRAA as fully applicable to landlord screening practices, reinforcing that housing providers are not on the sidelines of this statute.

Standing Under ICRAA Is Different Than Under the FCRA

Some landlords point to federal Fair Credit Reporting Act cases as reassurance. That reliance is risky. In Limon v. Circle K Stores Inc., the court required proof of concrete injury for federal FCRA claims. But Yeh makes clear that ICRAA follows a different statutory path, one designed by the California Legislature.

The Trend Accelerated After Yeh

Just weeks later, another appellate court confirmed the same principle in the employment context. In Parsonage v. Wal-Mart Associates, Inc., the court held that an ICRAA violation alone is enough to establish standing, no adverse action required.

The takeaway across cases is consistent: ICRAA compliance is judged by what was disclosed by the Landlord, not by the Tenant’s actions or whether anyone complains about the result.

What Housing Providers Should Take Away

Technical Does Not Mean Trivial

The plaintiffs in Yeh were approved tenants. That fact did not protect the landlord. Courts are treating disclosure requirements as independent statutory rights, not mere procedural niceties.

Standard Forms Multiply Risk

If a disclosure form is defective, every application using that form carries the same defect. What looks like a small paperwork issue can quickly become a large-scale exposure.

Vendors Do Not Absorb Liability

Using a third-party screening company does not insulate landlords from responsibility. Courts continue to view housing providers as “users” of investigative consumer reports with their own compliance obligations.

Practical Compliance

Given the direction of case law, housing providers should reevaluate tenant-screening workflows with a compliance-first lens:

· Are disclosures current and written specifically for ICRAA, not adapted from employment or credit forms?

· Are disclosures clearly separated from other notices and authorizations?

· Do online application flows preserve the clarity required in paper disclosures?

· Can the landlord document exactly what an applicant saw and agreed to?

These questions are no longer theoretical. They are litigation defenses.

Bottom Line

Yeh v. Barrington Pacific confirms what California courts have been signaling for years: ICRAA is a strict compliance statute with real consequences. When the Legislature authorizes statutory recovery for disclosure violations, courts will enforce that choice, even when tenants cannot point to tangible harm.

For landlords, the lesson is straightforward. Tenant screening paperwork is no longer passive documentation. It is active legal exposure. Property Managers should be aware of gaps in their forms, and Landlords must take an active role in disclosure requirements.

Disclaimer

The information in this post is considered attorney advertising under applicable California law. The contents of this post are for informational purposes only and do not constitute legal advice. The information may be incomplete or out of date. No representations, testimonials, or endorsements on this website constitute a guarantee, warranty, or prediction regarding the outcome of any legal matter.

As of January 1, 2025, several new landlord-tenant laws have come into effect in California, marking important changes in real estate and rental agreements. These changes aim to improve transparency, fairness, and security for both landlords and tenants.

Let’s explore some of the key updates that could impact your rental property or tenancy in San Diego.

Credit Reporting Requirements for Tenants

A major change in 2025 affects rental payment history reporting. Landlords must now offer tenants the option to report positive rental payment history to at least one nationwide credit reporting agency. This new law is designed to help tenants build their credit.

• For Existing Leases – Landlords must offer this option by April 1, 2025.
• For New Leases – This must be offered at the time the lease is signed and once annually thereafter.

Note that private landlords may have exceptions under the Tenant Protection Act. Be mindful of these changes to stay compliant.

Junk Fees Prohibited

In an effort to protect tenants from hidden costs, California has introduced a law banning “junk fees” These are fees unrelated to rent, such as charges for personal checks or unnecessary service fees. Key updates include:

• No Extra Fees for Personal Checks – Landlords cannot charge extra fees for rent payments made by personal check.
• Return of Fees for Service Members – If a service member tenant has paid additional fees for poor rental history but then maintains six (6) months of on-time payments, these fees must be refunded.

This law aims to reduce unfair charges in rental agreements.

Lock Change Protections for Domestic Violence Victims

California has strengthened protections for tenants who are victims of domestic violence. The new law allows tenants to request immediate lock changes if they or a household member is a victim of abuse. Key provisions include:

• Requesting Lock Changes – Tenants can request a lock change for their safety.
• Landlord Responsibility – Landlords must cover the cost of the lock change if the tenant provides documentation of abuse.
• 24-Hour Deadline – The landlord must change the locks within 24 hours of receiving the request.

These changes aim to enhance safety and security for vulnerable tenants.

Changes in Nonpayment of Rent Cases

A significant update for landlords and tenants alike is the extension of the time allowed for responding to nonpayment of rent cases.

• New Response Time – Tenants now have 10 days (up from 5 days) to respond to a nonpayment of rent case.
• Supporters’ View Point – Supporters believe this gives tenants more time to resolve any issues and avoid eviction.
• Opponents’ View Point – Some argue that this extension could add more time and cost to an already difficult eviction process.

New Security Deposit Requirements

Landlords must now take photos of the rental unit both before a tenant moves in and after they move out. This requirement ensures that any damage to the property is properly documented and helps prevent disputes over the security deposit.

While this may seem like an extra step, many landlords already follow this practice, making it a minor adjustment for most.

California’s new landlord-tenant laws for 2025 introduce important changes that landlords and tenants need to understand. From credit reporting requirements to lock change protections and updated security deposit rules, staying informed is essential to ensure compliance and avoid potential issues.

Please contact our Law Office for a comprehensive list of recent legislation and how it may affect you.

Need Legal Advice?

Understanding landlord-tenant laws can be challenging. Consulting with us can provide clarity and help resolve any questions or concerns. Our experienced attorneys are here to offer guidance on all matters related to landlord-tenant law and residential real estate.

Contact us today at (619) 546-7880 for a consultation to discuss your specific situation and learn how we can help you navigate these new regulations.

Disclaimer: The information in this post is considered attorney advertising under applicable California Law. The contents of this post is for informational purposes only and is not legal advice. The information may be incomplete or out of date. No representations, testimonials, or endorsements on this web site constitute a guarantee, warranty, or prediction regarding the outcome of any legal matter.

California has strict rent control laws to protect tenants, all outlined under the Tenant Protection Act (AB 1482). Here’s what you need to know if you’re a landlord.

Rent Increase Limits in California

California’s Tenant Protection Act caps 12-month rent increases at 10%, or 5%, plus the percentage change in the cost of living, whichever is lower. 

As a landlord, you’re also responsible for adhering to any local rent control laws that may be in place, such as from the city or county. 

Additionally, remember that, at times, a city or county may have a price gouging ordinance in effect, or there may be a proclamation made as the result of a local emergency. These can apply to rental housing and have an impact on rent increases.

Retaliation Is Against the Law

It’s important to understand that it’s illegal to retaliate against a tenant (such as threatening to evict them) if they inform you a rent increase is unlawful. 

How to Notify Your Tenants of a Rent Increase

You must provide tenants with a formal written notice (not an email, call, or text) of a rent increase that gives them 30 days’ notice. 

Other Important Laws to Take Note Of

New This Year: Security Deposit Cap

Starting July 1, 2024, a new cap on security deposits for leases that limits them to one (1) month’s rent will go into effect. 

There is one exception of note. Landlords who own up to two residential rental properties (including up to four dwelling units) are excluded. To get more details on the exclusion, read the article we published on the topic.

There Are Two Types of Evictions: At Fault and No Fault

Under California’s Tenant Protection Act, evictions are split into two categories, one where the tenant is allegedly “at fault” and another where the tenant is at “no fault.” Here’s the difference: 

At fault evictions can occur when a tenant:

• Fails to pay rent
• Breaches a term in the lease or refuses to sign a new lease
• Conducts criminal activity on the premises
• Refuses lawful entry

No fault evictions can occur if:

• The owner decides to move in or otherwise remove the unit from the rental market
• There’s going to be a substantial remodel (where the work cannot be done safely with the tenants inside) or demolition of the unit
• There’s a government order or local law that requires the tenant to leave

It’s important to note that locking a tenant out of a unit is illegal. You must go through the courts to properly evict a tenant.

You Must Keep Units Safe and Well Maintained

This hasn’t changed in 2024, but it’s important to revisit it. As a landlord, you’re legally required to ensure your units are habitable, which means they have things like:

• Safe and operational plumbing, heating, and electrical systems
• Working locks on doors and windows
• Effective waterproofing

Additionally, your property must be free from vermin, such as roaches. 

However, it’s important to note that tenants must legally follow standards themselves, such as keeping the unit sanitary and not damaging anything.

Need Legal Advice?

As a landlord, you must stay informed about California’s rent control laws, as well as your other legal obligations. If you need assistance understanding the laws or are in a dispute with a tenant, our attorneys can help. Book a consultation with us today.

In November Governor Newsome signed into law California legislation which limits security deposits to one (1) month’s rent for both furnished and unfurnished residential units. The new cap on security deposits for Leases takes effect July 1, 2024.

San Francisco Assembly person Matt Haney authored AB 12, which passed both the Senate and the Assembly houses in September. The legislation is a monumental shift from existing law, which allows up to two (2) months’ rent as security for an unfurnished unit and up to three (3) months’ rent for a furnished rental.

There is a major primary exception to AB 12. The law excludes landlords who own up to two (2) residential rental properties – which collectively include up to four (4) dwelling units offered for rent.  To qualify under the “limited number of units” exception, the owner must hold the property as (a) a natural person, (b) a limited liability company – in which all members are natural persons, or (c) under a family trust. If one satisfies these conditions, a “limited number of units” Owner is permitted to collect up to two (2) months’ rent as a security deposit.

As always, there is an exception – to the exception of every Rule. The “limited number of units” exception does not apply when the prospective tenant is a military service member.

Once again, the Law takes effect next Summer on July 1, 2024, which provides landlords time to make the necessary adjustments.

Contact one of our seasoned Landlord-Tenant Attorney’s to determine how California’s latest legislation impacts you.

Rentals can provide a good income stream but can become costly if improperly handled. Here are some of the most common mistakes landlords make that can lead to severe problems.

1. Poor Tenant Screening

Good tenants pay their rent on time, keep your property in good condition, and don’t cause you any trouble. Bad tenants do just the opposite, and they can make your life as a landlord miserable.

To avoid problems with unpaid rent, disputes, legal issues, or property damage, your best defense is to do a thorough tenant screening that includes a background check, and employment and income verification.

2. No Written Rental Agreements

Relying on a verbal agreement is one of the most common mistakes landlords make. Not having a written contract makes you highly vulnerable to serious disputes or costly legal issues.

Take the time to prepare a written agreement outlining both parties’ rights and responsibilities. You won’t regret it.

3. Not Keeping up With Laws That Have Changed

Letting your knowledge of rental laws and their ever-changing iterations lapse can land you in legal trouble.

Laws on rental properties can change quickly in California, and it’s up to you to ensure you’re keeping up with them and remaining in compliance.

4. Not Paying Attention to Local Rent Control Ordinances

Does your city have a local rent control ordinance that protects tenants from excessive rent increases? Many cities do, especially in California, and you could land in some serious hot water if you start charging too much rent.

Stay informed at all times to ensure you’re in compliance.

5. Lack of Good Property Maintenance

A deteriorating rental property with unaddressed repairs is more than unsightly; it can lead to potential legal issues.

Ensure you have a proactive maintenance plan and regular inspections to address problems promptly. Your tenants will be happy, and you’ll be protecting your investment.

6. Poor Communication With Tenants

Without a clear line of communication between a landlord and tenants, conflicts and legal disputes can quickly arise. 

Open and transparent communication can foster a positive relationship to prevent misunderstandings and proactively address issues. 

7. Mismanagement of Security Deposits

Disputes over security deposits can get costly and are a financial loss that can be easily avoided.

In California, there are specific guidelines that landlords must follow when they handle security deposits. This includes:

• Written notices to tenants about the amount being held
• Returning deposits within the required timeframe
• Documenting deductions

8. Not Complying With Habitability Requirements

If your rental has mold, pests, or other issues that make it inhabitable, you need to address these problems quickly. There are strict health and safety standards in California you must follow.

To avoid getting to the point where you’re facing legal consequences, ensure you are performing regular inspections and keeping up with California’s habitability laws.

9. Insufficient Insurance Coverage

Is standard insurance coverage enough for a rental property? It likely isn’t. You need to have enough coverage to protect you in property damage cases, personal injury claims, or loss of rental income.

Consult with an insurance expert. They can help you understand your options for coverage and assist you in selecting the right policy.

10. Discriminatory Practices

California’s fair housing laws strictly prohibit landlords from engaging in discriminatory practices. Protected characteristics include, among others, race, color, religion, sex, disability, and familial status.

As a landlord, you must know the fair housing laws and follow them accordingly.

11. Not Keeping Accurate Records

Poor recordkeeping isn’t just a mess. It can prevent you from collecting rent promptly, keeping up with maintenance and repairs, and ensuring legal compliance.

It’s critical to have an organized, systematic process for keeping records. 

12. Not Handling Evictions Correctly

Landlords must follow strict laws in California when evicting a tenant. You must:

• Give proper notice
• File the correct documents
• Go through appropriate court procedures

Noncompliance can result in costly legal complications that can quickly drain your money. Before going through with an eviction, it’s critical to consult with an attorney.

Need Legal Advice?

Avoiding these common mistakes will help ensure your rental remains a solid investment. For legal matters, if you’re struggling to understand the laws you need to comply with or are in the midst of a dispute with a tenant, our attorneys can help. Schedule a consultation today.

Short-term rentals, supported by online platforms such as Airbnb, have long been controversial. Travelers love them because they are often more affordable than hotels and give a sense of staying in a unique “home away from home.” However, they are not without their problems, and locals tend to look down on them. As their popularity has exploded, city governments have sought ways to rein them.

To this effect, the city of Chula Vista introduced a new set of regulations for short-term rentals that went into effect in 2022.

Background

City officials recognized that STRs bring some significant benefits to the community. They allow residents to earn supplemental income, generate tax revenue, and bring visitors to Chula Vista that might otherwise stay in other parts of the San Diego metropolitan area. Despite this, they identified several areas of concern.

1. STRs can change the character of neighborhoods

STRs essentially turn houses and apartments into hotels, which can negatively affect neighbors. STR guests come and go at all hours, make more noise, generate more trash, and occasionally throw big parties on the property. Beyond this, significant portions of neighborhoods can be taken up with STRs to the point where permanent residents are in the minority.

2. Housing shortages

There is a severe shortage of housing in California cities. Renting out homes to short-term guests takes them off the market for residents. This squeezes the housing supply even more, driving up rental prices for everyone.

3. STR operators were not paying taxes

Existing law already required STR operators to register with the city and to collect and pay a Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) based on their revenue. Reviewing the situation, the city determined that, of approximately 350 STR operating within Chula Vista in 2021, only 125 were registered and paying taxes to the city.

The New Rules

In response to these concerns, Chula Vista passed an ordinance to limit the proliferation of short-term rentals and bolster enforcement of existing provisions. Here are some of the most important new regulations.

• All STRs require a permit from the city
  On top of needing a business license, STR operators must receive a permit for each property. These permits must be renewed annually.

• The permit applicant must reside within Chula Vista
  STR operators must have their primary residence within the city limits. “Primary residence” means they live there at least 275 days a year.

• No more than two permits per operator
  Each person may get a permit to rent out their primary residence and one non-primary residence.

• Rules on operation
  The law has various regulations on how STRs must be operated. This includes a mandatory quiet time from 10:00 p.m. to 9:00 a.m., prominently displaying the operator’s business license, and promptly hauling away garbage.

• Special permits for large events
  Before allowing the STR to be used for a large event, the operator must get a Short-Term Rental Event Permit. A maximum of 12 such permits will be granted annually for each STR.

• Hosting platforms must collect taxes
  Platforms like Airbnb must automatically collect the Transient Occupancy Tax and remit it to the city.

• De-listing noncompliant STRs
  Upon notice from the city that the property does not have a permit, hosting platforms must take down listings.

Get Help with Your Short-Term Rental

The Chula Vista Short-Term Rentals Ordinance is a comprehensive law that sets out many new requirements for STR operators. To successfully obtain a permit and avoid costly fines, you will need to understand all of these rules and navigate a complicated bureaucracy. 

Our attorneys have years of experience in the fields of business and real estate, and can help you keep your short-term rental business on the right side of the law. To schedule a consultation, contact our office today.

It’s curious how something so innocuous-sounding as a homeowner association can be so provocative. Yet, mentioning an HOA is enough to throw some people into a frenzy. For them, the HOA is antithetical to the idea that people should be able to use their property however they see fit. Of course, HOA advocates would quickly point out that they are communal organizations that exist for the benefit of all the members, primarily by maintaining common areas and enforcing community standards that affect everyone’s property values.

With these contrasting positions, it’s easy to see how disputes can arise. Here are some of the most common issues that occur with HOAs and ways to resolve them.

Common Types of Disputes

1. Rejection of Architectural Plans

Depending on the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CCRs) of your HOA, new construction or renovations to the exterior of your home may be subject to the approval of the HOA. Having your carefully considered architecture plans rejected can be pretty frustrating, and it may seem as though the board is being inconsistent or over-controlling.

2. Imposition of Fines

HOA bylaws often allow the board to impose fines on members who fail to abide by the CCRs. On the one hand, the HOA does need to have teeth to enforce the community standards. On the other hand, some boards can get carried away with this, primarily when enforcement is managed by a private company that may have a financial incentive for collecting fines.

3. Failure of the Board to Perform Its Duties

HOA boards have several important duties. They may be responsible for maintaining public areas such as parks and playgrounds and paying property taxes for those lands. If the roads are privately owned, the HOA is likely responsible for their upkeep. Failure to do these things can create problems and even lead to legal action.

4. Misuse of HOA Funds

A homeowner association has a fiduciary duty to its members, and board members must, therefore, use the HOA’s money in a fiscally responsible way. Embezzling money would violate this duty, but things like granting HOA contracts to a board member’s family business or just being wasteful could also be violations.

Resolving Problems with the HOA

The best place to start when resolving an HOA issue is to do so informally; that is, just talk to the board members and/or homeowner without escalating the situation. After all, these people are your neighbors, so it’s better to get along with them as much as possible. Bring up your concerns and try to find common ground.

If that doesn’t work, the next step may be mediation or alternative dispute resolution. Mediation can be quite effective and is usually much quicker and cheaper than going to court. If you are a homeowner in dispute with the HOA, it’s probably best to consult with an attorney; the HOA likely already has a lawyer on retainer that will be present for the proceedings. 

If mediation does not resolve the problem, the only remaining recourse is to go to court. To go this route, you will want an attorney, and you should be prepared for a process that can take months or even years to finish.

Talk to an HOA Attorney

HOA disputes can be complex to resolve and often quite emotional as well. Meeting with an experienced HOA attorney will help you better understand your situation and protect your rights as a homeowner.

Our residential real estate attorneys have a deep understanding of this area of law and know how to bring HOA disputes to a fair resolution. Contact our office to schedule a consultation.

At one time or another, most renters will consider whether breaking a lease is a good idea. There can be a lot of reasons to break a lease—a decrease in earnings, poor conditions on the rental property, or perhaps they just found a better deal. But people often stick it out because they’re worried about the potential fallout. Breaking a lease agreement can be done but it’s important to understand what happens if you do so and when it might be legally justified.

What Happens When You Break A Lease

When you move out of a rental property before the lease term has expired (i.e., “break the lease”), the primary consequences are financial. Simply put, you’ll probably owe the landlord money for the remainder of the lease.

For example, if you have a 12-month apartment lease with $2,000 in monthly rent, you’ve agreed to pay the landlord $24,000 in 12 monthly installments. If you move out after six months, you still owe them $12,000. If the lease is month-to-month and you leave without giving the landlord the required notice (usually 30 or 60 days), you would owe rent for that notice period.

The landlord does have a legal responsibility to “mitigate damages.” Rather than just leaving the property empty, they have to attempt to find another suitable tenant to take your place. If they do find another tenant, you would generally be responsible for paying rent for the time the property was sitting vacant, but not the period after someone else is paying rent.

Because breaking a lease is essentially like incurring debt and not paying it, it will also likely have a negative impact on your credit score and could make it difficult to find another rental.

Justifications for Breaking a Lease Agreement

The situation above may sound dire, but there are a number of legal justifications for breaking a lease, meaning that you could do so without paying the remainder of the rent due. Here are some of the justifications recognized in California:

1. The property is unsafe or uninhabitable

There’s a legal principle called “constructive eviction,” where conditions at the rental property are so poor that the tenant has no choice but to leave. These conditions have to be serious problems—e.g., no heat in cold winter, no lock on the front door, etc.—that are the landlord’s responsibility to fix. The landlord also must be given a reasonable amount of time to address the problem.

2. Harassment or violation of your rights

This is an extension of the constructive eviction principle described above. For example, suppose a landlord repeatedly enters the property without giving you at least 24-hour notice or performs deliberately harassing actions such as changing the locks. In that case, you may be able to break the lease without paying rent.

3. Active military duty

Under federal law, a member of uniformed services who is called to active duty may terminate their lease within 30 days of the next rent payment, regardless of how much time is left on the lease term.

4. Victim of domestic violence and other crimes

Under California law, if you or an immediate family member has been a victim of domestic violence, stalking, assault, or other crimes, this can justify terminating a lease early. In these cases, the tenant is only responsible for 14 days of rent following notice to the landlord.

If You Need to Break Your Lease

If you’re in a position where you need to break a lease agreement, advice from an experienced attorney can make the process much easier. An attorney can evaluate your situation to see if you have a legal justification for breaking the lease. Even if you don’t, they can negotiate with the landlord to minimize the negative consequences. Contact our office today for a consultation.