Myron Moskovitz Quotes

Some rent control ordinances permit a landlord to evict a tenant in order to rehabilitate a unit. [....] Such evictions are usually conditioned on the landlord's obtaining all necessary permits before the eviction. Some ordinances require that the tenant be given (1) the right to occupy any vacant unit that the same landlord owns within the city, (2) the right to reoccupy the vacated unit on the completion of the rehabilitation work, or (3) a payment to defray the costs of relocation. [....]
A landlord who refuses to allow the tenant to reoccupy the vacated unit is subject to liability under the governing ordinance.

Code of Civil Procedure §1161(2) prevents the landlord from claiming rent due more than a year before the service of the 3-day notice. See Fifth & Broadway Partnership v Kimny, Inc. (1980) 102 CA3d 195, 202. An argument could also be made on the ground of laches that it is inequitable for a landlord to wait a full year before demanding overdue rent. That argument was successfully made in Maxwell v Simons (Civ Ct 1973) 353 NYS2d 589, which held that it was unconscionable for a landlord to permit the tenant to fall more than 3 months behind in rent before bringing an unlawful detainer action based on the total arrearage. New York law required the tenant to pay the arrearage within 5 days or return possession. The court held that the landlord could base his eviction action only on the last 3 months' nonpayment of rent and would have to recover the balance in an ordinary action for rent. See also Marriott v Shaw (Civ Ct 1991) 574 NYS2d 477 and Dedvukaj v Mandonado (Civ Ct 1982) 453 NYS2d 965. In California, this reasoning, along with the cases cited above on "equitable" defenses, might be used to attack a 3-day notice to pay or quit demanding more than three months' back rent.

It is long settled in California that a landlord who resorts to self-help [such as removing a tenant's personal belongings and changing the locks, even though the tenant is still in legal possession of the property] instead of invoking the unlawful detainer procedure commits a forcible entry and detainer, and is liable for actual and, sometimes, punitive damages (see Jordan v Talbot (1961) 55 C2d 597), regardless of any lease provision giving the landlord the right to reenter on default (55 C2d at 604) or any lien the landlord may wish to exercise (55 C2d at 609).