Tales Of The Citi: Denying More Deposits

If a judge were to award international airfare to a former tenant as damages, well that's a very fortunate former tenant indeed.

(Generally, damages would be the deposit and then you'd add in the bad faith award on top of that.)

Believe that airfare and lost wages and all that kind of stuff can't be recovered as "costs" in CA.

Therefore people should make sure to sue for the max allowed, which is $7500. Let the judge sort things.

But if Citi finds out you're flying in just for this small claims action, they might very well just blow off the court date and appeal, as is their right (as a defendant - plaintiffs generally can't appeal in CA small claims).

One option would be to have a lawyer friend write a letter and/or file in Sup. Court. The downside with that is the low-triple-digits filing fee....

Jim, that was not the take of the tenants' law and legal experts we consulted before writing this piece, but, if you're now practicing tenant advocacy law, I'm happy to pass your legal advice on to our reader.

Jim,

I think your analysis on the court award travel costs is misguided. The statute (Civil Code 1950.5) provides that the tenant is entitled to her security deposit back, no question. The statute goes on to say that if the landlord is shown to have withheld it in bad faith, the tenant may recover statutory damages of up to two times the original deposit plus "actual damages." Here, actual damages means damages that are actually suffered by the tenant as a result of the landlord's bad faith. It seems reasonable that a judge would order a landlord who made its tenant fly from Scotland to recover a deposit to pay her airfare.

Additionally, Cal. Code Civ. Proc. 1033.5(c)(4) allows the trial court wide discretion in what it awards as costs. A rouge landlord who makes its tenant fly all the way from Scotland to recover her deposit in small claims court is the perfect example of why Courts have such discretion, and, again, I would not be surprised to see such an award.

So, how is CitiApartments still legally operating, in light of these reports of outright fraud?

Excellent question. I've sent a note to the City Atty's office, in hopes of an update on their case. It would be nice to get a better understanding of why it's taking so long, and if there's any resolution in sight. When I hear something y'all will be the first to know.

This won't help anyone who's already moved out of a Citiapartments building but if you're thinking about moving out and are worried about losing your deposit the solution is simple: DON'T PAY RENT FOR THE LAST 3 MONTHS. In San Francisco landlords can't evict tenants before the 3 months of non-payment have ended. The courts and police won't even bother to evict tenants before 3 months have passed. If the Citiapartments goon squad try to harass you or threaten legal action, just ignore them. It's also a good idea to change your checking account in case they have your account number (and don't bounce any checks to them. They can legally fight to get that money back).

I wouldn't call anything you can read on a blog "legal advice" necessarily. Need one practice tenant-side advocacy law to post here?

Sometimes ALLCAPS isn't yelling, as here, where it's a reply:

"I think your analysis on the court award travel costs is misguided."

BECAUSE...?

"The statute (Civil Code 1950.5) provides that the tenant is entitled to her security deposit back, no question."

NO ARGUMENT. AND TWO+TWO=FOUR, NO QUESTION

"The statute goes on to say that if the landlord is shown to have withheld it in bad faith, the tenant may recover statutory damages of up to two times the original deposit"...

THE LAW ISN'T AS STRONGLY WORDED AS THAT, BUT THIS LAW IS EASY TO COMPREHEND, NO LAW LICENSE REQ'D, SO READ IT BELOW. TO BE PRECISE, BAD FAITH RETENTION..."may subject the landlord to statutory damages of up to twice the amount of the security..." MAYBE YES, MAYBE NO. THE VERSION OF THE BILL I DRAFTED FOR A CO-SPONSORING AGENCY OF AB2330 GOT WATERED DOWN A BIT. YOU KNOW AB2330, RIGHT? IT WAS FROM, WELL, THE ONE THAT SHANT BE NAMED, ASSEMBLYWOMAN VOLDEMORT (D, SAN FRANCISO) OR SOME NAME LIKE THAT. YOU KNOW, IT WAS THAT LGBT WOMAN FOR WHOM I, AND THE CURRENT CITY ATTORNEY USED TO DO A BIT OF VOLUNTEER WORK. http://www.dailynexus.com/article.php?a=3535

...."plus "actual damages." Here, actual damages means damages that are actually suffered by the tenant as a result of the landlord's bad faith"

UH...NO. HERE, ACTUAL DAMAGES MEANS THE ACTUAL DAMAGES THE JUDGE DETERMINES THE TENANT SUFFERED, THE BULK OF WHICH WOULD GENERALLY BE THE DEPOSIT ITSELF. THE TENANT CAN GET "ACTUAL DAMAGES" WITH OR WITHOUT THE JUDGE MAKING A BAD FAITH AWARD. YOU CAN ARGUE THIS POINT OF COURSE, BUT I CAN GUARANTEE YOU YOUR INTEPRETATION IS CONTRARY TO THAT OF ALL THE LAWYERS AT LEG. COUNSEL WHO LOOKED AT THIS LAW AT THE TIME.

It seems reasonable that a judge would order a landlord who made its tenant fly from Scotland to recover a deposit to pay her airfare.

PERSONALLY, I"D BE ASTONISHED. JMO.

Additionally, Cal. Code Civ. Proc. 1033.5(c)(4) allows the trial court wide discretion in what it awards as costs.

ARE WE STILL TALKING ABOUT SMALL CLAIMS COURT HERE? PER THE CA DCA'S SMALL CLAIMS GLOSSARY:
http://www.dca.ca.gov/publications/small_claims/glossary.shtml
"costs (or court costs) ...The judgment may require a losing party to pay costs incurred by the prevailing party... Allowable costs do not include claims for travel expenses or loss of time to prepare for or attend the hearing."
IF YOU WANT TO CLAIM AIRFARE AS "COSTS" IN A CA SMALL CLAIMS COURT, I'D SAY YOU HAVE AN UPHILL BATTLE.

THE SAME GOES FOR CLAIMING THEM AS DAMAGES. SOME DEADBEAT DEFENDANTS NEVER SHOW UP FOR THE SMALL CLAIMS HEARING, THEY JUST APPEAL AND GET A NEW TRIAL. IN THIS CASE, THAT WOULD RESULT IN TWO SETS OF AIRFARE, HOTEL, ETC. BILLS?

SOME SMALL CLAIMS JUDGES NEVER AWARD BAD FAITH DAMAGES FOR RENTAL DEPOSIT RENTENTION AND NEVER AWARD TRAVEL EXPENSES. IF THE TENANT GETS THIS TYPE OF JUDGE, THEN IT'S GOOD NIGHT NURSE. AND THERE'S NO RIGHT OF APPEAL FOR THE PLAINTIFF IN CA SMALL CLAIMS GENERALLY (WHICH MEANS ALMOST ALWAYS).

ALLCAPS OFF. Whew.

Anywho, if somebody did fly in from Scotland to go to small claims, then s/he should def. go for the full $7500 demand.

Generally:
http://www.dca.ca.gov/publications/landlordbook/sec-deposit.shtml
I won't claim I wrote this, but I contributed to some of it. Back in the day it was a tad unrealistic on a few issues, but it was, and still is, an excellent resource. I've never seen an error in it.

____________________________________

"The bad faith claim or retention by a landlord or the landlord'
s successors in interest of the security or any portion thereof in
violation of this section, or the bad faith demand of replacement
security in violation of subdivision (j), may subject the landlord or
the landlord's successors in interest to statutory damages of up to
twice the amount of the security, in addition to actual damages. The
court may award damages for bad faith whenever the facts warrant that
award, regardless of whether the injured party has specifically
requested relief. In any action under this section, the landlord or
the landlord's successors in interest shall have the burden of proof
as to the reasonableness of the amounts claimed or the authority
pursuant to this section to demand additional security deposits."

Offhand, I can think of a few downsides to the DON'T PAY RENT FOR THE LAST 3 MONTHS approach to dealing with CitiApartments, but it might be a tempting idea to some people.

It would all depend on how Citi reacts...

Jim,

On costs: Are you seriously suggesting that a glossary that you found on a website that's not even affiliated with the Court is more persuasive than the Code of Civil Procedure? Because only one of these was written by the Legislature, and it’s not the glossary.

On damages: If you think that returning the tenant’s money constitutes “actual damages” under Civil Code 1950.5, you fundamentally misunderstand of this law. The landlord holds the tenants’ money in trust. If it does not make a claim to that money within 21 days after the tenant moves out, it must return that money to the tenant. After the 21-day period, therefore, the money belongs to the tenant but is simply held by the landlord. Under any definition, that’s not “actual damages.” So “actual damages” clearly means something more than simply returning the money that already belongs to the tenant. And in this context, it likely would include any damages that the tenant actually suffered as a result of the landlord’s bad faith retention of the security deposit. That could include such things as late fees on credit card bills, penalties on tax payments, and, yes, possibly even the airfare that the tenant had to incur to get their money back from the landlord.

And just to be clear, I never said that a tenant will recover airfare as a matter or right. I simply said the Court has the discretion to award it, and the Court has two “hooks” on which to hang the award: costs and damages. Our fine Commissioners and Judges Pro Tem who hear small claims cases and appeals in San Francisco have very little tolerance for rouge landlords who illegally steal their tenants’ money. And in cases like this where a landlord blatantly breaks the law and steals their tenant’s money, it’s been my experience that they exercise their discretion in a way that ensures that the tenant is fairly compensated. If you have a different experience, I’d love to hear it.

Hey Brian - I hope you're right about this one. It sounds like a prtty ridick ongoing story.

Also, in case it saves you some em-bare-ass-ment in future- I think the spelling you're looking for is rogue (lawless person) , not rouge (color, type of makeup).