CitiApartments Passes The Security Deposit Buck, But Former Tenants Still Buck Free

Don't let Laramar off so easy. They're just as much to blame as CitiApartments, and they're liable to pay this tenant back her security deposit.

In the event another company takes over for the landlord, that person is a "successor in interest." Civil Code section 1950.5, subdivision (h) requires that the landlord either transfer the security deposit to the successor in interest or give it back to the tenant. If the landlord doesn't do one of these two things, subdivision (j) requires that both the landlord and the successor in interest are jointly and severally liable to repay the tenant's security deposit. In this case, this means that Laramar is just as responsible to pay the tenant's security deposit as CitiApartments. Not only that, but subdivision (d) requires that the tenant's security deposit is paid before any other creditor is paid.

While A.J. may be feigning sympathy for these tenants, his company is responsible for refunding their security deposits.

While you're at it, check out Mosser Co. S-L-E-A-Z-Y!!!

Thank You Mr. Devine for pointing out that Laramar is culpable here also.

By the way Laramar was able to do their back door property management deal with Citiapartments thru a former Citiapartments employee who now is with Laramar in a management position . This gentleman worked for the Lembi Family and David Rynal who was his "Godfather " so to speak his name is Jim Naylor .

When UBS BANK FORECLOSED ON 51 LEMBI PROPERTIES BACK IN JAN.09 THAT WAS THE INITIAL PIECE OF BUSINESS TO GO TO LARAMAR FROM THE LEMBI FAMILY. ORIGINALLY UBS BANK LET THE LEMBI FAMILY CONTINUE TO MANAGE THE PROPERTIES AND UBS PAID THEM TO DO SO.

THAT ONLY LASTED A FEW MONTHS BEFORE LARAMAR THRU MR. NAYLOR GOT INVOLVED WITH THAT BIG PIECE OF BUSINESS.

DON'T TRUST LARAMAR EITHER REMEMBER THE CANCER KNOWN AS GREED THAT HAS DESTROYED THE LEMBI FAMILY ALSO EXISTS AT LARAMAR.

THIS COMPANY HAS TO BE LOOKED INTO AS TO TREATMENT OF RESIDENTS AND IF THEY ARE BREAKING THE BUILDING MANAGEMENT LAWS PERTAINING TO THE 16 UNIT OR MORE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LAW'S OF S.F./CA.

YOU MUST HAVE A RESIDENT MANAGER THAT LIVES ON SITE AT THE PROPERTY IF THE PROPERTY HAS 16 UNITS OR MORE AND THE MANAGER MUST BE PAID THE MINIMUM WAGE AGAINST ANY RENT CHARGED BY THE PROPERTY OWNER OR MANAGEMENT COMPANY THEY CAN ONLY APPLY TWO THIRDS OF THE MARKET RENT UNDER THIS LAW AND MUST PAY THE MANAGER THE MINIMUM WAGE AND DEDUCT ALL PAYROLL TAXES AS WELL AS PAY TIME AND A HALF OVERTIME HOURLY PAY FOR A WORK WEEK THAT EXCEEDS FORTY HOURS.

THIS IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE INDUSTRIAL WELFARE COMMISSION
ORDER NO.5-2001 REGULATING WAGES, HOURS AND WORKING CONDITIONS IN THE PUBLIC HOUSEKEEPING INDUSTRY.

MR. JIM NAYLOR NEVER FOLLOWED THIS LAW WHILE HE WAS A SUPERVISOR OR DISTRICT MANAGER OVER THE PROPERTY MANAGERS THAT REPORTED TO HIM DURING HIS EMPLOYMENT AT CITIAPARTMENTS/SKYLINE REALTY !

His management style at Citiapartments Skyline Realty was in line with the Rynal/Lembi Family ruthless underhanded "WE WILL BE THE BIGGEST LANDLORD IN SAN FRANCISCO " WAS THE ATTITUDE .

MR.NAYLOR WAS ALSO PART OF THE LEMBI TEAM THAT HARASSED RESIDENTS TO GET THEM OUT OF THEIR UNDER MARKET RENT APARTMENTS.

I understand that Mr.Naylor's has continued his Citiapartments management style at Laramar . SO BE CAREFUL AS TO RENT IN A LARAMAR BUILDING !

REMEMBER THE CULTURE OF A COMPANY ALWAYS AT THE TOP...
NYC...

What Brian says may not be right. He's probably right in a situation where one landlord sells to another. However, it's possible that the acquisition of ownership through foreclosure creates a different situation. You'd have to look at state foreclosure law to be sure.

Actually, I should say that Brian is definitely wrong. I'm fairly certain that the provision he refers to deals with *owners*, so it's unlikely that CitiApts or Laramar have any direct liability for any of this -- the building owner (now UBS) may, but not the property manager. This is a technical nit, since obviously the property manager is the one who deals with these issues. But I suspect that Laramar could easily get a lawsuit against it thrown out, as could Citi. I think you have to sue the owner.