SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — A landlord sued by a San Francisco couple for wrongful eviction will have to pay them $3.5 million after a jury ruled in their favor in a wrongful eviction lawsuit.

Attorney Steven McDonald, who represented husband and wife plaintiffs Dale Duncan and Marta Mendoza, said Friday a jury last week awarded the couple $1.17 million in damages after a five-week trial. A judge tripled that amount.

The couple sued landlord Anne Kihagi, her sister, Christina Mwangi, and their company Zoriall LLC, after they and their then 6-year-old daughter were evicted in 2015 from their San Francisco home of 21 years.

The couple says that shortly after the women bought the property in 2014, a "pattern of harassment" started.

The couple says Kihagi evicted them after claiming that her sister would be occupying the rent-controlled unit.

McDonalds says the jury determined that Mwangi never moved in and never intended to move in.

Link

Ouch. I have casually followed this case as I do lots of my lending in SF. Rent control and Ellis act And proctected tenants are no joke in this town. Renters are like 70% of the populations sn the tenants union has much political power. If your a landlord you better not screw around with your tenants

I see tenants getting to tell landlords what to do with their property pretty much the same as I see unions telling business owners how to run their own business.

It's wrong, and shouldn't happen.

These tenants were there at the owner's pleasure. Owner wants them gone? Adios. You don't own the property? You don't have a say.

Of course, my views are quite antiquated.

quote:

Originally posted by Gustofer:
I see tenants getting to tell landlords what to do with their property pretty much the same as I see unions telling business owners how to run their own business.

It's wrong, and shouldn't happen.

These tenants were there at the owner's pleasure. Owner wants them gone? Adios. You don't own the property? You don't have a say.

Of course, my views are quite antiquated.

Not in San Francisco. And when you buy a property in sf that has tenants in place you better learn the tenant laws and follow them To. A. T

An owner move in eviction IS legal. But you need to actually move in and if the people your are kicking out have small children or are elderly they have certain rights. I would never buy a property in SF that has a tenant in place.

quote:

Originally posted by ElToro:

quote:

Originally posted by Gustofer:
I see tenants getting to tell landlords what to do with their property pretty much the same as I see unions telling business owners how to run their own business.

It's wrong, and shouldn't happen.

These tenants were there at the owner's pleasure. Owner wants them gone? Adios. You don't own the property? You don't have a say.

Of course, my views are quite antiquated.

Not in San Francisco. And when you buy a property in sf that has tenants in place you better learn the tenant laws and follow them To. A. T

An owner move in eviction IS legal. But you need to actually move in and if the people your are kicking out have small children or are elderly they have certain rights. I would never buy a property in SF that has a tenant in place.

I would never buy OR move to San Fransisco PERIOD.

I have 5 tenants here in Florida, the law is not too bad in regards to landlords rights, but is getting more difficult as they keep adding stuff. But, if someone has a disability it can take over 9 months to evict someone.....the usual is around 3 months.

quote:

A landlord sued by a San Francisco couple for wrongful eviction will have to pay them $3.5 million

WTF. They get wrongly evicted so lets make them multi millionaires?

quote:

Originally posted by grumpy1:

quote:

A landlord sued by a San Francisco couple for wrongful eviction will have to pay them $3.5 million

WTF. They get wrongly evicted so lets make them multi millionaires?

Nah, they'll get around $950K.

The lawyers get the rest.

quote:

Originally posted by Gustofer:
I see tenants getting to tell landlords what to do with their property pretty much the same as I see unions telling business owners how to run their own business.

It's wrong, and shouldn't happen.

These tenants were there at the owner's pleasure. Owner wants them gone? Adios. You don't own the property? You don't have a say.

Of course, my views are quite antiquated.

I’d say your views are fine for a slumlord. Otherwise your need to abide by the terms of your contract.

But if your want to take the laissez-faire attitude, then the tenant should be able to burn down the landlord’s property in retaliation for violating their lease agreement.

The case seems pretty straightforward. The property owners evicted the existing tenants under false pretenses so they could get new tenants and charges a higher rent.

SF’s rent control laws probably cap rent increases for existing tenants but allow for larger increases when tenants turn over. I wouldn’t be surprised to find out that this was not the first time the landlords pulled this scheme which probably formed the basis of the verdict amount.

some more detail and history of this landlord


http://www.wehoville.com/2017/...ellis-act-violation/

The City of West Hollywood has prevailed in court against West Hollywood landlord Anne Kihagi, who has been ordered to serve five days in Los Angeles County Jail and to pay the city’s attorney fees and costs.

Kihagi was held in contempt of court on Feb. 21 for violating a preliminary injunction that prohibited her from re-renting certain units at her property, an eight-unit building located at 1263 N. Crescent Heights Blvd.

The Ellis Act is a California State Law enacted in 1985 that allows property owners to evict tenants without cause if they intend to remove properties from the residential rental market. Displaced tenants and local governments may file a legal action against landlords if the property is returned to the rental market without following the Ellis Act’s restrictions.

....

If the judge tripled the damages, there must have been a fair bit of evidence during the five week long trial that the landlords were intentionally being massive dicks.

quote:

Originally posted by Broadside:
The case seems pretty straightforward. The property owners evicted the existing tenants under false pretenses so they could get new tenants and charges a higher rent.

SF’s rent control laws probably cap rent increases for existing tenants but allow for larger increases when tenants turn over. I wouldn’t be surprised to find out that this was not the first time the landlords pulled this scheme which probably formed the basis of the verdict amount.

Correct. I have a friend who owns a couple of apartment buildings and he's been watching this case closely.

The landlord is/was a raging asshole with a history of such. A settlement of this kind doesn't just fall out of the sky, Kihagi has an established history of being a shit of a landlord. Unfortunately, assholes like this end up reinforcing rent control and renters rights policies, and place landlords nearly at the mercy of their tenants whims.