I am a landlord of a property in San Diego, California. I currently have a month-to-month lease with my tenant and am in the process of selling my home. My tenant has lived at this property for more than a year. If we had a long term lease, I know that I would have to give 60-day notice, but since we have a month-to month lease, is a 30-day notice acceptable?

The language in our lease is as follows:

This tenancy may be terminated by Landlord or Tenants and may be modified by Landlord, by giving 30 days' written notice to the to the other, or 60 days’ notice by Landlord to Tenant, in accordance with Civil Code Section 827 or 1946.1, subject to any local rent control ordinances that may apply).

It looks like the language you posted is incomplete. But from what you posted it appears the landlord is required to give 60 days notice of termination but the tenant only 30.

I found the answer to my question. In looking at the CA laws more closely, month to month vs fixed doesn't matter as much as length of tenancy. It is 60 days notice if the tenant has been at property for >1 year. The only exception is the California Civil Code Section 1946.1 which states:

... an owner of a residential dwelling giving notice pursuant to this section shall give notice at least 30 days prior to the proposed date of termination if all of the following apply:
(1) The dwelling or unit is alienable separate from the title to any other dwelling unit.
(2) The owner has contracted to sell the dwelling or unit to a bona fide purchaser for value, and has established an
escrow with a licensed escrow agent, as defined in Sections 17004 and 17200 of the Financial Code, or a licensed
real estate broker, as defined in Section 10131 of the Business and Professions Code.
(3) The purchaser is a natural person or persons.
(4) The notice is given no more than 120 days after the escrow has been established.
(5) Notice was not previously given to the tenant pursuant to this section.
(6) The purchaser in good faith intends to reside in the property for at least one full year after the termination of
the tenancy.

All of the above applies to my situation.

And so 30 days is sufficient for you?
I'm interested, too.

And it is best to actually talk to them and see what you can work out.
Also do you want them out before you sell ? At times it is easier to sell a home with people livig in it.

But if you give a 30 day notice and they object you can end up going to court with them

Fr_Chuck,
In an ideal world, it would be true that talking to them would be best. But in California at least, you have to be careful what you say to tenants. Giving 30 days notice without any reason--or with a contract to sale, as above--is fine. But if tenants get the impression anything else is going on--and so many things can be construed as discrimination--you open yourself up to a lawsuit.

If it were me, I would probably tell them I am selling and that they are likely to get 30 days notice soon. But if they were tenants who were quick to complain, I would not. I had a law student for a tenant who was a nightmare.

I am in close contact with my tenant who is aware that the house is for sale and currently in escrow. The tenant was hoping for a 60 day notice which I would love to give!. but the buyers are looking for a quick escrow and it's a buyer's market now, so I am sticking to the law. My real estate agent has checked multiple sources including a local lawyer who stated that 30 days notice is legal if the house will be owner-occupied. In my notice to the tenant, I will specify these conditions as the reason for 30 day notice.

I agree with everything except for one thing. If your lease says you have to give 60 days, that will override the law.

As I said, what you posted about the lease is ambigouos.

As Scott said - it's 60 days if the landlord gives notice. The Lease is a Contract. To give 30 days is to violate/void the Contract and expose the landlord to legal action for a breach.

The contract supersedes landlord/tenant law as long as the terms of the contract aren't unconscionable.

Ok, let me take a look at this again... The lease states that tenancy may be terminated by Landlord or Tenants.. by giving 30 days' written notice to the other (I realize that the "to the" was repeated before) or 60 days notice by Landloard to Tenant in accordance with Civil code Section 827 or 1946.1

So, my reading is that the landlord or tenant can terminate with 30 day notice unless the law specifies that the Landlord is to give 60 days.

I believe that if I give 30 days than I am in agreeance with lease and law.

I think this can go either way. A lot depends on how long the tenant has lived there. If he has been there more than a year I think, under 1946.1, you have to give 60 days.

Scott:
Why don't you think the exception described in the law applies?


It is 60 days notice if the tenant has been at property for >1 year. The only exception is the California Civil Code Section 1946.1 which states:

...an owner of a residential dwelling giving notice pursuant to this section shall give notice at least 30 days prior to the proposed date of termination if all of the following apply:
(1) The dwelling or unit is alienable separate from the title to any other dwelling unit.
(2) The owner has contracted to sell the dwelling or unit to a bona fide purchaser for value, and has established an
escrow with a licensed escrow agent, as defined in Sections 17004 and 17200 of the Financial Code, or a licensed
real estate broker, as defined in Section 10131 of the Business and Professions Code.
(3) The purchaser is a natural person or persons.
(4) The notice is given no more than 120 days after the escrow has been established.
(5) Notice was not previously given to the tenant pursuant to this section.
(6) The purchaser in good faith intends to reside in the property for at least one full year after the termination of
the tenancy.

All of the above applies to my situation.

Scott:
Why don't you think the exception described in the law applies?

You're right, I didn't read far enough. If ALL those factors apply 30 days should be sufficient.

Thank you all for helping me think through this!

Ok, let me take a look at this again....The lease states that tenancy may be terminated by Landlord or Tenants .. by giving 30 days' written notice to the other (I realize that the "to the" was repeated before) or 60 days notice by Landloard to Tenant in accordance with Civil code Section 827 or 1946.1

So, my reading is that the landlord or tenant can terminate with 30 day notice unless the law specifies that the Landlord is to give 60 days.

I believe that if I give 30 days than I am in agreeance with lease and law.



And here is how I read this: "This tenancy may be terminated by Landlord or Tenants and may be modified by Landlord, by giving 30 days' written notice to the to the other, or 60 days’ notice by Landlord to Tenant, in accordance with Civil Code Section 827 or 1946.1, subject to any local rent control ordinances that may apply)."

First, I think it's poorly written BUT I read it to be:

"This tenancy may be terminated by landlord or tenants. (No time frame)

The tenancy may be modified by landlord by giving 30 days written notice to the other.

The tenancy may be terminated by 60 days notice by landlord to tenant. (Oddly, I think it's silent on tenant termination.)

I think it's a bunch of run on sentences but I think it's three separate ideas hooked together in a strange way.

I think it could be interpreted either way.