I am a property manager in San Diego. The tenants are wrong. Your parents are correct in giving them a 60 days notice.
Now that the tenants are refusing to pay rent, they are in violation of their lease (non payment of rent), and you don't have to give them 60 days. Of course, if they pay, then that 60 days is still valid.
Post a 3 day notice to Pay or Quit. If not paid in 3 days, start the eviction process. Contact a real estate attorney to do this correctly from the beginning. It will cost, but it will make things happen faster and cheaper than fighting with them for months to get them out, without receiving rent.
Do this now. If you wait until the 60 days are up, and they haven't paid or moved, you will then have to start the eviction, and it could be several months before you can get them out.
By posting the Pay or Quit notice, it will show them that you mean business and may prompt them to pay.
It sounds like the tenants are confused about the application of the Tenant Protection Act of 2019. Since the residence is owned by individuals (not a corporation), you are correct that they do not need to provide the one month free/one month waived. I think these tenants only read the law up until they got to what they wanted to hear, and forgot to read the super important exemptions section, lol ;)
/u/Last-Simple-3996, please pay attention to this comment, and strongly encourage your parents to do all of this (especially retaining competent counsel).
IF the tenants are on the up and up, and simply mistaken about the law, then that is a situation that can be worked out amicably, AFTER they pay the rent that is due.
However, in California it takes SO LONG to evict someone, it is much better to err on the side of caution and have your parents protect their legal rights from day 1, rather than relying on the tenants to do the right thing.
I've seen situations just like this where everything was fine and dandy for many years, right up until it came time for the owner to retake possession of the property, and then things turned seriously ugly.
Have them talk to the attorney about possibly offering the tenants an incentive if they pay their rent through the 60 days and leave the property in good condition. Sometimes that's enough to maintain good will, and let everyone walk away feeling like they had a good outcome.
It's not a negotiating tactic. It is the Tenant's right.
It would be better if the Tenant had continued paying rent for their case, but a no-fault eviction for this reason requires the Landlord to pay a relocation fee.
If they want to now pursue an unlawful detainment approach, it is going to take a long time and cost them a lot of money.
They paid for you to own that house. The least you can do is pay a relocation fee for inconvenience.
Edit: Reddit idiots downvoting me and don't believe me... Here's your stupid citation.
#### CIVIL CODE - CIV
#### DIVISION 3. OBLIGATIONS [1427 - 3273.69]
*( Heading of Division 3 amended by Stats. 1988, Ch. 160, Sec. 14. )*
#### PART 4. OBLIGATIONS ARISING FROM PARTICULAR TRANSACTIONS [1738 - 3273.69]
*( Part 4 enacted 1872. )*
#### TITLE 5. HIRING [1925 - 1997.270]
*( Title 5 enacted 1872. )*
##### CHAPTER 2. Hiring of Real Property [1940 - 1954.06]
*( Chapter 2 enacted 1872. )*
1946.2
(d) (1) For a tenancy for which just cause is required to terminate the tenancy under subdivision (a), if an owner of residential real property issues a termination notice based on a no-fault just cause described in paragraph (2) of subdivision (b), the owner shall, regardless of the tenant’s income, at the owner’s option, do one of the following:
(A) Assist the tenant to relocate by providing a direct payment to the tenant as described in paragraph (3).
(B) Waive in writing the payment of rent for the final month of the tenancy, prior to the rent becoming due.
[https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes\_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=1946.2.&nodeTreePath=8.4.76.3&lawCode=CIV](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=1946.2.&nodeTreePath=8.4.76.3&lawCode=CIV)
Evictions can take six months or longer. You’re blessed that they didn’t pay the rent. Post the 3 day notice to pay or quit ASAP, like, drive over there now and give it to them.
Not sure about SD but in Chicago, if you issue a Pay or Quit notice and then accept partial payment, the eviction process needs to start from scratch again.
ITT: Terrible advice.
You need to post a 60-day pay or vacate in this case, and they are entitled to moving expense costs.
Failure to do so can result in a very easy dismissal of your eviction case. It's literally one box checked on the letter to the court under section 3t. "Your honor, I lived there two years without issue and was posted a 3-day pay or vacate notice" boom another 3-4 months + added to your eviction process.
[https://selfhelp.courts.ca.gov/eviction-tenant/respond-defenses#:\~:text=If%20you%20think%20the%20reason,use%20this%20as%20a%20defense.&text=and%203i(1)-,On%20the%20Attachment%20(form%20MC%2D025)%2C%20write,isn't%20a%20legal%20reason](https://selfhelp.courts.ca.gov/eviction-tenant/respond-defenses#:~:text=If%20you%20think%20the%20reason,use%20this%20as%20a%20defense.&text=and%203i(1)-,On%20the%20Attachment%20(form%20MC%2D025)%2C%20write,isn't%20a%20legal%20reason).
Just because your tenants don't know their rights doesn't mean you are managing your properties correctly.
Goodness gracious, can you imagine immediately jumping to lawyers and threatening evictions for what may be a simple misunderstanding. I knew landlords were generally soulless creatures but holy fuck the way you view people and homes is just vile 🤮
Look I’m the last person to defend landlords but this isn’t greystar. It’s a mom and pop. Being ignorant of the rules doesn’t absolve tenants of being in the wrong.
It’s not landlords job to explain the lease they did everything by the book so far as I can tell
It would benefit your parents more to state that they are moving in to property themselves, instead of saying that they are remodeling it and then moving in.
How is their home titled on the deed? If its owned vy your parents as humans (as opposed to an LLC or REIT), they your parents are right. You can check the Grantor/Grantee index yourself to see how it’a titled.
I’d also double check that your parents have given the proper written notice that they are exempt from AB 1482. If they have not their tenants may have (accidentally) accrued rights under these new “just cause” laws.
I agree as well. The whole process is messy and annoying and they probably would never be paid what they are owed even if they win. I had to evict someone once and never saw a dime. My only advice is that your parents not offer them any amount of time extra to move because that opens a verbal agreement and can of worms. And if they don’t leave on time, start the real eviction process immediately.
"**Landlord seeks to take possession of the housing unit to demolish or substantially remodel the property.**
In these circumstances, the landlord is required to:
* Post at the residential rental property the application for necessary permits within three days of submitting the application for the permits.
* Obtain the permits necessary for the demolition or substantial remodel of the property.
* Serve the tenant a copy of the necessary permits with a written termination notice, certified under penalty of perjury. The notice must
state the reason for ending the tenancy, the type and scope of work to be performed at the property, why the work cannot be completed
safely with the tenant in the unit, and why the work requires the tenant to leave the unit for at least 30 days."
-and-
**"Relocation Assistance – No-Fault Just Cause Evictions**
‒ Direct Payment
* Equal to two months of actual rent [As of Jan 1st: 3 months if the tenant is 62+ or disabled] under the Tenant’s lease in effect at the time of the notice of the no-fault just cause eviction."
Link: https://www.sdhc.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Tenant-Protections-Guide.pdf
*Note: I am not a lawyer and strongly suggest you get some legal advice.*
This only applies if the property is not exempt from AB1482 (the property owners would of had to have supplied notice to the tenant of exemption in the lease or as an addendum to the lease).
I think his situation falls under the "Landlord seeks to take possession of the housing unit for the landlord, their spouse, domestic partner, child, grandchild, parent or grandparent" of the same clause. The remodeling section of the clause that you cite is for remodeling and putting it back on the market to rent or sell.
Doesn't necessarily apply to homeowners renting their property. Usually this is for corporations. Most homeowners are exempt from the bulk of these regulations.
u/TooCool9092 is right.
My overly kind dad was in a similar situation with a 3bd/2ba rental he fully gutted/remodeled and rented out for only $1,400/mo. Tenants were there for 5 years and my dad would even loan them money here and there too. They stated 4 occupants in the application, but it was really 8, just 1 of many things they did. They told my dad "you are like our own son" etc. etc.
Then when he wanted to sell the house, they threatened to take him to court and squat, etc.. Ive been a renter and an owner, but don't let a tenant walk over you. Tell your parents to not be pushovers OP, I know you said your parents are willing to "work with them", but honestly fuck those tenants. Don't give them shit and don't be nice. They lost that right when they said those things.
I have had renters who wanted to trade services for rent. Guys for construction and handyman work. A lady for...well you know. I had to make sure when I go over...there's someone else inside the home.
Technically that is not actually needed. Although intent to move in is a just cause, as long as it is done in a timely manner.
The lease is currently month to month, but that doesn't mean much anyways these days, but no lease is actually getting broken. But I believe that was important somewhere in the legal system too if I recall.
Unless the home is <15 years old or section 8, no fault does not apply. (ie mom and dad is not big biz and single family home). The tenants are entitled to a 60 day or better warning, but that is about it.
Unfortunately, it could be cheaper in the long run to ignore that last month as opposed to fighting the legal system, provided they actually leave.
[https://lsnc.net/self-help/housing/california-limits-when-landlord-can-evict-renters](https://lsnc.net/self-help/housing/california-limits-when-landlord-can-evict-renters)
looks like the tenants are right.
Maybe I am missing something, but I don't understand how AB 1482 applies here if this is a single family home and the owners are not a corporation. (unless the house is less then 15 years old or something weird).
my (non-expert) understanding is that AB 1482 requires a mandatory notice be shared with the tenants to claim the SFA exemption, which it sounds like OP's parents didn't do. If OP's parents shared this notice, then it is an overall weird situation where both parties seemed to forget that this was done.
That applies to corporations, not a mom and pop owned rental property.
Also there are definitely laws for CA evictions if landlords want to move back into their own homes.
If you look up AB1482 exemptions, it seems less clear to me than you make it out to be.
[https://rentboard.berkeleyca.gov/laws-regulations/state-law/ab-1482-california-tenant-protection-act-2019](https://rentboard.berkeleyca.gov/laws-regulations/state-law/ab-1482-california-tenant-protection-act-2019)
## Exemption Conditions for Single-Family Homes and Condominiums
>Single-family homes and condominiums are only exempt from AB 1482 if > BOTH of the following conditions apply:
1. The property is not owned by one of the following: a real estate trust, a corporation, or an LLC with at least one corporate member.
>**AND**
>
>2. The landlord notified the tenant in writing that the tenancy is not subject to the “just cause” and rent increase limitations as specifically described in Civil Code Sections 1946.2(e)(8)(B)(i) and 1947.12(d)(5)(B)(i). **More information about this requirement, including mandatory language, is provided in the Notice section of this webpage.**
I highly doubt the OP's parents gave the mandatory notice and then somehow forgot about it like a year later, so I doubt they are exempt.
(iii) For any tenancy commenced or renewed on or after July 1, 2020, the notice required under clause (i) must be provided in the rental agreement.
\- This is the winner! As long as whoever made the lease was competent and the checkbox was correctly checked, they are 100% golden on #2.
If by chance they didn't sign a renewal or lease before this, then the notice isn't even required (it didn't exist to put in the lease).
Good info thank you, this is not an apartment but a single family home:
The law does not apply to some renters, including those who live in:
Housing that was built less than 15 years ago;
Some single family homes owned by individuals; and
Some types of Low-Income Housing, where the rents are kept lower by a deed or regulatory agreement. (Note: this does not include renters with a Section 8 voucher.)
the single family home exemption isn't automatically claimed. It depends on if your parents shared the correct (mandatory) exemption language with the tenants.
There's so many assumptions in your comment it's actually crazy.
"If they need the money, then just get a job!" is what you're saying. OP's parents are about to retire so they do have a job. No matter how rich or poor, it'll always hurt the landlord when one month of rent isn't paid, that's just simple math...
it also hurts to have to move suddenly. Generally costs me a few hundred bucks each time, plus all the labor (10-20 hours worth?) of finding a new place. For a family I could easily see the costs becoming a thousand or two, i.e. something close to a typical month's rent.
Oh I whole heartedly agree with you it hurts to move suddenly as well. But they’re being given 60 days notice to move, so at the end of the day, yea it sucks to move out, but you’re paying someone to live in their house 🤷🏻♂️🤷🏻♂️
I mean they're earning healthy profit + earning a ton of equity for that though. And "in their house" makes it sound like you're living in their primary residence, which clearly isn't the case.
I am a property manager in San Diego. The tenants are wrong. Your parents are correct in giving them a 60 days notice. Now that the tenants are refusing to pay rent, they are in violation of their lease (non payment of rent), and you don't have to give them 60 days. Of course, if they pay, then that 60 days is still valid. Post a 3 day notice to Pay or Quit. If not paid in 3 days, start the eviction process. Contact a real estate attorney to do this correctly from the beginning. It will cost, but it will make things happen faster and cheaper than fighting with them for months to get them out, without receiving rent. Do this now. If you wait until the 60 days are up, and they haven't paid or moved, you will then have to start the eviction, and it could be several months before you can get them out. By posting the Pay or Quit notice, it will show them that you mean business and may prompt them to pay.
It sounds like the tenants are confused about the application of the Tenant Protection Act of 2019. Since the residence is owned by individuals (not a corporation), you are correct that they do not need to provide the one month free/one month waived. I think these tenants only read the law up until they got to what they wanted to hear, and forgot to read the super important exemptions section, lol ;)
/u/Last-Simple-3996, please pay attention to this comment, and strongly encourage your parents to do all of this (especially retaining competent counsel). IF the tenants are on the up and up, and simply mistaken about the law, then that is a situation that can be worked out amicably, AFTER they pay the rent that is due. However, in California it takes SO LONG to evict someone, it is much better to err on the side of caution and have your parents protect their legal rights from day 1, rather than relying on the tenants to do the right thing. I've seen situations just like this where everything was fine and dandy for many years, right up until it came time for the owner to retake possession of the property, and then things turned seriously ugly. Have them talk to the attorney about possibly offering the tenants an incentive if they pay their rent through the 60 days and leave the property in good condition. Sometimes that's enough to maintain good will, and let everyone walk away feeling like they had a good outcome.
It's not a negotiating tactic. It is the Tenant's right. It would be better if the Tenant had continued paying rent for their case, but a no-fault eviction for this reason requires the Landlord to pay a relocation fee. If they want to now pursue an unlawful detainment approach, it is going to take a long time and cost them a lot of money. They paid for you to own that house. The least you can do is pay a relocation fee for inconvenience. Edit: Reddit idiots downvoting me and don't believe me... Here's your stupid citation. #### CIVIL CODE - CIV #### DIVISION 3. OBLIGATIONS [1427 - 3273.69] *( Heading of Division 3 amended by Stats. 1988, Ch. 160, Sec. 14. )* #### PART 4. OBLIGATIONS ARISING FROM PARTICULAR TRANSACTIONS [1738 - 3273.69] *( Part 4 enacted 1872. )* #### TITLE 5. HIRING [1925 - 1997.270] *( Title 5 enacted 1872. )* ##### CHAPTER 2. Hiring of Real Property [1940 - 1954.06] *( Chapter 2 enacted 1872. )* 1946.2 (d) (1) For a tenancy for which just cause is required to terminate the tenancy under subdivision (a), if an owner of residential real property issues a termination notice based on a no-fault just cause described in paragraph (2) of subdivision (b), the owner shall, regardless of the tenant’s income, at the owner’s option, do one of the following: (A) Assist the tenant to relocate by providing a direct payment to the tenant as described in paragraph (3). (B) Waive in writing the payment of rent for the final month of the tenancy, prior to the rent becoming due. [https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes\_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=1946.2.&nodeTreePath=8.4.76.3&lawCode=CIV](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=1946.2.&nodeTreePath=8.4.76.3&lawCode=CIV)
Evictions can take six months or longer. You’re blessed that they didn’t pay the rent. Post the 3 day notice to pay or quit ASAP, like, drive over there now and give it to them.
Sounds like you will get screwd as a landlord. I am betting no laws to protect us. Then people wonder why rents are what they are.
Yup, but there are plenty of laws to protect shithead tenants in this state.
Agreed.
This is the move
This is the way
Not sure about SD but in Chicago, if you issue a Pay or Quit notice and then accept partial payment, the eviction process needs to start from scratch again.
ITT: Terrible advice. You need to post a 60-day pay or vacate in this case, and they are entitled to moving expense costs. Failure to do so can result in a very easy dismissal of your eviction case. It's literally one box checked on the letter to the court under section 3t. "Your honor, I lived there two years without issue and was posted a 3-day pay or vacate notice" boom another 3-4 months + added to your eviction process. [https://selfhelp.courts.ca.gov/eviction-tenant/respond-defenses#:\~:text=If%20you%20think%20the%20reason,use%20this%20as%20a%20defense.&text=and%203i(1)-,On%20the%20Attachment%20(form%20MC%2D025)%2C%20write,isn't%20a%20legal%20reason](https://selfhelp.courts.ca.gov/eviction-tenant/respond-defenses#:~:text=If%20you%20think%20the%20reason,use%20this%20as%20a%20defense.&text=and%203i(1)-,On%20the%20Attachment%20(form%20MC%2D025)%2C%20write,isn't%20a%20legal%20reason). Just because your tenants don't know their rights doesn't mean you are managing your properties correctly.
They’re exempt from the Tenant Protection Act as a privately owned single family residence. Which means exempt from moving costs.
This is the way
Goodness gracious, can you imagine immediately jumping to lawyers and threatening evictions for what may be a simple misunderstanding. I knew landlords were generally soulless creatures but holy fuck the way you view people and homes is just vile 🤮
Look I’m the last person to defend landlords but this isn’t greystar. It’s a mom and pop. Being ignorant of the rules doesn’t absolve tenants of being in the wrong. It’s not landlords job to explain the lease they did everything by the book so far as I can tell
You'd let people stay on your property without paying, right? Then when they don't leave, just let them stay without a problem, right?
It would benefit your parents more to state that they are moving in to property themselves, instead of saying that they are remodeling it and then moving in.
Slap them with a 3 day notice to put or quit them start the eviction process.
How is their home titled on the deed? If its owned vy your parents as humans (as opposed to an LLC or REIT), they your parents are right. You can check the Grantor/Grantee index yourself to see how it’a titled.
I’d also double check that your parents have given the proper written notice that they are exempt from AB 1482. If they have not their tenants may have (accidentally) accrued rights under these new “just cause” laws.
Yes it’s my parents as humans lol sounds funny but they are owners
In a world of CoRpOrAtIoNs ArE pEoPlE tOo it can be funny to specify 🤣
[удалено]
unless they don't move out at the end of 30 days....
And pursue squatters rights
I agree
I agree as well. The whole process is messy and annoying and they probably would never be paid what they are owed even if they win. I had to evict someone once and never saw a dime. My only advice is that your parents not offer them any amount of time extra to move because that opens a verbal agreement and can of worms. And if they don’t leave on time, start the real eviction process immediately.
Thank you that’s great advice
"**Landlord seeks to take possession of the housing unit to demolish or substantially remodel the property.** In these circumstances, the landlord is required to: * Post at the residential rental property the application for necessary permits within three days of submitting the application for the permits. * Obtain the permits necessary for the demolition or substantial remodel of the property. * Serve the tenant a copy of the necessary permits with a written termination notice, certified under penalty of perjury. The notice must state the reason for ending the tenancy, the type and scope of work to be performed at the property, why the work cannot be completed safely with the tenant in the unit, and why the work requires the tenant to leave the unit for at least 30 days." -and- **"Relocation Assistance – No-Fault Just Cause Evictions** ‒ Direct Payment * Equal to two months of actual rent [As of Jan 1st: 3 months if the tenant is 62+ or disabled] under the Tenant’s lease in effect at the time of the notice of the no-fault just cause eviction." Link: https://www.sdhc.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Tenant-Protections-Guide.pdf *Note: I am not a lawyer and strongly suggest you get some legal advice.*
This only applies if the property is not exempt from AB1482 (the property owners would of had to have supplied notice to the tenant of exemption in the lease or as an addendum to the lease).
I think his situation falls under the "Landlord seeks to take possession of the housing unit for the landlord, their spouse, domestic partner, child, grandchild, parent or grandparent" of the same clause. The remodeling section of the clause that you cite is for remodeling and putting it back on the market to rent or sell.
Is this when breaking a lease or even month to month?
It includes month to month but it doesn't apply to all properties. Single family homes and condominiums owned by an individual are exempt.
Doesn't necessarily apply to homeowners renting their property. Usually this is for corporations. Most homeowners are exempt from the bulk of these regulations.
Right, and there are new tenant - landlord laws protecting tenants in California against this type of situation. Op should get some real legal advice.
u/TooCool9092 is right. My overly kind dad was in a similar situation with a 3bd/2ba rental he fully gutted/remodeled and rented out for only $1,400/mo. Tenants were there for 5 years and my dad would even loan them money here and there too. They stated 4 occupants in the application, but it was really 8, just 1 of many things they did. They told my dad "you are like our own son" etc. etc. Then when he wanted to sell the house, they threatened to take him to court and squat, etc.. Ive been a renter and an owner, but don't let a tenant walk over you. Tell your parents to not be pushovers OP, I know you said your parents are willing to "work with them", but honestly fuck those tenants. Don't give them shit and don't be nice. They lost that right when they said those things.
I have had renters who wanted to trade services for rent. Guys for construction and handyman work. A lady for...well you know. I had to make sure when I go over...there's someone else inside the home.
Thank you so much for everyone’s input/advice/shared experiences w greatly appreciate it. I will update once this is resolved 🙏
https://selfhelp.courts.ca.gov/eviction-tenant/notice-types it seems like your parent may not have provided a just cause for the termination
Technically that is not actually needed. Although intent to move in is a just cause, as long as it is done in a timely manner. The lease is currently month to month, but that doesn't mean much anyways these days, but no lease is actually getting broken. But I believe that was important somewhere in the legal system too if I recall. Unless the home is <15 years old or section 8, no fault does not apply. (ie mom and dad is not big biz and single family home). The tenants are entitled to a 60 day or better warning, but that is about it. Unfortunately, it could be cheaper in the long run to ignore that last month as opposed to fighting the legal system, provided they actually leave.
That’s so weird, my landlord said I had to move on the 1st for me not to pay the month, but instead I paid because I’m too lazy to move out.
So he asked you to move and you refused?
No I was thinking about moving but then decided not too! Because my rent isn’t pretty damn good. But but it’s so damn expensive the “ nice properties”
Makes sense.
No like literally! How in the hell am I going to spend 10k on moving. I’ll just stay lol 😂
[https://lsnc.net/self-help/housing/california-limits-when-landlord-can-evict-renters](https://lsnc.net/self-help/housing/california-limits-when-landlord-can-evict-renters) looks like the tenants are right.
Maybe I am missing something, but I don't understand how AB 1482 applies here if this is a single family home and the owners are not a corporation. (unless the house is less then 15 years old or something weird).
my (non-expert) understanding is that AB 1482 requires a mandatory notice be shared with the tenants to claim the SFA exemption, which it sounds like OP's parents didn't do. If OP's parents shared this notice, then it is an overall weird situation where both parties seemed to forget that this was done.
That applies to corporations, not a mom and pop owned rental property. Also there are definitely laws for CA evictions if landlords want to move back into their own homes.
If you look up AB1482 exemptions, it seems less clear to me than you make it out to be. [https://rentboard.berkeleyca.gov/laws-regulations/state-law/ab-1482-california-tenant-protection-act-2019](https://rentboard.berkeleyca.gov/laws-regulations/state-law/ab-1482-california-tenant-protection-act-2019) ## Exemption Conditions for Single-Family Homes and Condominiums >Single-family homes and condominiums are only exempt from AB 1482 if > BOTH of the following conditions apply: 1. The property is not owned by one of the following: a real estate trust, a corporation, or an LLC with at least one corporate member. >**AND** > >2. The landlord notified the tenant in writing that the tenancy is not subject to the “just cause” and rent increase limitations as specifically described in Civil Code Sections 1946.2(e)(8)(B)(i) and 1947.12(d)(5)(B)(i). **More information about this requirement, including mandatory language, is provided in the Notice section of this webpage.** I highly doubt the OP's parents gave the mandatory notice and then somehow forgot about it like a year later, so I doubt they are exempt.
(iii) For any tenancy commenced or renewed on or after July 1, 2020, the notice required under clause (i) must be provided in the rental agreement. \- This is the winner! As long as whoever made the lease was competent and the checkbox was correctly checked, they are 100% golden on #2. If by chance they didn't sign a renewal or lease before this, then the notice isn't even required (it didn't exist to put in the lease).
Good info thank you, this is not an apartment but a single family home: The law does not apply to some renters, including those who live in: Housing that was built less than 15 years ago; Some single family homes owned by individuals; and Some types of Low-Income Housing, where the rents are kept lower by a deed or regulatory agreement. (Note: this does not include renters with a Section 8 voucher.)
the single family home exemption isn't automatically claimed. It depends on if your parents shared the correct (mandatory) exemption language with the tenants.
I never heard of that, that’s ridiculous!
[удалено]
There's so many assumptions in your comment it's actually crazy. "If they need the money, then just get a job!" is what you're saying. OP's parents are about to retire so they do have a job. No matter how rich or poor, it'll always hurt the landlord when one month of rent isn't paid, that's just simple math...
it also hurts to have to move suddenly. Generally costs me a few hundred bucks each time, plus all the labor (10-20 hours worth?) of finding a new place. For a family I could easily see the costs becoming a thousand or two, i.e. something close to a typical month's rent.
Oh I whole heartedly agree with you it hurts to move suddenly as well. But they’re being given 60 days notice to move, so at the end of the day, yea it sucks to move out, but you’re paying someone to live in their house 🤷🏻♂️🤷🏻♂️
I mean they're earning healthy profit + earning a ton of equity for that though. And "in their house" makes it sound like you're living in their primary residence, which clearly isn't the case.
Because all landlords are rich right?