A Pet Peeve Over Paying Rent for the Cat

QUESTION: I live in Riverside, and I am concerned about the legality of paying rent for pets. Along with a considerable extra security deposit, I pay an additional sum of money each month as “rent” for my cat.

I understand that a pet can damage a unit, but I feel that the security deposit should adequately cover such a circumstance. Why must we pay extra rent for an animal that does not utilize the apartment’s services (considering that an extra tenant would cost nothing at all)?

ANSWER: In Riverside, as in most non-rent-controlled cities, state law prevails. It allows an owner to raise the rent with a 30-day notice, for no specific reason (like an extra tenant or a pet).

Unless your rental agreement or lease says that an extra tenant would cost nothing at all, it’s very likely that your apartment owner would charge you extra rent for an extra tenant. In contrast, the first “extra” tenant in some rent-controlled cities is sometimes free.

Paying Interest on Security Deposits

Q: Does a Rancho Palos Verdes landlord have to keep security deposits separately in interest-bearing accounts? Also, must I pay the interest to my tenants each year or at the end of the lease?

A: Under Los Angeles’ proposed ordinance on interest on security deposits, you would be required to pay your tenants interest on their deposits every five years or at the end of a tenancy, with a one-year tenancy minimum.

You are not required to keep the deposits in separate accounts or in interest-bearing accounts.

Cash Flow Washed Away by Water Bills

Q: About a year ago, I bought a rent-controlled duplex in Los Angeles. It had a positive cash flow of about $200 a month. But I’m having trouble maintaining any positive cash flow now because my water bills have skyrocketed from about $75 a month to about $150 a month.

I called it to the attention of the tenants, and then did a little investigating of my own. I noticed that one of the tenants had installed a washing machine where the water heater was and had moved the water heater. I immediately notified the tenant, nicely, that I had seen the washing machine. I asked him to remove it.

He said he had had the washing machine for a long time, long before I bought the property. He also told me that there were some leaking faucets at the property. I just fixed them today.

Frankly, I don’t recall seeing the washing machine before, but I couldn’t swear to it in a court of law. The rental agreement, which I inherited from the previous owner, does not state whether a washing machine is allowed or not.

Since I have had problems with this tenant in the past, I don’t want to antagonize him too much. My question is, what, if anything, can I do?

A: It is unlikely that you’ll have any recourse against this tenant for his washing machine. Since the rental agreement is silent on the issue, in order to evict the tenant you would need the former owner, whose rental agreement you inherited, to testify in court that he verbally prohibited washing machines in the units.

You can, and should, make your tenants aware that there is a water shortage now, and any penalties that may be assessed for using too much water would be shared by both them and you.

One-Year Time Frame for Small Claims Court

Q: I am a consumer affairs specialist for the County of Los Angeles. In your Sept. 2 Apartment Life column, “Billed to Clean Unit He Never Occupied,” you advised a correspondent that he was precluded from filing an action in Small Claims Court “. . . because of the court’s statute of limitations, one year.”

The statute of limitations in the county’s Small Claims Court is not uniformly one year, but varies with the cause of action just as it does in Municipal or Superior court. We would appreciate your so advising your readers. Thank you.

A: After numerous telephone calls over several days, which all went unanswered, to the county court’s legal information department, Ted Goldstein, press and community relations liaison to the Los Angeles City Council and mayor, commented on the question.

“It is a good legal practice in all tort and contract law, such as landlord/tenant law, to adhere to the one-year time frame,” he said. “I would advise any plaintiff in such a case to file his case within one year.”

Postema is the editor of Apartment Age magazine, a publication of the Apartment Assn. of Greater Los Angeles (AAGLA), an apartment owners’ service group. Mail your question on any aspect of apartment living to “Apartment Life,” AAGLA, 621 S. Westmoreland Ave., Los Angeles, Calif. 90005-3995.