(couldn't edit last post)
None of the above sources mentions all tenants must be under the same month-to-month agreement.
Would you have a CA Civil Code or section of law that states tenants need to be under one month-to-month agreement?
Can you please explain your reason why? Can you answer the other 2 questions I have in my original post?
I put in bold the phrases (situation) that (I think?) allow me to serve the 30 day notice, once a new tenant is in the house;
CA Civil Code - "if any tenant or resident has resided in...
I want to serve the 30 day notice, to get the old tenant out sooner. I do not want her to stay 60 days. I rather give her shorter notice. Less time to plot to get back at me or fight. Just enough time to find another place, in my way of thinking.
I have a new tenant that wants to move in...
I do not want this tenant to win in court, saying she has lived here for more than one year and is entitled to a 60 day notice.
I just want to make sure the above scenario (moving a new tenant in, before giving the old tenant the 30 day notice) gives me the legal right to serve the 30 day...
Thank you for replying.
However in California as of 2007, "CA Civil Code 1946.1(b) An owner of a residential dwelling giving notice pursuant to this section shall give notice at least 60 days prior to the proposed date of termination. A tenant giving notice pursuant to this section shall give...
Owner lives in a 4-bedroom house and rents 3 other rooms (1 currently empty) separately, in a non-rent control city.
The 2 Tenants have each been there for over 2 years—each having their own month-to-month agreement.
Under CA Civil Code 1946.1(c), can the owner rent out the empty room (3rd...