refund overpayment of rent? CCC 827 (Los Angeles, Whittier: real estate, rental, insurance)

[retnerA07]

I've had my rent increased twice in the last 10 years, both times by more than 10% with a 30 day notice, not 60 as required by CCC 827. I just became aware of the 60 day requirement today and I'm wondering if anyone has any experience with having over-paid rent returned to them. I live in a single family dwelling (non rent control) in Los Angeles. Overpayment is about $11,000 from an increase in 2004 and another one in 2006.

Legal recourse?

Thanks

[smokingGun]

I'm not an attorney but common sense would say that if you agreed with the increase & continued renting for a number of months (or yrs) afterward it would be difficult to make any claims for damages. Contact your local renters' ombudsman for more info though.

[retnerA07]

Thanks, that's my main concern, that I set a precedent by accepting the rent increase.

However, my landlord did in fact give me two Defective Notices, and I know it's possible to sue for damages.

If I were in a rent controlled unit in Los Angeles and had been overpaying on a Defective Notice, I believe my landlord would be legally required to refund to me triple the amount of overpayment. This from an official City of Los Angeles web page. So this is the closest I've come to a legal precedent that works in my favor.

I also wasn't asked if I accepted the changes, I was given notice of a change in terms of tenancy.

In California, a written contract isn't legal unless it is signed by both parties, and I never signed the notices, so I would guess they remain irrelevant defective notices, not legally binding contracts.

In any case, I definitely need to contact my local ombudsman (I had to google that word)

[nmnita]

Originally Posted by retnerA07

I've had my rent increased twice in the last 10 years, both times by more than 10% with a 30 day notice, not 60 as required by CCC 827. I just became aware of the 60 day requirement today and I'm wondering if anyone has any experience with having over-paid rent returned to them. I live in a single family dwelling (non rent control) in Los Angeles. Overpayment is about $11,000 from an increase in 2004 and another one in 2006.

Legal recourse?

Thanks

you probably need to talk to a lawyer, but if you have only had 2 rent increases in 10 years, do not live in a rent control district plus you have never said anything about this, whether you just found it out or not, I really doubt you have a leg to stand on and should be happy you have only had 2 increases.

Nita

[Lovehound]

I think it's a bit too late.

[HastingsJD]

I am an attorney but I don't know the answer to your question off the top of my head. However, if this occurred in 2004 and 2006, the statute of limitations has likely passed meaning you can no longer make a claim. You might try talking with someone at a local free legal clinic though to see what advice they may have. Many of the law schools in the area run things like that. I thought UCLA had one that pertained to real estate but I could be wrong. Other law schools in the area include USC, Loyola LA, Southwestern, and Whittier. Also check the LA superior court website to see if they have references to any possible resources.

[CALGUY]

Obviously you read the notice irrespective of if it were a 30 or 60 day notice.
By paying the increase you agreed to the terms of the rent increase.
When you received the notice, THAT was the time to complain.
You will never win this case in any court.
Using as an example, suppose you were too accept a check in payment for something you did as a service, or as the result of selling something, and on the bottom of the check was written, "payment in full".
For one reason or another you didn't see "payment in full", and you cashed the check.
By cashing that check, you agree to the terms written on the check.
The same theory applies to your rental situation.
You paid the increase right along, and NOW, because of what you determine was an error in the delivery of the original notice, you somehow think you can recoup the money you have already spent.
It doesn't work that way.
You need to take this as a lesson in contractual sensibility.
As for you not signing the notice signifying your agreement, that was not necessary.
Sending in your first payment which included the rent increase, was the same as signing any agreement stating your approval.
The fact that you have continued to pay, tells any court that you agreed to the terms.
Bob.

[retnerA07]

So if I incorrectly had my auto insurance or cable t.v. rate increased and I paid the bill, I would have no recourse? I think the opposite is true, these industries are regulated and I was given a credit by Mercury insurance years later because they had overcharged me without my knowledge. I think this rent increase case is similar. No judge expects a tenant to be a lawyer.

Thanks for all the replies.

[retnerA07]

calguy-
1. I was never asked if I agreed with the increases, I was told the terms of tenancy had change.
2. By paying the increase, it could be interpreted that the terms had changed and I'm out of luck.
3. When I received the 1st notice, I looked into city and county codes and saw that rent increase was legal under those laws. I didn't have internet access at that time so research was more difficult. I remained unaware of CA rent control laws, which are not very expansive.
4.When I was an undergraduate at UCLA I worked for a lawyer who told me writing "payment in full" under memo was only a memo to the person writing the check, not the the party being payed. It's not a great analogy because I'm not receiving payment, I'm making a payment.
5.There was no error in the delivery of the notices in change of tenancy, they were illegal (defective). California law requires 60 day notice or notice is T.P.
6. I am a licensed general contractor in Ca. Because the terms of the originally rental agreement were never legally changed, the original stands and I have been paying too much.
7. Statute of limitations may have run out.

So I'm worried about items 2 and 7 above. Just trying to argue my case they way I would in court.

[HastingsJD]

The statute of limitations on an issue generally starts running when you know or should have known of an event, violation,etc. If you had no way of knowing that you were overcharged by Mercury Insurance then the SOL was what they called "tolled." Sounds like that credit came as part of a class action lawsuit though if it was something that was just sent to you. Those can take years to litigate - someone may have filed a lawsuit long before you received that credit.