CA landlords - eviction question

[t-dog]

For those of you who are landlords in California, I have a question.  I don't practice landlord/tenant law.

Relative has a month-to-month lease with a tenant who has now failed to pay all of April (she paid a portion of April) and any of May's rent.  Pursuant to the terms of the lease at the end of April she sent written notice to the tenant that she was terminating the lease in 30 days consistent with the rental agreement.  She has also nail and mailed a 3-day pay or quit notice.  Tenant appears to be a serial renter/unlawful detainer. 

Tenant is demanding 60-day notice because she has lived in the unit for more than a year.  Terms of the rental agreement indicate 30-day written notice by either party to terminate month-to-month lease.  I am curious if tenant is entitled to 60-day notice despite the 30-day notice of termination of tenancy clause in the agreement and haven't had the time to research - anyone know off the top of their head?

[Deleted]

California law is 60 days when there over a year.  Another tip is never accept partial payment as that can mess up an eviction timeline.

[t-dog]

MMC - are you referring to Civil Code 1946.1 by chance? 

This state is messed up - all parties sign a month to month agreement with 30-day notice clause but tenant automatically gets an extra month - figures in this loony bin of a state.

[kittensaver]

But doesn't all that go out the window if the tenant fails to pay their rent? That's what a three-day notice is for (yeah, I know it can be stretched out practically forever by the smarmy party) but still . . . . Pay up or leave. You don't need any more "notice" than that.

[t-dog]

yes Kitten - the 30-day termination notice was sent by the relative prior to the may rent being due.  She just didn't want to deal with the renter lady any more.  Once the renter didn't pay for May she did the 3-day pay or quit notice. 

I was just surprised to see that even on a month-to-month rental a landlord owes 60-days notice if the tenant has been there more than a year.  The whole point of month-to-month is that either side can end the relationship after a month - but apparently in CA if the tenant has lived there more than a year then the owner doesn't get the benfit of the bargain struck with the tenant and must provide 60-day notice.  Seems as if the state gets to say you are free to contract for that term, but after 12-months we are going to unilaterally change it on you.  Don't like it.

[zibazinski]

Yup, 60 days. Oregon is also very tenant friendly. Florida is not. There the tenant has to give 60 days that they aren't renewing!

[t-dog]

I went on our local court website and there are seriously 15 unlawful detainer cases since 2000 against the renter lady.  She is clearly a pro at this.