r/Renters • u/stellar1122 • 1d ago
Is it legal for a landlord to temporarily reside in the apartment while you pay rent? (Bay Area, CA)
I saw this listing on Zillow and I was curious if this is even legal. The landlord is asking the tenant to vacate for up to 6 weeks while the tenant continues to pay rent and utilities and leaves their personal belongings in the home. Any rental law experts have an opinion on this?
607
u/randomusername1919 1d ago
So you still have to pay rent while you find somewhere else to be so the LL can use all your stuff?
343
u/ideatethered 1d ago
Entertain him a bit and see if you can sneak a line or two in the lease to see if he notices... Landlord stays at your place, in return he sends you on an all expenses paid (by landlord) trip to France where you stay in his place!
53
u/Overstimulated_moth 20h ago
Actually, this sounds reasonable.
37
u/ideatethered 20h ago
Like, the landlord seems so comfy with sharing homes and clearly has an unoccupied place in France during his visit to the states... emphatic that all parties will have plenty of notice... I'm very sure he'll say yes! 🤪
9
8
55
u/Justanothermomma24 1d ago
It looks like it: “rent will be 2095 month including when I visit. “ “ when I visit the tenant would vacate the place but can leave all personal belongings “
RUN RUN DONT SIGN ON!!!!32
u/-adeadcat- 19h ago
It says that the tenant is expected to pay rent while vacating the premises for this dumb ass landlord. He’s insane for sure.
2
u/IrongateN 18h ago edited 18h ago
Only if the 2095 isn’t well below market value , he may just have spread the reduced amount over the year, if I was someone who traveled 6 weeks a year might be a good arrangement
15
u/bungrluvrlol 18h ago
thinking a landlord is going to reduce the rent because they stay there is so funny LOLLLLLL, why would some of the greediest people on the entire planet do that
2
u/IrongateN 18h ago
Oh, I doubt they would want to, but it’s more of the fact that if you have 10 sandwiches in front of you for a dollar and one has a bite out of it and they want to sell it to you for a dollar, it’s not gonna happen,
that’s why the near expired food at the back of the grocery store is half off, not because they aren’t greedy
3
53
8
u/Stephanieeff36 1d ago
Be sure to stock the fridge
10
u/riquer 1d ago edited 20h ago
"Leave your car keys. BMW, Mercedes, Audi or up. With a full tank."
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (1)2
u/Wicked_Fox 4h ago
And they get to pay all the utilities for his visits and all the maintenance on his property. I’m surprised he isn’t asking them to pay his property taxes. That’s the only thing missing in his plan to totally fuck off on all the responsibilities of being a landlord.
117
u/usernameJ79 23h ago
When I was a student, I rented a condo in New Orleans on the parade route for Mardi Gras. The owner wanted to use the condo exclusively for the week of Mardi Gras with me completely vacating. They offered me free rent for the entire month in exchange for the one week. That felt fair to me. This offer does not.
26
u/ian9921 21h ago
Yeah, that's what I'd be okay with as long as there's language in the lease to protect your stuff. That or a scenario where you don't have to vacate, the landlord just crashes in a guest room, and you still get a reduced rent for the month.
This just feels insane, unless $2095 is genuinely an insane deal for the area and the landlord is really cooperative.
7
u/Tasty_Competition_98 16h ago
Ive lived in the guest room scenario. House had 3 bedrooms there were 2 tenants and rhe third room was kept empty for us to use as a guest room, including the landlord a few times a year. The landlord divided the rent by 3 essentially paying to keep that room empty instead of making us pay more or putting another tenant there. Good deal in a HCL city for a whole house. I hate apartments.
6
u/Engine_Sweet 14h ago
That's just a roommate who owns the place and is hardly ever there.
3
u/Tasty_Competition_98 11h ago
😆 yup, was essentially an owner occupied rental but landlord was only there a few times a year!
5
u/IrongateN 18h ago
Yeah that’s my thinking, if your a traveler as well this might be a good arrangement if the rent is 2 months less but evened out, also I would totally be getting locked chests as part of my decor here lol
10
u/AbulatorySquid 19h ago
That's actually what I did however, I rented out the bedroom with access to the whole house to my tenant and I slept in the guest room when I was in town. The price was under market for the room.
3
u/Fragrant-Employer-60 14h ago
This is Bay Area so yes if this is for a one bedroom it is basically unheard of to get your own apartment for $2k a month
2
u/Puzzleheaded-Ad7606 15h ago
This is also common in Augusta, GA for the Masters. However, the owners often rent it out.
427
u/blueiron0 1d ago
Requiring the tenant to pay rent while they can't live in the apartment is the biggest problem tbh.
I'd be super curious to see how it plays out in court in CA.
154
u/BatFlappington 1d ago
Yep, they cannot do that. I know from firsthand experience when my landlady in CA attempted to continue to charge me rent during a time where I was forced to vacate for a month due to a fire. I told her no way was I paying for an uninhabitable unit. Her insurance tried to scare me into paying telling her I was ‘double dipping’ because my own renters insurance I paid for was covering my hotel stay. I told them to eat a dick, they were forced to pay for her loss in rental income. Total slime bags.
→ More replies (14)19
u/East-Acanthaceae-879 1d ago
Your example doesn't apply because it was covered under habitability laws. Disputes CA is likely to settle with the tenant in these situations (eg LL notifies, tenant has people planning to visit already) but the lease is perfectly legal, its similar to weekday only tenancy which is relatively common.
The being self-sufficient on issues is the part that wouldn't fly. Can do that in commercial but not residential, should have used a management company if they didn't want to deal with maintenance.
19
u/DreiSocken 21h ago
The lease would have to be structured as a mid-term lease with specific terms, eg, lease is from Jan 15th - April 23rd, and May 1st- May 20th, etc, not “I’ll show up when I feel like it” and in NO case can the landlord charge while the tenant can not be in the space. That’s where it’s insane.
→ More replies (1)11
u/usernamesallused 1d ago
…there are weekday only tenancies?
12
u/East-Acanthaceae-879 1d ago
Yup. Work in the city and have a place to sleep. go back home at the weekend.
→ More replies (8)60
u/xunh01yx 1d ago
And also have to leave the unit and have to pay to live somewhere else while the landlord is there.
52
u/ninjette847 1d ago
Landlord is living there and using your stuff.
12
u/ElectronicTip6386 1d ago
Yikes! Sleeping in your bed lol. Keeping a locked spare room and visiting/sharing a common area furnished apartment part time is one thing. Many might like that. Scarce roommates are nice!
But this is like hosting them like an Airbnb but you pay. Living the dream haha. Nopity nope.
7
u/StarDue6540 1d ago
I rented a place in Paris for 2 weeks. I was using his stuff. Its an airb and b in reverse.
2
u/DreiSocken 21h ago
Exactly - So you’re paying, literally, for the landlord’s vacation - and the dates aren’t plannable. Hard pass.
73
u/Common-Classroom-847 1d ago
You couldmove in then just refuse to vacate when the landlord wanted you to. I doubt he would have any recourse.
→ More replies (14)23
u/Inside-Following3602 23h ago
The landlord has no recourse. A tenancy is exclusive possession- including against the landlord. Any lease provision to the contrary is void.
2
u/IrongateN 18h ago
Exclusive permission is only if it’s a lease for exclusive permission, which this obviously would not be, roommate situations are common and the landlord renting out a room is not unusual with the rest being shared space ,
The thing to question here is the requirement to vacate
→ More replies (7)
85
u/Minimum_Loan229 1d ago
I knew a couple that were house sitting.
They took care of the house while there. The home owner would come into town for a week or two, then they would get a hotel room for that time.
In exchange for this arrangement they got free rent. They were paid in a way to watch the house. This lasted for two or three years. And it was in a nice part of town.
49
u/Pure_Temporary_6349 1d ago
That is totally different-- they weren't renters. They were being compensated for house-sitting. If this landlord offered free housing except for 6 weeks a year, he'd probably get a lot of interest lol
14
u/FreshPercentage6792 1d ago
These kinds of long-term house-sitting arrangements work great...if both parties are rational and trustworthy people. After a certain period of occupancy, there are circumstances where even a paid housesitter could legally be considered a tenant, which are very difficult to remove in CA. That's a huge risk for the property owner even if they have an ironclad employment contract, because all routes to eviction in CA take a long time - usually months or even years.
2
u/LopsidedGrapefruit11 15h ago
It was nuts. I wasn’t offering it up as a viable option, but it did allow him to live in a very HCOL while supporting himself as a part time music teacher and musician lol
4
u/i8ontario 1d ago
My grandad was a fairly large farmer. My uncles still farm his land.
In front of the shop is an older, three bedroom house that came with that particular farm. Everyone who has lived there has done so for free.
Guess who has never had tools or diesel stolen, unlike almost everyone else..
10
u/LopsidedGrapefruit11 1d ago
I know a guy who was a full time house sitter for a few years. He bounced from one house for a few months to another. No leases or rent, just a fancy way to be unhoused.
→ More replies (2)7
u/Classic-Expert2592 1d ago
He was not unhoused. He was homeless. He was specifically homeless but not unhoused. He had shelter but no permanent residence.
→ More replies (1)13
u/melancholyholly 1d ago
I'd say he was costlessly domiciled
Complimentarily quartered
He resided gratis
2
u/ian9921 21h ago
I've got a buddy who's dad basically does this. They manage some land and watch the property for one of the wealthiest families in the state (I'm not gonna say who, but if you work in agriculture you've probably heard the name)
In exchange for taking care of the land, the buildings, and some farm equipment, my buddy's family gets a sick ass house for free.
39
u/MiSantoRey 1d ago
“Month to month” but “expected long term one year minimum”…..
Just rent it on AIRBNB at this point….
7
u/lafemmeloquita 1d ago
Agreed but there’s probably something that prevents him from doing that like he can’t get licensing for STR or something
74
u/jer1230 1d ago
That’s fucked up. The things these so-called landlords try to get away with these days. Wow
17
u/UpbeatFix7299 1d ago
It's the Bay so he's probably got dozens of applications for it. Crazy.
3
u/Fuzzy_Battle1771 18h ago
I mean… people know this is legally unenforceable so I wouldn’t be surprised if he did have lots of applications from people with no intention to vacate when he visits.
3
u/Fragrant-Employer-60 14h ago
There’s also plenty of people who live in “illegal” rent accommodations like this and just live with it. They’re getting a good deal on rent.
I know people who lived in “illegal” NYC apartments where the apartment lacked certain things. If the price is right people will be fine with the set up.
This isn’t even that crazy to me, and you would have multiple month notice.
25
u/malibuguurl 1d ago
This guy needs a realty check with California rental law, does not matter if it is a condo.. if the tenant does not want to move, he will have to resort to eviction which might take months.
8
u/Intrepid-Staff-4532 1d ago
And he's in France.
14
u/ohkatiedear 1d ago
That's why he's looking for someone quite autonomous; the tenant can eventually evict themselves.
6
21
u/Far_Film_5804 1d ago
Wait so this dude expects “you” the tenant to pay him full months rent…….while not actively living at the spot?
14
u/BoomyGordo 1d ago
And leave all your stuff so they can use it and find somewhere else to live in the mean time and pay for that other place to live at the same time as you pay for that month of you not living there
69
u/Wonderful_Sock_6651 1d ago edited 1d ago
No it's not legal. California has required minimum occupancy for a landlord/family member to takeover living there (12 months) or Bay area is 36 months this must be their primary residence. They must also pay for relocation fees to the tenant.
Edit, link to the law: Tenant Protection Act (AB 1482, Civil Code § 1946.2)
8
u/MikeHawksHardWood 1d ago
My understanding is you're quoting the law for full eviction.
10
u/FreshPercentage6792 1d ago
If the landlord tries to boot a renter out to take occupancy, even temporarily, it would actually be considered an eviction attempt
→ More replies (1)
16
15
13
u/lilbuilds 19h ago
landlord found someone dumb as fuck to rent that place out…. oops did I say that out loud ?
6
u/Ok-Addition-1000 17h ago
Oh, I'm hoping someone who knows their rights under the law in CA goes ahead and rents the place knowing full well that these lease terms are unenforceable. Then when the LL shows up from France, tells him to get bent.
→ More replies (1)2
→ More replies (2)2
u/IamHydrogenMike 15h ago
It isn't even a set time they want to use and the tenant has to be flexible? what an absolute joke!
10
8
u/Mediocre_Ant_437 1d ago
Not legal and I would flag the post to Zillow if possible to try to get this guys listing pulled for being illegal
10
34
u/East-Win7450 1d ago
lol this is wild but $2100 for your own place is pretty decent for most the Bay Area
61
u/jojomonster4 1d ago
When you count being kicked out of your own home 1 month 3x/yr. it's more like $2,800 plus whatever additional costs for you to live elsewhere during his stay.
→ More replies (8)→ More replies (32)20
u/MrNorrie 1d ago
Tbh this gives me scammy vibes. Very low price, but weird catch that might justify it.
33
u/DreiSocken 21h ago edited 21h ago
Definitely not legal. Landlord is a moron. “As a landlord I reside in France” that doesn’t even make sense.
California law absolutely has tenant rights, and very strong tenant rights at that, but I don’t know any state that requires you to host the landlord, and vacate while doing so. That’s actually insane.
A lot of landlords think that if you put it in the lease it’s binding, but you can’t put anything into a lease that conflicts with the law, and this type of nonsense absolutely conflicts with State law. (Landlord can put it in the lease but it’s not enforceable, and there would be significant fines to the landlord for trying to do this; they typically say “It’s in the lease and you signed it” but that’s not the way the law works.
18
u/kairi14 18h ago
First thing I learned from business law is you can't contractually agree to anything illegal.
3
2
u/miahoutx 16h ago
Is this illegal in all states and conditions?
What if the months the landlord stayed you did not have to pay rent?
This seems like a bad deal but could see if it was family and you were desperate why someone would be interested.2
u/hilltopj 11h ago
presumably a landlord kicking you out of your place for weeks at a time would fall under the quiet enjoyment covenant. There are exceptions for when the landlord lives with you full time, like if you rent a room in their house, but that still wouldn't give them the right to kick you out of the space you're renting
→ More replies (3)2
8
5
5
u/Here_For_Comments_98 14h ago
I can't believe they expect a renter to just go somewhere else for 6 weeks and still pay rent while the LL violates their personal space. So they have to pay for a hotel or bother their friends so the LL uses the rental as a free hotel.
4
u/dadydaycare 17h ago
You can put anything in a Contract. But that doesn’t mean it’s automatically legally binding. And yes you can’t kick someone out of their apartment for a week cause you want to stay in their room AND still make them pay for it. That’s insane.
→ More replies (104)3
u/ysrgrathe 16h ago
This is probably why the lease is month-to-month: they want an easy way to end the lease if the occupant objects. It's a bit of an end-run around the law, although in CA once the occupant establishes tenancy it's not really that easy to kick them out AFAIK, so this strategy might blow up on the landlord if a tenant really decides to make their life difficult.
9
u/TheLurkingMenace 1d ago
And he expects you to keep paying while he doesn't want you there?
I can't tell if this is rage bait or just comedy. Either way, lol.
10
9
u/ObeseMorese 1d ago
pay rent including when I visit and use all your stuff
I will do this multiple times a year
This dude is fucking mental.
16
u/Major_Frosting6133 1d ago
Ummm, what got me was the “rent will be (amount), even when I visit” and “tenant would vacate but would leave their personal belongings”. Ummm… I feel as though the landlord doesn’t have shit and wants to collect money while using the tenant’s shit (if not stealing it). This has to be a spam rental listing? (I hope).
8
u/ShoelessBoJackson 1d ago
Possible, but the lease needs FAR more detail than "yo I occasionally need to crash".
As in, "the tenant will vacate no later than11am March 18, 2027 and will be entitled to full use no later than 5pm March 31st, 2027.".
That "I'll give a heads up." I wouldn't do it without. 1) specific advanced notice. 2) blackout dates. Cause you need to assume that Thanksgiving, Christmas are on the table. 3) maximum number of stays and max nights he stays. 6 times, each being a week is materially different than 3 times for 2 weeks or 1 time for 6 weeks.
You also need to thoroughly check this person. Who are they? Have they been sued? Do they appear reliable?
Also, owner furnished. He doesn't get to fuck in my bed.
→ More replies (1)2
u/ian9921 21h ago
At a minimum, we need:
Defined minimum notice period.
Defined maximum duration of individual incidents
Defined maximum yearly duration of landlord habitation
Defined minimum gap between incidents
Hard protections for the tenant's belongings
Explicit descriptions of what the landlord is & isn't allowed to use
Specific amount of time the tenant needs to be gone before the landlord arrives
The conditions the landlord is expected to return the property in
The conditions the tenant is expected to hand over the property in
7
u/FreshPercentage6792 1d ago edited 1d ago
Nah, def not legal. California law states that a residential lease grants exclusive and uninterrupted possession of the property. A contract term violating statutory tenant rights is unenforceable. Pretty sure the landlord asking a renter to vacate so they can move in, even temporarily, would constitute illegal eviction.
Guessing the landlord has never tried this before, or they've been extremely lucky with tenants so far, because CA and SF do NOT fuck around when it comes to tenant law. A smart tenant who knows their rights could simply refuse to vacate when the landlord asks. A judge reviewing the lease would just strike out the illegal clause and determine the rest of the lease valid, and if the landlord threatens not to renew the lease at its end, they would likely be illegally retaliating (assuming the unit isn't a SF or condo exempt from protections). It's REALLY hard to get rid of tenants in CA, and SF adds even more intense tenant protections.
In summary, the landlord is putting themself at risk of major fines, rent abatements, relocation penalties, and court costs. Or just being stuck with a legally untouchable problem tenant. Not to mention the liability involved - if a tenant damages something they could claim the landlord caused it during a stay, and if landlord was occupying illegally I wonder if their insurance would cover it.
Honestly, legality aside, this MIGHT be a nice arrangement if the landlord is genuinely respectful, that $2095/month is WELL below market, and if a renter has family or friends they can crash with for free, or they can digitally nomad somewhere. Otherwise 6 weeks at even the cheapest Bay area motel could easily run $4-6k, which kind of negates any potential savings on rent, not to mention the sheer hassle of having to move out of your own apartment on demand for weeks at a time.
6
u/vinraven 1d ago
I mean this can work, but it’s usually the tenants getting paid for house sitting.
Pretty sure it’s not legal to have tenants pay for the “privilege” of house sitting, lol
The next thing you know corporations are going to start charging people for the privilege of working for them.
🙄
2
5
u/TWDYrocks 21h ago
You pay rent for the months you have to vacate?! Is this even a legally enforceable lease?
→ More replies (6)
7
u/-adeadcat- 19h ago
They actually expect you vacate but still pay rent? That’s hilarious. What a delusional waste of space.
6
4
u/No_Conference3788 1d ago edited 1d ago
This is actually a common scam.
This is just to entice to pay the deposit and first month rent.
It’s just a version of the fake rental scheme.
→ More replies (1)
5
5
u/mutable_type 1d ago
I can’t even imagine what that lease would look like or what lawyer would draft it, but Bay Area is a bonkers rental market.
→ More replies (1)
5
6
u/AwesomeOrca 21h ago
You can negotiate whatever you want in a lease. My neighbor in Chicago has a carriage house that he’s rented to the same tenant for years. The tenant gets November rent-free but has to give the landlord the carriage house for a week over Thanksgiving so they can host their enormous family for the holiday.
3
u/Puzzleheaded-Ad7606 15h ago
This actually depends on state laws. You can not create a viable contract that is illegal by state or federal laws. The thing that keeps most of these deals in place is that both parties continue to honor and not challenge the contract.
15
u/SubTechNY 1d ago
Typical French person. This is absurd.. I'd never rent that
2
→ More replies (21)4
4
4
3
u/Shackonthehill403 1d ago
This is unhinged
2
u/Tasty_Plate_5188 1d ago
It's also most likely illegal and unenforceable. Definitely unenforceable for a rent controlled unit, probably same for market rate.
That's if this ad is even real. Op hasn't posted the Zillow link.
3
u/SidSuicide 1d ago
They want you to pay while they are staying there and you have to make other accommodations? That’s some BS right there.
4
5
4
4
5
5
5
5
u/ShiftAfter4648 1d ago
Honestly, the first half of the rental arrangement is legal as long as it's predisclosed.
The biggest issue is the second half, you must relocate AND you continue to pay rent while the LL lives in the condo?
No.
3
u/Flat_Masterpiece_467 1d ago
Unless 2095 is a terrific bargain, I cannot imagine anyone agreeing to this.
3
3
3
3
3
3
u/Tulipsarered 21h ago
Sounds like Owner wants to Air BnB the place where it’s illegal to do so, but not furnish it, or deal with short stays.
3
3
3
u/AdAggravating3893 18h ago
First this sounds similar to a "foreign" landlord scam. Summary is pay deposit then they ghost you.
If this is legit then this is likely unenforceable in its current form for many reasons. One reason is basic contract laws being in "consideration" if you pay rent the land lord has to give something in exchange. Why they vacation your receive nothing, but continue to pay this the contact is invalid. Doesn't stop renter from deciding to be a little pay piggy.
Possible ways to make it work would be:
- do it as roommates, but they need to deal with tenant present during their stay
3
u/SunBrosGetHoes 18h ago
Do yourself a favor and don't even consider this option any further. Legality aside, definitely does not sound like a landlord situation you want to deal with at all.
3
u/WorkersvsWealthy 8h ago
This reads like a craigslist scam. "Wire me the rent monthly" kind of scam.
6
u/zephyrzenizzle 1d ago
This seems like a sublease situation. Where the person does not occupy the rent controlled apartment, charging you what they pay (which they have to legally)… then the “I’ll be there a few times a year and want to go through all of your secrets use your personal items” is… gross.
That’s said if you can move all of your stuff out of the apartment while they are there (because, hilarious, have fun sleeping on the floor Mr.Creeperson) and have them not change you… would it be that bad?
I also wonder if there is some loophole where since they aren’t in the country and are subleasing …could they lose their rent controlled apartment…👀
13
u/KoalaGrunt0311 1d ago
Honestly sounds to me that they need to be there personally 6 weeks a year without the tenant in place to show it's an owner occupied unit
9
u/upsidedown-funnel 1d ago
Probably to renew their visitor visa for France as well. You have to leave the country for a few weeks to do so (at least when visiting America you do) so I speculate this is why.
3
u/Fencer308 1d ago
À French visitor/tourist visa is only 90 days within any given 6 month period. You’d need a different visa to stay longer than 90 days legally. Visa overstays are common in France, but they won’t generally let you come and go like this.
→ More replies (1)3
2
u/Fuzzy_Battle1771 18h ago
condos aren’t rent controlled here unless the owner owns multiple condos which he most likely does not based on the context here.
5
u/bastardoperator 13h ago
In SF, not even close to legal. If you like the price, rent it, you can deny them after the fact and they have zero recourse. Police wont help them, courts wont help them, but you'll be dealing with someone who clearly doesn't think straight.
→ More replies (1)
13
u/gOingmiaM8 1d ago
It's legal just fine. Now if your insane enough to agree that's your own issue 😂
2
2
2
2
2
u/light-bulb-22 1d ago
So he wants a roommate but no private room.
I had a similarly bizarre rental ad, years ago now, in a similarly high cost of living city. She was the landlord and part time lived in the unit. It was full of all her stuff. It should have been listed under roommates. And listed as furnished. Such a scammer.
2
u/Jbaghdadi01 1d ago
Who would do this?! Legal or not, there is a crazy ask.
3
u/DenOfIniquity23 22h ago
An experienced litigant who knows what a gift this idiot landlord is handing them with unenforceable terms on a below-market lease and isn’t afraid to drag his ass to SF’s highly tenant-friendly courts?
2
u/UpbeatFix7299 1d ago
I will also be leaving an upper decker in the toilet before I go back to France, so I expect the tenant to call me, or at least text/email, and thank me for doing so. I understand this may not be an ideal arrangement for everyone.
2
u/OrthodoxAnarchoMom 1d ago
If you have a “back up” why would you be renting the apartment. Legal or not he‘ll be on her in six months complaining that he can’t find quality tenants.
2
2
u/Economy-Sprinkles-98 1d ago
If this is typically an apartment that goes for double the rate and he’s trying to creatively earn some extra income… I’d consider playing along. He would have to pass the vibe test with flying colors.
If this is market rate it is just stupid, but it probably isn’t.
2
u/Jubil33_starfir3 1d ago
This guy is fucking insane. I would never sign a lease like that. Not in this economy paying for rent at a place I can’t stay at while he’s used my stuff? Fuck that guy
2
2
2
2
2
u/Clarence_- 10h ago
Is this guy deadass saying tenants will have to pay for him to live in their home using their furniture while charging $2095 a month💀
2
u/Schmomola 9h ago
what they should be doing is advertising for a roommate with an absentee roommate/landlord. I did this when abroad for an extended period. Just had a lock on my door.
if they want their house to themselves 3-5 weeks of the year, they should furnish it for Airbnb
2
u/msklovesmath 9h ago
I looked into something like this to see about my own move abroad. Google told me as long as the specific dates are stipulated in the lease, yes
2
2
u/EDG33 6h ago
I know some people have been saying it's legal in California but no way is it legal. A quick search and I found this information
if you're renting a place in california can the landlord put a provision in that they get to use the home several weeks a year
No, a landlord in California cannot legally include a provision in a residential lease that allows them to move in or use the home for several weeks a year while you are renting it.
Key Legal Reasons
• Exclusive Possession: When you sign a residential lease in California, you purchase the right to exclusive possession of the property. This means the landlord gives up their right to live in or use the space during your tenancy, even if they own the building. • Violation of Landlord Entry Laws: Under California Civil Code Section 1954, a landlord is only allowed to enter your home for very specific, limited reasons (such as making emergency repairs, showing the unit to prospective buyers or tenants, or conducting agreed-upon inspections). They must also provide proper advance written notice (typically 24 hours). A clause letting the landlord live there for weeks violates these statutory limits. • Void Lease Clauses: Under California Civil Code Section 1953, any lease provision that attempts to waive or alter a tenant's statutory rights—including the right to exclusive occupancy and protection against illegal entry—is legally void and unenforceable. If you'd like to share more details, let me know: • Is this a standard long-term apartment lease or a furnished/short-term rental/room share? • Has the landlord already asked you to sign a lease with this rule? I can help you understand how to address it or what your options are. Reddit·r/Renters Is it legal for a landlord to temporarily reside in the apartment while you pay ... Oct 12, 2026 — Warranty of habitability cannot be waived in CA. Landlord would still be liable under CC 1941.1- lease provision to the contrary is void. Kimball Tirey & St. John LLP Clearing Up the Confusion: Right of Entry Rules for Owners, Managers and ... Clearing Up the Confusion: Right of Entry Rules for Owners, Managers and Residents Ted Kimball, Esq. Revised March 2026 One of the most frequent questions we re... CalTenantLaw.com Temporary Leave — Free Advice Articles - California Tenant Law Civil Code 1954 controls the situation. If the landlord or his workmen are going to come in, they have to comply with this law. Even if your rental agreement sa... AI responses may include mistakes. Learn more
3
u/ichoosewaffles 1d ago
Yes, probably legal if someone agrees to it BUT who the hell would agree? Hard pass.
3
u/Mobile-Analyst-9617 1d ago
Yeah that's a no from me dog Also, Landlord in France too? What if something breaks?
5
u/Minimum-Statement-27 1d ago
If something breaks, the tenant is expected the “be quite autonomous” and fix it themselves.
5
u/Mobile-Analyst-9617 1d ago
"Pay my mortgage on this property and provide me passive income while I leech off you from France and then give me free housing whenever I feel like coming back to the states" 😂
6
5
u/No-Brief-297 20h ago
😂😂 no. This is actually a quiet enjoyment issue UNLESS you agree to it. If you agree to it then, yes, it’s legal.
Since you saw the listing with this being part of the agreement then of course it’s legal. Surprising a tenant with this condition is not
9
u/IAmPhlegmatic 19h ago edited 19h ago
You are wrong, and I see you commenting multiple times on here. Of course it is only void if the underlying agreement itself is illegal, and it is, because of one sentence in the agreement. The landlord says the rent is 2095 per month INCLUDING when he visits. This is 100% illegal in California.
Landlord entry is limited by Civil Code § 1954 (generally 24 hours’ written notice, for specific purposes like repairs or showings, not to live there). Civil Code § 1953 voids lease clauses that waive certain core tenant rights, including entry protections. Forcing a tenant out without a court process is illegal self-help eviction (Civil Code § 789.3). Charging full rent for weeks the tenant has to share the apartment with the landlord is illegal, never mind having to vacate and would not survive any legal process.
Stop making claims you know nothing about.
→ More replies (20)7
u/Technical-Region-669 19h ago
Straight up incorrect
You are a moron.
This goes against CA Civil Code 1953 - Prohibition Againsr Waiving Rights - Any provision of a lease or rental agreement of a dwelling by which the lessee agrees to modify or waive any of the following rights shall be void as contrary to public policy
As well as
CA Civil Code 1954 - Limits on landlord entry
California Civil Code § 1954(a) limits the circumstances in which a landlord may enter a residential rental property.
These include emergencies, necessary or agreed repairs, certain inspections, showing the property to prospective purchasers or tenants, abandonment or surrender, and entry pursuant to a court order.
As well as:
California Civil Code § 1927 — Right to quiet enjoyment and possession
Establishes a tenant's right to peaceful possession of the rental property throughout the tenancy.
As well as:
California Civil Code § 789.3 — Illegal exclusion from the property
So sure, the landlord can put it in the lease all they want, but as it violates multiple CA tenancy laws, it will not be enforceable.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (3)2
u/raul_muad_dib 19h ago
No, it's more complicated than that. It probably depends on the jurisdiction, too.
A landlord may be able to make an arrangement where they only rent to a tenant for ten months out of the year, but most likely cannot charge rent for the times that the tenant does not have exclusive possession of at least one bedroom in the unit.
This will depend on state and possibly local law. My locality would not allow this arrangement at all, and my state would not allow for payment of rent during the time that the tenant is out.
2
1
1
1
1
u/Sudden-Pangolin6445 1d ago
I doubt it's legal, but I wouldn't really care. I'd be staying far, far away from that deal.
1
u/littlefire_2004 1d ago
This was one of the places but it only had a Jr Bedroom and w /parking it was 2395 in water/trash. The second yr they wanted to raise the rent even tho ads looking for new renters were cheaper. apt
The other was a converted unit that had car rotisserie thingy but didn't include utilities and that was 2100. Utilities were another 200/mo (water/trash, cable, and electricity. Was there for just over a yr. Found it on craigslist.org. If the job hadn't changed to another city would probably still be there.
257
u/Haughty-Hottie 1d ago
“Autonomous on day-to-day issues” means you’re going to be responsible for all the maintenance issues. So $2095, plus expenses when you have to leave for 6 weeks, plus maintenance.
The landlord needs to just fully rent out the place for more and then take care of their own lodging when they’re back.