Owner Move-In Update

On November 5, 2003, the decision in Cwynar v. City and County of San Francisco (see attached decision) became final.  This decision basically held that Proposition G of the owner move-in statute is unconstitutional.  Specifically, the requirements that (1) only one owner move-in per building is allowed, (2) a relative move-in eviction can only occur if the owner lives in the building or is simultaneously seeking to move into the building, and, (3) elderly/disabled/catastrophically ill tenants are protected from owner move-in evictions, have been ruled as unconstitutional.
 

The problem is that this court decision only applies to the litigants in that case, meaning that there is no appellate decision binding on all courts.  Technically, Prop G still applies and can be enforced.  However, some practitioners have taken the position that a San Francisco court will notice and give deference to the Cwynar case.  Therefore, some people are proceeding with owner move-in evictions without abiding by Prop G’s requirements.   

We will give our clients a choice as to how they wish to proceed.  Ignoring Prop G may require additional court hearings and battles, and the landlord could lose and be subject to wrongful eviction.  However, there is merit to the position that Prop G has been held by a San Francisco court to be unconstitutional; thus, landlords who really need to do an owner move-in outside the restrictions of Prop G should consider this alternative. 

We are happy to discuss both choices with you.  Feel free to call the office with any questions or concerns.