Newly Revised Forms for Open Houses Now Available in zipForm
by
In-person property showings/open houses are now permitted by the California Department of Public Health under Covid-19, but indoor gathering capacity limitations are still in place based on the current colored tier of each county; Orange-Tier rules in Contra Costa and Alameda Counties limit indoor capacity to 25% or 25 people, whichever is fewer.
Click here for a Quick Guide of Industry Guidelines for Open Houses and Showing Rules.
- Open Houses: Advertising open houses, without qualifiers, is allowed and appointments for open houses are no longer required.
- Social Distancing: Showings, including open houses, are somewhat relaxed under the new social gatherings guidelines but still include social distancing between members of different households while attending an open house, and are subject to capacity issues depending on the tier of the county where the house is located. Please refer to local guidelines for this information.
- Signing In: There will still be a sign-in requirement on site. The new Property Sign-In (PSI) form can be used for this purpose. However, you can still use a PEAD instead of the on-site sign-in if you prefer. See the new Quick Guide for more details.
- Forms: C.A.R. has simplified and shortened the Rules of Entry (PRE), Prevention Plan (BPPP), and the Property Sign-in (PSI) form as an alternative to PEADS. There also is an addendum to the listing agreement LOHA reflecting the changed protocols. This form is necessary if the parties had previously signed the RLA-CAA, which did not allow for open houses. New listings should also include this addendum if the listing broker wants to hold open houses.
- PEADS: The PEADS have been combined and simplified into one shorter PEAD-ALL form that is available if members prefer to use it instead of on-site sign-in protocols.
The newly revised forms PRE, BPPP, PEAD, as well as the new Property Sign-in PSI form and new Listing Addendum LOHA form are now available on zipForm.
C.A.R. Quick Guide of Industry Guidelines for Open Houses and Showing Rules >
New Form for Tenants’ Rights Notification
by
C.A.R. has created a new form to assist property managers in complying with a new federal rule issued by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB).
Effective May 3, 2021, the CFPB rule requires attorneys and agents of landlords or owners of residential property (“debt collectors”) to provide written notice to tenants of their rights under the federal Center for Disease Control (CDC) eviction moratorium.
Previously, no notice of the CDC eviction moratorium was required to be given to a tenant. Now, in certain circumstances, it is.
The name of the new form is “CFPB Disclosure of Potential Eviction Protections” (Form CFPB) and is bundled with the following C.A.R. forms:
PRQ-CPP-2
PRQ-TP-2
PMC-CPP-2
PMC-TP-2
NTT-CTRA
Anytime any of these forms are used, the new CFPB form will automatically be included.
Under the CFPB rule, attorneys and agents, seeking to evict tenants for non-payment of rent, must provide tenants who may have rights under the CDC order with clear and conspicuous written notice of those rights. The notice must be provided on the same date as the termination notice, for example, the notice must be provided at the time a notice to pay rent or quit is given.
A federal judge vacates the national CDC eviction moratorium
A federal judge this week struck down the CDC moratorium on evictions enacted by Congress last spring and extended by President Biden until June 30. Regardless of the enforceability of the federal CDC order, California’s own rent moratorium laws will protect most tenants from eviction based upon non-payment of rent. California state courts have discretion to follow this ruling and may choose to disregard the CDC eviction moratorium. See the NY Times article: “Judge Vacates National Eviction Freeze.”
Given this new decision, why then is the new CFPB form necessary? The reason is that a federal district court decision, even one as far-reaching as this most recent one, is not binding authority on a California state court. It is merely influential authority which may be considered but need not be followed. In any event, the ruling is technically stayed at this moment. Finally, the ruling is already being appealed, and the outcome of that appeal is of course unknown. So conservative risk management dictates that the new notice to tenants of their rights under the CDC Order be provided.
Keep in mind, even without the CDC eviction moratorium, California tenants are protected from most evictions for non-payment of rent or other monetary obligations based upon California’s own strongly protective rent moratorium laws. Other local eviction moratoriums may also apply to protect tenants from eviction.
| Read on car.org >
| See C.A.R.’s Q&A “Eviction Moratorium Extension and State Rental Assistance Program — SB 91” >
| See the CFPB’s news release clarifying tenants can hold debt collectors accountable for illegal evictions >
NAR Needs Like-Kind Exchange Stories
by
Recent proposals to repeal or limit the 1031 like-kind exchange could devastate the commercial real estate sector and investment in communities across the United States.
From affordable housing providers, to small businesses, to farmers, 1031 has been used by a range of Americans since its creation 100 years ago.
C.A.R. needs your help to educate lawmakers and their staff about 1031s. It is not a tax loophole for the wealthy; it is a tax tool that has brought immeasurable revenue, jobs, investment, and economic benefit to the U.S.
Complete C.A.R.’s form to tell NAR about how you used 1031 to bring development and economic benefit to your community. Your stories will help put a human face on a critical issue for commercial real estate.
Red Alert: C.A.R. Opposes AB 854 Ellis Act Restrictions
by
C.A.R OPPOSES AB 854 (Lee and Carrillo), which forces property owners to stay in the rental housing business for at least five years. AB 854 is an outrageous attack on private property rights, effectively allowing government to seize property by dictating its use and disproportionately harming small rental property owners who are seniors or individuals of color. AB 854 is on the Assembly floor and may be considered for a vote before Friday, January 28.
ACTION ITEM:
Residents of Concord, Pleasant Hill,
Clayton, Martinez, Bay Point, and Crockett contact Grayson’s office by calling:
Email: [email protected]
or
Call: 916-319-2014
Ask your Assemblymember to vote NO on AB 854.
ISSUE BACKGROUND:
In 1985, C.A.R. successfully sponsored the Ellis Act, which prevents local governments from prohibiting property owners from going out of business.
AB 854 will erode the Ellis Act by severely restricting the ability of property owners to take rental units off the market unless every owner of that rental property has owned the property for at least FIVE consecutive years. This effectively forces property owners to remain in the rental housing business even if they are losing money or need to reclaim their property to bring in their extended family.
C.A.R. IS OPPOSING AB 854 BECAUSE:
AB 854 forces housing providers to stay in business even when they can’t afford to do so and are losing money. The pandemic has created an extremely challenging environment for small housing providers, many of whom have not received rent in over a year. Furthermore, the supply chain and labor problems pushing up prices of basic goods has had an enormous impact on maintenance and repair costs. Even if the losses are considerable, this bill forces the small housing provider to stay in business even if they could end up risking foreclosure or having to take out more debt.
Prevents owners from moving in their extended family including elderly or ailing family members. AB 854 interferes with a property owner’s immediate need to move an elderly or ill family member into a unit. Consider if a family owns and resides in a small four-unit building and purchased it two years ago and now needs to move in an aging relative or other relatives facing economic hardships. Under AB 854, they would now have to wait five years total to start the process to do so.
There are already ample protections in place for tenants. Under current law, local governments in rent control jurisdictions generally require property owners to pay renters relocation fees. For example, in San Francisco in 2021, a property owner was required to pay EACH displaced tenant $7,230.41 with an additional $4,820.26 if the tenant was elderly or disabled. This amount is adjusted yearly based on CPI. Under the Ellis Act, property owners must also give tenants a minimum of 120 days to vacate the property. If the tenant is elderly or disabled, they must be given a full year’s notice.
QUESTIONS?
Please email C.A.R. at [email protected].
- « Go to Previous Page
- Go to page 1
- Interim pages omitted …
- Go to page 3
- Go to page 4
- Go to page 5
- Go to page 6
- Go to page 7
- Interim pages omitted …
- Go to page 9
- Go to Next Page »