Existing law regulates the terms and conditions of residential tenancies, including generally limiting the amount of security that a landlord may demand or receive to an amount or value equivalent to one month's rent, as provided, and allowing a landlord to claim of the security only those amounts as are reasonably necessary for specified purposes. Existing law defines a security for these purposes as any payment, fee, deposit, or charge, including any payment, fee, deposit, or charge, except as specified, that is imposed at a tenancy's beginning to reimburse a landlord for costs associated with processing a new tenant or that is imposed as an advance payment of rent, used for any purpose. Existing law requires a landlord to provide a tenant a copy of an itemized statement, as specified, and return the security's remaining portion to the tenant by personal delivery or by first-class mail, postage prepaid, no later than 21 calendar days after the tenant has vacated the premises, as specified. Existing law authorizes a landlord and tenant to mutually agree to have the landlord deposit electronically the security's remaining portion to a bank account or other financial institution designated by the tenant or provide a copy of the itemized statement to an email account provided by the tenant. This bill would revise these provisions to generally require the landlord to return the security by personal delivery or by check made payable to the tenant. If the landlord received the security or rental payments from the tenant electronically, the bill would instead require the landlord to return the remainder of the security electronically, as specified, unless the landlord and tenant designated another method of return, by written agreement. If the landlord received the security or rental payments from the tenant electronically, the bill would require the landlord to notify the tenant in writing of the tenant's right to receive the security electronically pursuant to these provisions, as specified. The bill would also instead authorize the landlord and tenant to mutually agree, as specified, to provide the itemized statement by either email to an email account provided by the tenant or mail by first-class mail, postage prepaid, to an address provided by the tenant. If multiple adult tenants reside in the unit, the bill would require the landlord to return the remainder of the security by a check made payable to all adult tenants, as specified, and provide the itemized statement by personal delivery or first-class mail, postage prepaid, to any one of the adult tenants chosen by the landlord, unless the landlord and all adult tenants, at the commencement of the tenancy or at any time during or after the tenancy, enter into a mutual written agreement containing specified provisions.
Existing law authorizes a tenant to provide a landlord with 180-day written notice, as specified, that the tenant, household member, or immediate family member, as defined, was a victim of an act of domestic violence, sexual assault, stalking, human trafficking, abuse of an elder or a dependent adult, or of other specified crimes, and that the tenant intends to terminate the tenancy. Existing law prohibits a landlord from, due to the termination, requiring a tenant who terminates a lease or rental agreement to forfeit any security deposit money or advance rent paid. This bill would require a landlord to pay a calculated share of the security deposit, as provided, to the tenant who terminated tenancy according to the above-described provisions if there are multiple tenants on the lease and a tenant states in their written notice that they are terminating tenancy because another tenant committed the specified crime. The bill would require any tenants remaining on the lease to pay the calculated share of the security deposit to the landlord no later than 14 days after the landlord delivers payment to the tenant who terminated tenancy, and would provide that the remaining tenants are jointly and severally liable for the calculated share of the security deposit.
Existing law requires the lessor of a building intended for the occupation of human beings, in the absence of an agreement to the contrary, to put the building into a condition fit for that occupation and to repair all subsequent dilapidations thereof that render it untenantable, except as specified. Existing law describes the affirmative standard characteristics that, if lacking, make a dwelling untenantable. Existing law requires a city or county that receives a complaint from a tenant, resident, or occupant that a building contains lead hazards or is substandard to perform an inspection of the building or portion thereof intended for human occupancy, document any violations, advise the owner or operator of each violation and of each action that is required to be taken to remedy the violation, and schedule a reinspection to verify correction of the violations, as specified. This bill would authorize the landlord of a dwelling unit to elect to have an inspection performed to verify that the dwelling unit satisfies the habitability requirements described above before it is made available for hire. Because the bill would require local agencies to provides additional services, it would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would establish a presumption that, if the landlord has an inspection performed showing no violation of the habitability requirements, the dwelling unit meets that standard for an unspecified period of time. If a tenant makes the landlord aware of a dilapidation of the premises during that time, the bill would provide the landlord an unspecified period of time in which to cure or correct the dilapidation, during which period the landlord would not be deemed to be in violation of the habitability requirements described above. The bill would authorize a local agency that performs an inspection at the request of a landlord to charge the landlord a fee sufficient to cover its cost in providing the inspection. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
(1) Existing law prohibits the owner of a residential real property from terminating a tenancy without just cause, as defined, after a tenant has continuously and lawfully occupied a residential real property for 12 months. Among other residential real properties or residential circumstances, existing law exempts from these provisions a residential real property, including a mobilehome, that is alienable separate from the title to any other dwelling unit if the owner meets specified criteria and the tenants have been provided a specified written notice of the exemption. Existing law repeals these provisions on January 1, 2030. This bill would revise these provisions by removing the exemption for separately alienable residential real property and, instead, only exempting a mobilehome if the above-described criteria are met. The bill would delete the January 1, 2030, repeal date, thereby extending these provisions indefinitely. (2) Existing law prohibits an owner of residential real property, except as specified, from increasing over the course of any 12-month period the gross rental rate for a dwelling or a unit more than 5% plus the percentage change in the cost of living, or 10%, whichever is lower, of the lowest gross rental rate charged for that dwelling or unit at any time during the 12 months prior to the effective date of the increase, as specified. This bill would reduce the permissible gross rental rate increase under these provisions to the lesser of 2% plus the percentage change in the cost of living, or 5%. Among other residential real properties, existing law exempts from these provisions a residential real property that is alienable separate from the title to any other dwelling unit, including a mobilehome, if the owner meets specified criteria and the tenants have been provided a specified written notice of the exemption. This bill would revise these provisions by removing the exemption for separately alienable residential real property and, instead, only exempting a mobilehome if the above-described criteria are met. Existing law repeals these provisions on January 1, 2030. This bill would delete the January 1, 2030, repeal date, thereby extending these provisions indefinitely. (3) Notwithstanding the above-described gross rental rate increase prohibition, existing law, upon the expiration of rental restrictions, as defined, authorizes the owner of affordable housing units that meet certain requirements to establish the initial rental rate for the unit, and also authorizes the owner of an assisted housing development who demonstrates compliance with certain requirements under penalty of perjury to establish the initial unassisted rental rate for units in the assisted housing development. Existing law repeals these provisions on January 1, 2030. This bill would remove the January 1, 2030, repeal date, thereby extending the initial rental rate authorizations indefinitely. By extending provisions that require the owner of an assisted housing development to demonstrate compliance with specified requirements under penalty of perjury, the bill would impose a state-mandated program. (4) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
Existing law requires a mortgage servicer to comply with applicable federal guidance regarding borrower options following a forbearance relating to the COVID-19 emergency. This bill would authorize a borrower who is experiencing financial hardship that prevents the borrower from making timely payments on a specified residential mortgage loan due directly to the wildfire disaster described in the proclamation of a state of emergency issued by Governor Gavin Newsom on January 7, 2025, or the federally declared disaster, declared on January 8, 2025, related to the Eaton Wildfire, the Palisades Fire, and the Straight-line Winds, to request forbearance on their residential mortgage loan, as prescribed. The bill would limit eligibility for that forbearance to loans that are secured by residential real property improved by 4 or fewer residential units. The bill would require the borrower to affirm that they are experiencing a financial hardship due to the wildfire disaster. Because the bill would expand the crime of perjury, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would, except as specified, require a mortgage servicer to offer mortgage payment forbearance of a period of up to an initial 90 days, which shall be extended at the request of the borrower in 90-day increments, up to a maximum forbearance period of 12 months. The bill would also prohibit a mortgage servicer from assessing any late fees to the borrower's account or charging a default rate of interest during the forbearance period. The bill would provide that the forbearance period includes any period of forbearance related to the wildfire disaster that a mortgage servicer has provided to a borrower before the effective date of these provisions. The bill would require a mortgage servicer to report the credit obligations of borrowers under a disaster-related forbearance plan in compliance with the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act. For accounts granted disaster-related mortgage payment relief, the bill would prohibit mortgage servicers from furnishing information during the forbearance period indicating that the payments are in forbearance and would require them to report the credit obligation or account as current or delinquent, as specified. The bill would prohibit a mortgage servicer from initiating any judicial or nonjudicial foreclosure process, moving for a foreclosure judgment or order of sale, or executing a foreclosure-related eviction or foreclosure during the period of forbearance. This bill would require the Department of Financial Protection and Innovation to post specified information on its website including links to the provisions of servicing guidelines pertaining to disaster-related forbearance relief for federally backed loans and a dedicated telephone number for borrowers seeking assistance. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
Existing law establishes procedures relating to an action for unlawful detainer, and sets timelines regarding the filing of a complaint and the defendant's response, including a demurrer or motion to strike, as specified. The hearing on such a motion is required to occur within 5 to 7 court days after its filing, unless good cause is shown, in which case the hearing may occur on a later date on notice prescribed by the court. This bill would instead limit the court's authority to set a later hearing for a noticed motion. The bill would permit the court to order the hearing held on a later date upon the written stipulation of the parties or upon good cause shown in the case of a residential or commercial tenancy, not to exceed 10 court days after the first date set for a hearing on the motion in the case of a commercial tenancy.
Existing law prohibits an agency from disclosing personal information that would link the information to the individual unless, among other things, the information is provided to a governmental entity by law, or the disclosure is to the individual to whom the information pertains. Existing law makes vital records related to adoptions, other than a newly issued birth certificate, available only upon the order of the superior court of the county of residence of the adopted child or of the county granting the order of adoption. This bill would authorize, beginning on July 1, 2028, the disclosure of an original birth certificate, as defined, to an adopted person, or descendant, as defined, of a deceased adopted person, would require the State Registrar to provide a copy of the original birth certificate to those persons, and would establish a process to request an original birth certificate, as specified. The bill would also require the State Registrar to create and make available to a birth parent a contact preference form on or before July 1, 2028, containing certain elections that would be available for release when a request for an original birth certificate is made. Existing law requires the clerk of the court to report the decree to the State Registrar within 5 days after a decree of adoption. Existing law requires the State Registrar to generate a new birth certificate when the State Registrar receives a report of adoption from a specified court or when the State Registrar receives a specified court order. Existing law requires the new birth certificate to bear certain information and be identical to the certificate issued to the natural parents, except, when requested by the adopting parents, the certificate is required to omit the facility of birth and the race and color of the parents. This bill would remove the adopted parents exception described above that required the certificate to omit the facility of birth and the race and color of the parents. Existing law authorizes the adopting parents to request an amended certificate that omits, among other things, the city and county of birth, or the color and race of the parents. This bill would repeal that authorization.
Existing law, the Mobilehome Residency Law, governs tenancies in mobilehome parks and includes provisions that are applicable to those who have an ownership interest in a subdivision, cooperative, or condominium for mobilehomes, or a resident-owned mobilehome park, as specified. Among other things, these provisions set forth the rights of residents and homeowners regarding the use of the property. Existing law exempts the rental of certain mobilehome spaces by a homeowner, if the mobilehome space is not the principal residence of the homeowner and the homeowner has not rented the mobilehome to another party, from any ordinance, rule, regulation, or initiative measure adopted by any city, county, or city and county, that establishes a maximum amount that the landlord may charge a tenant for rent, as specified. This bill would, instead, apply that exemption to the rental of a mobilehome space that is not used as permanent housing, as defined, by the homeowner or an approved tenant, except as specified. Existing law provides that, for purposes of the above provisions, a mobilehome is deemed to be the principal residence of the homeowner unless a review of state or county records demonstrate otherwise, as specified. Existing law provides that before modifying the rent or other terms of tenancy as a result of learning that the mobilehome space is not the principal residence of the homeowner through the above-described review, the management, as defined, shall notify the homeowner, in writing, of the proposed changes and provide the homeowner with a copy of the documents upon which management relied. Existing law prohibits management from modifying the rent or other terms of tenancy as described above if the homeowner provides documentation reasonably establishing that the information provided by management is incorrect or that the homeowner is not the same person identified in the documents, as specified. This bill would, instead, provide that before modifying the rent or other terms of tenancy as a result of learning that the mobilehome space is not used as permanent housing as described above, the management shall notify the homeowner, as specified, and shall provide the homeowner with an explanation of its determination and a copy of the documents upon which management relied in making its determination. The bill would, instead, prohibit management from modifying the rent or other terms of tenancy as described above if the homeowner provides a statement refuting management's claim that the mobilehome is not being used as permanent housing as described above. The bill would, in that regard, create a rebuttable presumption in favor of the homeowner's statement.
The Personal Income Tax Law authorizes various credits against the taxes imposed by that law, including a credit for qualified renters in the amount of $120 for spouses filing joint returns, heads of household, and surviving spouses if adjusted gross income is $50,000, as adjusted, or less, and in the amount of $60 for other individuals if adjusted gross income is $25,000, as adjusted, or less. Existing law requires the Franchise Tax Board to annually adjust for inflation these adjusted gross income amounts. For 2024, the adjusted gross income limit is $52,421 and $104,842, respectively. Existing law establishes the continuously appropriated Tax Relief and Refund Account in the General Fund and provides that payments required to be made to taxpayers or other persons from the Personal Income Tax Fund are to be paid from that account. This bill, for taxable years beginning on or after January 1 of the taxable year that includes the date on which funding is first authorized for purposes of this bill and for the succeeding 4 taxable years, and only when specified in a bill relating to the Budget Act, would extend the above-described renter's credit to spouses filing joint returns, heads of household, and surviving spouses if adjusted gross income is $150,000, as adjusted, or less, and for other individuals if adjusted gross income is $75,000, as adjusted, or less. The bill would also increase the credit amount for those years to $2,000 for spouses filing joint returns, heads of households, and surviving spouses and $1,000 for other individuals. In the event the increased credit amount is not specified in a bill relating to the Budget Act, the existing credit amounts and adjusted gross income limits, as described above, would be the credit amounts and adjusted gross income limits for that taxable year. The bill would require the Franchise Tax Board to annually recompute the credit amount and the increased adjusted gross income limits for inflation for taxable years following the first year in which the increased credit is operative, except as provided. The bill, for credits allowable for taxable years in which the above-described increased credit is operative, would provide that the credit amount in excess of the qualified renter's liability would be refundable and paid from the Tax Relief and Refund Account to the qualified renter upon appropriation by the Legislature. Existing law requires any bill authorizing a new tax credit to contain, among other things, specific goals, purposes, and objectives that the tax credit will achieve, detailed performance indicators, and data collection requirements. The bill would provide findings and declarations relating to the goals, purposes, and objectives of this credit. This bill would take effect immediately as a tax levy.
The Insurance Rate Reduction and Reform Act of 1988, an initiative measure enacted by Proposition 103, as approved by the voters at the November 8, 1988, statewide general election, prohibits specified insurance rates from being approved or remaining in effect that are excessive, inadequate, unfairly discriminatory, or otherwise in violation of the act. Under the act, rates and premiums for automobile insurance are determined based on specified factors, including the insured's driving safety record. Existing law authorizes the provisions of Proposition 103 to be amended by a statute that furthers the purposes of the act and is enacted by the Legislature with a 23 vote. This bill, the Consumer Driving Data Protection Act of 2026, would authorize a consumer to opt to use telematics to establish their driving record, thus amending Proposition 103. The bill would prohibit the use of telematics data for a purpose other than rating private passenger automobile insurance. The bill would require a rate application under which telematics would be used to establish an insured's driving record to include specified materials related to the insurer's telematics program. This bill would prohibit an insurer that uses telematics from taking specified actions, including conditioning eligibility for a discount upon participation in a telematics program, unless the discount is approved by the commissioner. The bill would also set forth written consent and privacy requirements for the collection and use of telematics data. The bill would authorize the commissioner to impose specified penalties for violations of the bill's provisions, including civil penalties and suspension of an insurer's telematics program. This bill would require an insurance provider or third-party vendor to take specified actions with respect to the telematics data, including immediately deleting the data once a rating has been assigned to the consumer and obtaining an express written or electronic signature of a consumer on a notice meeting specified conditions. The bill would additionally prohibit an insurance provider or third-party vendor from keeping the telematics data for longer than 6 months and collecting audio or visual recordings of the occupants of the vehicle or persons outside the vehicle, among other specified prohibitions. The bill would declare that its provisions further the purposes of Proposition 103. Existing constitutional provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest. This bill would make legislative findings to that effect.
