State Specific Question About: CALIFORNIA (CA)

Tenant just found out she's pregnant and requesting attic be cleaned and sanitized for the baby, even though the previous rat issue was from a year ago and professionally dealt with.

CA law requires landlord to maintain living quarters in habitable condition including:

"Building, grounds, and appurtenances at the time of the commencement of the lease or rental agreement, and all areas under control of the landlord, kept in every part clean, sanitary, and free from all accumulations of debris, filth, rubbish, garbage, rodents, and vermin."

If the property lacks any of these affirmative characteristics, then landlord is clearly liable. Short of these rules, if a tenant can convince a judge that the condition of the premises warrants some other condition, then a judge MIGHT consider that it falls under the title of "untenantable".

Untenantability issues are a landlord expense.

"Unless it is a single family tenant shouldnt have access to an attic.I would tell her to go ahead and clean it at her expense"

The lease should define the rental premises.

And, if tenant doesn't have access to the attic, then "Building, grounds, and appurtenances at the time of the commencement of the lease or rental agreement, and all areas under control of the landlord" are required to be kept tenantable (at landlord expense).

No

Tenants don't need to live in the attic. Habitability (CA and elsewhere) includes: "Building, grounds, and appurtenances ... and all areas under control of the landlord" must be habitable.

If she has any reason to need cleaning and sanitizing, and its not the tenants' fault, then its the landlord's duty to pay the cost.

First of all, is the attic habitable? If it is, then cleaning should be sufficient. I would doubt there is any requirement for "professional" or "sanitized", but I'm not on the left coast so I don't know what crazy laws you may have. To be habitable, it must have a 2ndary egress (window or door) in addition to the permanent stairs (no fold-down's). If it's not habitable then no need to spend effort cleaning.

Also, why $2500, that seems outrageous. A cleaning lady for half a day with a vacuum and a spray bottle of disinfectant shouldn't cost $100.

Thank you all for your responses, I greatly appreciate you taking your time to respond.

I was thinking the same thing that tenant should over this cost as the attic is not part of the "habitable" space and access requires climbing a ladder to crawl through ceiling.

Where did you get the idea that the attic is not part of the "habitable" space? Read the law again.

You may disagree (in front of a judge) about the need for such cleaning and/or sanitizing, and about just what work needs to be done, but I am afraid that a judge won't give you ANY DISCRETION WHATSOEVER about the attic not being included in the area that needs to be habitable.

The tenant can have the work done herself and sue you in Small Claims Court (and win), she can withhold rent to pay for the tenantability work (and defeat any eviction claim), or she can move out without advance notice despite any lease term, without any recourse to remaining rent. I'm not sure that she wouldn't be successful to bill you for temporary housing.

You may want to get a statement from her about what cleaning & sanitizing she actually thinks is necessary and why it is necessary.

Is there any reason that tenant should ever need to go in attic? For instance, are mechanicals in the attic where tenant might need to change filters?

My attics Only have 'fluffy stuff' up there, and if I found out my tenants were going in the attic, I'd likely give them notice to vacate. And, No, I am not going to 'sanitize' the insulation. Unless there is a proper floor up there, tenants should not be up there. None of mine have floors. AND, if there is a floor, if there is open contact with insulation, I would also keep tenants out of there, even if it meant moving mechanicals.

Would it be allowable to screw attic scuttle shut, then caulk the seam? Or, perhaps just leave attic scuttle closed, mine close simply by gravity ( board held up by cleats around perimeter of opening.) so, I could just use the weatherization caulk. That's the temporary caulk that is great for caulking around window air conditioners, as it pulls right off when the a/c comes out of the window for the season. That type of caulk can easily be pulled off if access is needed. Just loosen an end, and it all pulls off easily.

I suspect there's a lot more to this story. Please elaborate more as we're not mind-readers.

"I'd tell her politely that the attic is not habitable space ..."

Does the attic need to be "habitable space"? You've read the law.

OK, sounds like, in Cali, whether attic is habitable space or not doesn't matter; it is that tenant has ACCESS to that space. Another reason ( besides energy efficiency) to keep mechanicals out of attic, so attic can be closed off to tenant access.

Boy, Cali landlords must be incredibly busy, what with keeping grounds sanitary. That must take some doing, given that a mere teaspoon of soil has billions of fungi, bacteria, protozoa, nematodes. Or, have all y'all killed your soils, so none of this exists. Having to maintain the grounds and appurtenances sanitary... boy, do you have to go pick up the bird poop off the 'grounds and appurtenances' too?

Cooldrop, If it were me handling this, I WOULD go make some effort to clean/seal off the area of concern. When Mama gets pregnant, she goes into overdrive to make her space safe for baby. That's just good mothering. It will be helpful for her to see that ' something' has been done. However, I cannot , for the life of me, figure out how someone can ' sanitize' attic insulation, WITHOUT causing that ' contaminated' insulation to get airborne and spread through the living spaces. Oh, sure, companies have big trucks, with powerful vacuums, and long, long hoses, but does anyone SERIOUSLY think they fully, completely clean and 'sanitize' those hoses between jobs? My approach would be focused on SEALING OFF areas, to prevent cross-contamination. I'd probably start with making a show of putting an expensive 'allergy' filter on the HVAC system. Of, course, I know NOTHING about Cali climate, so, you may not have any forced-air systems that use a filter, so, this might'nt be your first action.

Frankly, Busy, your sarcasm is overwhelmed by your ignorance of landlord/tenant responsibilities outside of your own small jurisdiction.

The purpose of warranties of habitability and health and safety codes is to ensure that citizens have safe and healthy places to live, and not for the convenience of the landlord. Looking at WI code shows about the weakest protection of citizens that I have ever seen. Evidently, WI doesn't care much about habitability standards for its citizens.

But our subject here is "habitable space" (if there is such a thing). In that case, WI law says "landlord has a duty to do all of the following: 1. Keep in a reasonable state of repair portions of the premises over which the landlord maintains control." If WI has Health & Safety codes regulating vermin control, then any violation of that code would constitute unreasonable state of repair.

So, in WI, if there is any violation of health & safety code regarding vermin, then IF LANDLORD MAINTAINS CONTROL OF THE ATTIC then his property is in a state uninhabitability, which is covered by an IMPLIED warranty of habitability, and in WI, that says:

"if there is a substantial violation ... materially affecting the health or safety of the tenant, the tenant may remove from the premises unless the landlord proceeds promptly to repair or rebuild or eliminate the health hazard or the substantial violation of sub. (2) materially affecting the health or safety of the tenant; or the tenant may remove if the inconvenience to the tenant by reason of the nature and period of repair, rebuilding, or elimination would impose undue hardship on the tenant. If the tenant remains in possession and the condition materially affects the health or safety of the tenant or substantially affects the use and occupancy of the premises, rent abates to the extent the tenant is deprived of the full normal use of the premises."

I don't know what your educational background is, but it seems clear to me that, except for the reason that the tenant wants the cleaning and sanitizing, if it is any good reason at all, then in WI, landlord MUST provide that maintenance.

This is the weakest legal habitability statute I have ever seen.

Moshe, I think the definition of "habitable" varies by state, and I know nothing about CA laws...but...

Most definitions I see indicate that habitable means spaces that are for "living, cooking, eating". A few definitions add "storing items" to that list. I don't understand how most attics fit that definition. Maybe CA has a more specific definition...and it appears so based on the quote you posted...so perhaps the OP should consult clarification from a CA LL/tenant attorney.

can you tell me where you got the quote below? I'm just trying to understand where that applies and where the quote came from.

Ack! I just picked up a dead shrew in my vegetable garden by its tail. How much sanitation must I do the make the grounds habitable? And, should I pour bleach on my fingers to sanitize?

Maybe we midwesterners are expected to have some common sense, so don't need such laws. Or, maybe its just survival of the fittest here. Either way, I just washed my hands after I put the cute little shrew in a recycled plastic bag and into the trash bin. Nothing further needed. Now, if the shrew died because some idjit was sprinkling rat bait everywhere, then I'd have a concern. So, I'll watch for more dead shrews, lest my dogs or very young grandkids should get hold of such.

Moshe, I'm certainly not saying a landlord doesn't have to maintain standards. But, the standard this tenant is expecting wouldn't be reasonable in my perspective. One dead rat means pay attention to how garbage is disposed, check for holes, use bait very carefully, if at all, check for pet foods outside, or bird feeders. But, no, pulling insulation out of an attic to sanitize the attic is a complete waste of resources. Sealing off airflow between living spaces and attic spaces IS REASONABLE in my estimation, but mostly for energy savings.

Yes, rats can harbor disease, but so do birds, raccoons, and other wildlife. AND, if we WANT a healthy planet, we NEED the Small Things That Run The World.

"habitable means spaces that are for "living, cooking, eating""

Merriam-Webster says "capable of being lived in : suitable for habitation".

Cambridge Dictionary says "providing conditions that are good enough to live in or on"

URLTA (Uniform Landlord-Tenant Act requires that Landlord "Make all repairs and do whatever necessary to keep the premises in a habitable condition"

I heard that every state in USA except for Arkansas includes an implied warranty of habitability in their statutes. CA substitutes the word "untenantable", but it means the same thing. The "implied" means that the warranty exists in your lease EVEN THOUGH its not written there (or denied here). Its usually treated VERY seriously by te judges. If its not habitable, then its against the law. Habitability issues are at landlord expense.

Busy,

So DON'T clean and sanitize the attic and see what happens?

A few of us landlords don't take such hard positions on issues like this (but only a few).

CoolDrop should talk more with her tenant and see just exactly what she wants and what she wants to accomplish. If she just wants to be sure that everything would be good for the baby, then perhaps a disinfectant spray (or something else simple) would make her happy (and thus making YOU happy, right). If she has a good reason to need or want something, then you ought to do it and right away. The cost is commensurate with the task, and should not be a factor. Don't be stingy. Landlords have made so much money in the last few years, it is greedy to fight over such nickels and dimes.

You want to claim that midwesterners are expected to have some common sense, but I think that, except for the big city (there's only one) they qualify as backwards. WI law on habitability is one exhibit.

Yes, if it has hot & cold running water, watertight roof & windows, clean, free of vermin 7 mold, plumbing, gas and electrical & mechanical in good working order, and all of the other things that a good, considerate state requires of a living space. Just because its an attic doesn't make it uninhabitable. Whether anyone would WANT to live there, is a different story.

Moishe, what you described is NOT an attic, but is a CONVERTED attic. Big, big difference.

Here, where weather hits temps well below zero, no matter which scale you use, an attic is the space where we keep fluffy stuff. Lots and Lots of fluffy stuff. Fiberglass, rockwool, cellolose, vermiculite, open-cell foam, closed -cell foam, even shredded and treated blue jeans. Then there is a chimney that pokes through all the way down from basement where the mechanicals reside, up through the roof, an drain waste event pipe, and some electrical junction boxes and wires. And that is pretty much it. No floor, no drywall, no electric switches, no running water. No boxes of Christmas or Channukah ornaments. No windows, though maybe a gable end vent or two.

Back yards are part of the grounds but are not living spaces. Pugh vs Holmes back in '79 outlines warranty of habitability. Just because someone access to the space doesn't mean that space is up to code nor passing the warranty of habitability.

What I am talking about is, what part of the property is landlord responsible for habitability standards. CA cares (maybe more than other states) about living standards for everyone, and our laws reflect that.

So what part of the property is landlord responsible for? "Building, grounds, and appurtenances and and all areas under control of the landlord". That would include attics. All of those spaces must be habitable. Actually, to avoid confusion, CA labels those uninhabitable spaces as "untenantable" and sets good standards for what is and what is not untenantable. In addition to usual standards, CA code also includes Building & Safety codes plus Health code.

Some landlords, especially in L.A. complain about, not the standards, but the inspection procedures. They are, of course, a nuisance, but a very positive step toward insuring decent housing stock for citizens of L.A. against unscrupulous slumlords. I'm not in L.A.

I would think we're definitely talking about an inhabitable place. After all, there's no flooring, just ceiling joists and insulation on the "floor." If a tenant doesn't stand on the joists, they'll fall through the drywall on the ceiling below. How is this a habitable area?

Once it's clean, won't the rats just poop in there all over again? Will this be an annual event? And who's attic is sanitary anyway?

This is a first. Never heard of cleaning an attic. Tell the pregnant lady to stay out of the attic. Sounds like pregnancy hysteria like Busy described.

Originally, I was thinking you could setup vents in attic to expel air to create negative attic pressure so dust would only go one way, into attic. But, on reflection, I think this may be dangerous because that same negative pressure would suck up a fire and spread it quickly.

I think I would offer sealing up light fixtures and maybe make sure the attic is well vented so things don't settle. You could also offer to clean the AC vents. Of course none of this is necessary and should be done at their expense.

We're talking about two different things.

In CA, space including attic, has to be habitable (tenantable).

"A dwelling shall be deemed untenantable for purposes of Section 1941 if it substantially lacks any of the following affirmative standard characteristics:

...(h) Floors, stairways, and railings maintained in good repair.

So the attic HAS TO HAVE a floor in CA.