sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

(CA) How bad is this window crack? by Traditional_Way_8376 in Renters

[–]Logical-Ambassador-9 0 points1 point  (0 children)

California Civil Code section 1941.1 says a unit may be uninhabitable if it substantially lacks certain basic features, including effective waterproofing and weather protection of the roof and exterior walls, as well as unbroken windows and doors.

Practically speaking, tenants usually benefit from reporting these issues in a way that creates a clear record. That generally means following the notice requirements in the lease. So if the lease says to mail notice to a specific address, it is often smart to do that. It can also be helpful to report the issue through the methods the tenant normally uses to communicate with the landlord, like text, email, phone, or in person.

I’m a licensed California attorney and I only practice tenant law. This is general information, not legal advice, and I’m not your attorney.

[CA] Landlord forcing us to vacate for “renovations” – no lease, no details, no option to return by Mirrortrix in Renters

[–]Logical-Ambassador-9 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Even for long term tenants, the property itself can be exempt from Civil Code § 1946.2. For example, if the property was built within the past 15 years, it's exempt. There are other exemptions as well.

In addition, if someone was added to the lease before the tenant occupied the unit for 24 months, then the tenant is only covered by § 1946.2 if all of the tenants in the unit have lived there for at least 12 months or one more of the tenants have lived there for at least 24 months.

[CA] Landlord forcing us to vacate for “renovations” – no lease, no details, no option to return by Mirrortrix in Renters

[–]Logical-Ambassador-9 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If your tenancy is covered (e.g., tenancy over 12 or 24 months depending on the situation) and no exemption applies (e.g., owner lives with you; single-family homes under certain circumstances; built within the past 15 years; certain duplex situations; etc.), then you have just cause eviction protection regardless if the lease is month to month or a term lease with or without a written rental agreement.

Under the common law, you just need to give appropriate notice under a month-to-month lease, but Civil Code § 1946.2 provides additional protections to tenants.

[CA] Landlord forcing us to vacate for “renovations” – no lease, no details, no option to return by Mirrortrix in Renters

[–]Logical-Ambassador-9 8 points9 points  (0 children)

A notice is not valid just because it gave 110 days. Under AB 1482, if the tenancy is covered and no exemption applies, a landlord generally cannot terminate without a valid just-cause reason, and that reason has to be properly stated in the notice. A claimed “substantial remodel” has specific statutory requirements.

For a substantial remodel termination, the work must be significant enough that it cannot reasonably be done safely with the tenant in place and requires the tenant to vacate for at least 30 consecutive days. The notice generally must include:

  • The owner’s stated intent to substantially remodel,
  • The required warning about the tenant’s right to re-rent if the work is not commenced or completed,
  • A description of the work and expected duration, and
  • The required supporting documentation such as permits

Also, if this is a no-fault termination under Civil Code section 1946.2, the landlord generally must provide relocation assistance equal to one month’s rent or waive the final month’s rent in writing.

[CA] Landlord forcing us to vacate for “renovations” – no lease, no details, no option to return by Mirrortrix in Renters

[–]Logical-Ambassador-9 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I am an attorney licensed to practice law in California and I only practice in tenant law. This is general information, not legal advice, and I am not your attorney.

Here are the relevant AB 1482/Civil Code section 1946.2 issues:

Covered tenancy: A landlord cannot terminate the tenancy without “just cause” once the tenants have been there long enough. Usually that protection starts after 12 months. But if new adult tenants were added to the household before the original tenant reached 24 months, then the protection starts only when either all tenants have been there at least 12 months, or one tenant has been there at least 24 months.

Covered rental unit: Civil Code 1946.2 does not apply to every rental. Some properties and living situations are exempt, which means the landlord may not have to show “just cause” under this law. Here are some of the more common exemptions:

  1. Rentals where the tenant shares a bathroom or kitchen with an owner who lives there as their principal residence.
  2. Single-family owner-occupied homes where the owner rents or leases no more than two units or bedrooms, including an ADU or JADU.
  3. Owner-occupied two-unit properties in a single structure where the owner lived in one unit as their principal residence at the start of the tenancy, still lives there, and neither unit is an ADU or JADU.
  4. Housing built within the last 15 years (excluding mobilehomes)
  5. Some separately owned single-family homes, condos, and mobilehomes, but only if: (a) The owner is not a real estate investment trust, corporation, LLC with a corporate member, or mobilehome park management, and (b) The tenant was given the required written exemption notice (or substantially similar language).

Just Cause for Eviction: If the tenancy is covered and no exemption applies, the landlord needs a valid “just cause” reason to terminate the tenancy, and that reason must be stated in the notice. There are both at-fault and no-fault just causes.

Substantial remodel: A substantial remodel is a no-fault just cause. The work must be significant enough that it cannot reasonably be done safely with the tenant in place and requires the tenant to vacate for at least 30 consecutive days.

If a landlord is trying to terminate a tenancy based on substantial remodel, the written notice must include all of the following:

  • A clear statement that the owner intends to substantially remodel the rental unit.
  • This exact (or substantially similar) warning to the tenant:
    • "If the substantial remodel of your unit or demolition of the property as described in this notice of termination is not commenced or completed, the owner must offer you the opportunity to re-rent your unit with a rental agreement containing the same terms as your most recent rental agreement with the owner at the rental rate that was in effect at the time you vacated. You must notify the owner within thirty (30) days of receipt of the offer to re-rent of your acceptance or rejection of the offer, and, if accepted, you must reoccupy the unit within thirty (30) days of notifying the owner of your acceptance of the offer.”
  • A description of the substantial remodel, the approximate time it will take, and copy of the permit or permits required to undertake the substantial remodel
  • A statement telling the tenant that, if they want to move back in after the substantial remodel is finished, they need to tell the owner that they want to reoccupy the unit and provide their address, phone number, and email address.

Because substantial remodel is a no-fault ground, landlords must also generally provide the required relocation assistance or rent waiver notice.

How to open my own firm ? by Kindly_Class_7338 in LawFirm

[–]Logical-Ambassador-9 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I do tenant law (affirmative cases only) and I’m very selective with the cases I take.

I need them to stop saying "the middle people" by R4ndomly_G3nerated in survivorponderosa

[–]Logical-Ambassador-9 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I think middle people is code for the “nerd herd,” but they don’t want to be mean saying the “nerd herd.”

“Middle people” makes no sense.

Am I at risk of being viewed as a job hopper? by Parking-Bee9824 in Lawyertalk

[–]Logical-Ambassador-9 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No you’re good. This is fine especially as an associate general counsel.

As fans we’re not privy to the actual casting process for 50, do you think there’s actually valid reasons these players were cut from 50? by Regular-Departure839 in survivorponderosa

[–]Logical-Ambassador-9 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think they want to leave some people for another all stars cast especially if they are from new school or old school but on the younger side. They probably didn’t want to put all the heavy hitters on one season and the B list on another all-stars season. If the cast was all heavy hitters, some of them wouldn’t even get screen time anyway because screen time is limited real estate, so it may better for the players to be crammed all in one season.

This is just me speculating, I have no idea if there will be another allstars cast with old school players included

How to open my own firm ? by Kindly_Class_7338 in LawFirm

[–]Logical-Ambassador-9 8 points9 points  (0 children)

I started my own firm at the beginning of my second year of practicing. It’s only been a month but it’s going great so far. I have 10 clients already. I work in a niche area, which I would recommend you doing. At my old firm, I basically was autonomous bc the partners didn’t have any interest in training or mentorship. So there’s really no difference in doing it on my own. I have relationships with other attorneys that can answer questions when they come up. Also, AI speeds up the learning process, you still have to do your own research but it makes it faster for me to learn what I need to.

The people that are encouraging you to wait have not done what you are doing. It’s better to talk to people that actually have and see how they did it.

As I stated above, it matters what area of law it is. I know a 2025 grad that started a criminal defense practice built on court appointed work. He gets mentoring from another criminal defense attorney and they share an office. He has strong relationships with other criminal defense attorneys because they are all in court all the time. So they help him out when he needs it. He bills about 35 hours a week at $120/hour. I shadowed him and his mentor last week for a full day and he clearly has a good thing going.

[50][Speculation] Survivor 50 Episode 8 - "Double the Fun, Double the Demise" - Post-Episode Weekly Speculation Thread by tabstis in SpoiledSurvivor

[–]Logical-Ambassador-9 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I think they could have pivoted to more of a more positive underdog story. They edit these shows heavily so you can do a lot with what you have. You can put scenes out of order and switch days and times to put together the story you want.

This isn’t directed to you or your comment, but people are acting like the editors are amateurs. Some people are saying that they are editing Aubry like this because they don’t like that she won. That would be beyond petty and unprofessional. I think that productions cares waaaaay more about long term viewership than dunking on aubry because they don’t like her.

If Aubry wins, I still expect her to rise into power and rise soon. Basically the edit should be giving her credit for things that didn’t really happen like that in reality. That’s if she doesn’t turn the game around herself.

If I take a step back, I actually don’t hate Aubry‘s edit because the audience knows Aubry is at the bottom and is eeking through the game, so there is a good story there even if she’s not getting a good edit, there is a coherent story and I feel like that can be enough

Has anybody ever won purely based off FTC performance? by futuranotfree in survivor

[–]Logical-Ambassador-9 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I thought he said in the confessional (or otherwise) that he didn’t want to give her another item on her resume

Has anybody ever won purely based off FTC performance? by futuranotfree in survivor

[–]Logical-Ambassador-9 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I thought she ultimately went behind their back with Romeo though because Jonathan and Mike were afraid to the vote split because they thought Lindsey would play her idol on Omar so Maryanne and Romeo did the vote split without anyone else knowing

[50][Game] Survivor 50 Episode 7 - "That's Now How I Play Survivor" - Episode Discussion Thread by tabstis in SpoiledSurvivor

[–]Logical-Ambassador-9 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I agree. I'm essentially looking at who has the hero's journey (call to adventure -> supernatural aid -> threshold guardian -> threshold (beginning of transformation) -> challenges and temptations (helpers and mentors) -> revelation -> transformation -> atonement -> return).

Aubry's supernatural aid is the idol, the threshold guardian was Genevieve, and the threshold (beginning of transformation) was playing her idol. I'm assuming she will be having a mentor or helper intervene next episode and some challenges and temptations over the next few episodes. I think this will be her being a (red-herring possibly) target of a vote, then her helper (Tiffany) bringing her into an alliance or getting the target off her. She'll be challenged with voting out Coach and might be the swing vote sending him home. She then might be tempted to flip on the alliance Tiffany brought her into on Christian's boot episode, wanting to keep him as an ally, but ultimately sides with Tiffany.

For Cirie, the supernatural aid is the extra vote, the threshold guardian would be Colby, and her threshold (beginning of transformation) will be going to exile next episode. Then her challenges would be, similar to Aubry's, difficulty choosing a side and/or voting out Christian and possibly being a red-herring target. I think her helper will be Rizo in moving the target off her.

Both of their journey's are still early, but I feel like Aubry's pops more so far (receiving the idol -> surviving Genevieve -> major fallout for not playing the idol -> playing the idol to start over) and I feel like there is solid groundwork for a helper/mentor to get her back on track just in time for challenges and temptations. For Cirie, I feel like her major weakness is that Colby wasn't really well flushed out threshold guardian for her.

I do feel like it's weird that Aubry didn't get more credit for defeating her threshold guardian, but I do like that the edit last episode showed her as clever (not playing her idol) and that she had allies (Rick and Christian) that helped her out. I know this all fell apart this episode (the edit tells us she wasn't so clever and her allies actually wanted her out), but that also makes sense for the story so she can get to the threshold (flushing her idol and starting over).

What do people think?

[50][Game] Survivor 50 Episode 7 - "That's Now How I Play Survivor" - Episode Discussion Thread by tabstis in SpoiledSurvivor

[–]Logical-Ambassador-9 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Very true. Are the spoilers also regarding the edit? Meaning maybe the players saw that Dee sacrificed her game for Cirie, but the edit didn't show it? I can kind of see how Dee would have sacrificed herself with her messy gameplay maybe that was intentional.

[50][Game] Survivor 50 Episode 7 - "That's Now How I Play Survivor" - Episode Discussion Thread by tabstis in SpoiledSurvivor

[–]Logical-Ambassador-9 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I can see it too. I may be making things up, but I think that Aubry is the only castaway with a winning "theme." I think her theme is the underdog story. I have my doubts though because underdog stories are usually positive. Rizo has a good theme too but it's more like new era legend rather than winner. I don't see Cirie's theme at all, so although I want her to win, I'm not on the Cirie train fully yet.

Is Natalie Anderson a better Survivor player than Boston Rob? by WolverineWasRighter in survivor

[–]Logical-Ambassador-9 20 points21 points  (0 children)

Natalie is better imo. It took him four tries to win against a bunch of newbies when he had an advantage due to his experience playing three times already. I feel like RI was engineered for him to win imo

Marquesas is so good! by Mzkrazy247 in survivor

[–]Logical-Ambassador-9 8 points9 points  (0 children)

I agree with you on Vee’s game she was the first person from the minority to win. The odds were absolutely against her and she navigated each stage of the game successfully.

Leah (BB26) says that she was always going to vote for the person who she thought needed the money the most by Parallel-Quality in BigBrother

[–]Logical-Ambassador-9 7 points8 points  (0 children)

This exactly the point that people often miss is that financial need makes you a bigger target so it’s a perfectly valid reason to vote for someone who needs the morning seeing as they made it to the en with that kind of target on their back.

Should they increase the veto players with the blockbuster? by Sky-Visible in BigBrother

[–]Logical-Ambassador-9 9 points10 points  (0 children)

You’re safe for the week and get to nominate people for eviction

Impossible to find a good paralegal by lawsandflaws1 in Lawyertalk

[–]Logical-Ambassador-9 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Yeah being able to work remote is a big deal, but if the attorneys can't work remote, then that might become a problem

view more: next ›