On June 12, 2011, I was served an eviction notice by Bank of…
On June 12, 2011, I...
On June 12, 2011, I was served an eviction notice by Bank of America, owner of the foreclosed apartment building in which I live. It gave as its basis an LAHD Order to Comply, which cited the auxiliary building included in my lease, where I house my aquatic exercise tank as being “habitated.” LAHD had received a “complaint,” scheduled an inspection, of which I was not notified, and for which no rep from B of A showed up. Submitted: 6 years ago.Category: Landlord-Tenant
The stood-up inspector, unable to obtain permission to access the unit, looked thorough the window, saw something he couldn’t identify, and issued the Order.to Comply. The B of A lawyers attached this to the Eviction Notice, which stated that I would receive my $9650 relocation assistance upon vacating the auxiliary building and my apartment by Aug. 31..
I hadn’t been given the chance to address the error.
Knowing that my use of the aux bldg was entirely legal, I contacted the inspector, and learned of the re-inspection date, June 16. B of A did notify me of this one, and I was at home. However, the B of A rep sneaked the inspector past me to the aux building. They entered, the inspector saw nothing that violated code, closed the case and off they went, having avoided me entirely.
I learned of the retraction of the “violation” in a telephone conversation with the inspector that afternoon, and therefore I considered the Eviction Notice voided, but early this month, B of A served me with an Unlawful Detainer, still based upon this non-existant Order to Comply. I responded, and now they have scheduled a hearing for March 7..
1) What are they thinking!?
2) Could they surprise me at the trial with something entirely different from the complaint in the Unlawful Detainer
3) If they do surprise me at trial with a new issue, could I be given time to redress it, rather than 5 days to get out?
4) I never received any request or instructions on where and to whom to send rent and haven’t done so for nearly a year. One of my neighbors called their legal office to inquire, after we were informed of the change in ownership, and she was instructed not to pay rent (I can’t prove this). Now I suspect that B of A was foregoing rent to comply with their contention that there was a violation against the building (they used this pretext on another tenant; the same Order to Comply). Neither the Eviction Notice nor the Unlawful detainer mentions nonpayment of rent, although the initial Proof of Service of the change of ownership notification falsely claims that a “demand for payment of rent” was included. I can produce the document. Can this bite me?