Key Takeaways
- SB 567 took effect April 1, 2024 — amending Civil Code §1946.2(b)(2) to impose strict new requirements on owner move-in and substantial remodel evictions statewide under AB 1482
- The 90-day move-in deadline is mandatory — after the tenant vacates, the qualifying owner or family member must actually occupy the unit within 90 days or the eviction is presumed bad-faith
- 12-month primary residence requirement — the owner must maintain continuous primary residence for at least 12 months after moving in; abandoning earlier triggers liability
- Treble damages for bad-faith evictions — tenants who prove the owner move-in was pretextual can recover three times actual damages, plus attorney fees, under Cal. Civil Code §1946.2(i)
- Written declaration under penalty of perjury is required — landlords must serve a signed declaration with the notice confirming intent and identity of the qualifying person
- Relocation assistance still applies — landlords must pay one month’s rent under AB 1482; local ordinances (Sacramento, LA, SF) may require substantially more
- Substantial remodel evictions also tightened — SB 567 raised the bar for what qualifies as a “substantial remodel” and added documentation requirements
What Is SB 567 and When Did It Take Effect?
Senate Bill 567, signed by Governor Newsom on October 11, 2023, amends California’s Tenant Protection Act of 2019 (AB 1482) to close loopholes that allowed landlords to misuse the owner move-in (OMI) and substantial remodel exceptions to evict long-term tenants without genuine intent to comply. The bill took effect April 1, 2024.
Before SB 567, a landlord could serve an owner move-in notice under Civil Code §1946.2(b)(2)(A), obtain possession of the unit, and then re-rent it at market rate within weeks. Tenants had no practical recourse because the original law imposed no post-vacatur obligations and no meaningful documentation requirements. SB 567 eliminates that loophole by creating enforceable post-vacatur duties, a strict 90-day occupancy deadline, and a treble-damages penalty for violations.
If your property is covered by AB 1482 — any residential unit occupied for 12+ months in a building that is not single-family, not new construction (completed within the last 15 years), and not otherwise exempt — SB 567 now governs every owner move-in and substantial remodel eviction you attempt.
What SB 567 Amends: Civil Code §1946.2(b)(2) in Detail
SB 567 rewrites Civil Code §1946.2(b)(2), which is the provision of AB 1482 that allows no-fault evictions for owner move-in and substantial remodel. The amendments add four new requirements that did not exist before April 1, 2024:
- Mandatory written declaration — the notice must be accompanied by a declaration signed under penalty of perjury identifying the qualifying person and confirming their intent to occupy as a primary residence
- 90-day move-in deadline — the qualifying person must occupy the unit as a primary residence within 90 days after the tenant vacates
- 12-month residency minimum — once moved in, the qualifying person must maintain the unit as their primary residence for at least 12 consecutive months
- Treble damages remedy — a tenant displaced by a bad-faith OMI can now recover three times their actual damages in court, regardless of whether the landlord intended to deceive at the time of service
The “no-fault” label still applies — the tenant has done nothing wrong. But SB 567 makes the landlord affirmatively accountable for what happens after the tenant leaves.
The 90-Day Move-In Requirement
This is the provision most landlords underestimate. Under amended §1946.2(b)(2)(A), after the tenant vacates the unit following an owner move-in notice, the qualifying owner or family member must actually move in and establish primary residence within 90 days.
“Actually move in” is not a paperwork exercise. The statute requires physical occupancy as a primary residence — not storing belongings, not occasional visits, not listing a mailing address. If 90 days pass and no qualifying person has moved in, the law presumes the eviction was in bad faith.
What Counts as “Occupancy”?
California courts look at the totality of circumstances to determine primary residence. Evidence of genuine occupancy includes:
- Updating driver’s license address to the unit
- Changing voter registration to the unit
- Receiving mail and utility bills at the unit
- Evidence of regular overnight stays (utility usage patterns)
- Removing personal property from a prior residence
If a dispute arises and you cannot produce this evidence, you face the presumption of bad faith and the treble-damages exposure that follows.
What Breaks the 90-Day Clock?
The 90 days runs from the date the tenant actually vacates — not the last day of the notice period, not the date the notice was served. If the tenant vacates a week before the notice period expires (not uncommon), the clock starts from that earlier date. Document the exact date the tenant surrenders possession in writing.
Construction delays, remodeling between occupants, family logistics, or a change of plans do not toll the 90-day deadline. If you serve an OMI notice and then discover the qualifying person cannot move in within 90 days, you should withdraw the notice before the tenant vacates and rescind possession — an unsupported OMI eviction after the fact is a treble-damages event.
The 12-Month Primary Residence Requirement
Moving in on Day 89 is not enough. SB 567 requires that the qualifying person maintain the unit as their primary residence for at least 12 consecutive months after taking occupancy. This is codified in amended §1946.2(b)(2)(A).
The 12-month clock runs from the date the qualifying person establishes primary residency, not from when the tenant vacated. If the owner moves in on Day 60 after the tenant leaves, the 12-month residency period begins on that move-in date and runs through Day 60 of the following year.
What Happens if the Owner Leaves Before 12 Months?
If the qualifying person vacates the unit before the 12-month period expires — for any reason except death or disability — the landlord must:
- Offer the unit back to the displaced tenant at the same rent they were paying at the time of the OMI notice, as adjusted for any allowed annual increases under AB 1482
- Pay the tenant’s actual moving costs to return to the unit if the tenant chooses to re-occupy
These obligations arise automatically under §1946.2(b)(2)(A) and do not require a court order. If the landlord instead re-rents the unit to a new tenant at market rate within 12 months of the OMI displacement, the original tenant has a strong treble-damages claim.
Exceptions: Death and Disability
The statute provides one recognized exception to the 12-month requirement: if the qualifying person who moved in dies or becomes physically unable to continue residing in the unit due to medical necessity, the landlord is not required to offer return to the displaced tenant and is not liable for treble damages solely on this basis. However, the landlord should document the medical or death circumstance carefully in case of future disputes.
The Treble Damages Penalty — The Most Critical SB 567 Provision
Civil Code §1946.2(i), as amended by SB 567, establishes the penalty framework for bad-faith owner move-in evictions. This is the provision that transforms SB 567 from an administrative nuisance into a genuine financial risk for landlords who misuse the OMI exception.
When Does the Treble Damages Penalty Apply?
Treble damages apply when:
- The landlord served an OMI notice but the qualifying person did not move in within 90 days of the tenant vacating
- The qualifying person moved in but vacated before 12 months and the landlord did not offer the unit back to the displaced tenant
- The landlord re-rented the unit to a third party within 12 months of the OMI displacement
- The landlord served the OMI notice with no genuine intent to have the qualifying person occupy (demonstrated by subsequent conduct)
- The landlord served the notice but the qualifying person never existed or does not qualify under the statute
Note that the statute does not require proving subjective fraudulent intent at the time the notice was served. A landlord who genuinely intended to move their parent in, but whose parent changed their mind three months later, and who then re-rented the unit at market rate, has committed a treble-damages violation even without initial bad faith.
How Treble Damages Are Calculated
Under §1946.2(i), the tenant is entitled to recover:
- Actual damages — typically defined as the difference between the tenant’s former below-market rent and the market rent the tenant must now pay at a comparable unit, multiplied by the number of months the tenant was displaced or the remaining lease term, whichever is longer
- Three times actual damages — the treble multiplier applies automatically upon a finding of bad faith; the court does not need to find malice or willful fraud
- Reasonable attorney fees and costs — this provision is particularly significant because it enables tenants with modest claims to find capable plaintiff’s attorneys on contingency
- Punitive damages — in egregious cases, courts may award punitive damages in addition to treble damages
A Real Example of Treble Damages Exposure
Consider a Sacramento landlord who evicts a long-term tenant paying $1,400/month under an OMI notice, then re-rents the unit 45 days later at $2,100/month without the owner ever moving in.
| Damage Category | Calculation | Amount |
|---|---|---|
| Rent differential per month | $2,100 − $1,400 | $700/month |
| Actual damages (12 months) | $700 × 12 | $8,400 |
| Treble damages | $8,400 × 3 | $25,200 |
| Relocation assistance (not refunded) | 1 month rent paid to tenant | $1,400 |
| Attorney fees (estimate) | Plaintiff’s counsel contingency claim | $8,000–$15,000 |
| Total Exposure | — | $34,600–$41,600 |
The rent differential continues to accumulate for as long as the tenant remains displaced from a comparable unit. A tenant who had to relocate to a more expensive city or move far from employment can claim an extended displacement period, dramatically increasing actual damages before the treble multiplier is applied.
The Attorney Fee Provision Changes Everything
Before SB 567, tenants harmed by improper OMI evictions often struggled to find attorneys to take their cases because the dollar amounts were modest. The mandatory attorney fee provision under §1946.2(i) eliminates this barrier. Plaintiff’s attorneys can now take OMI bad-faith cases on contingency because a successful outcome generates recoverable fees on top of client damages. This means even a modest bad-faith OMI violation — say, a $500/month rent differential over 12 months = $6,000 actual damages — becomes a $18,000 treble-damages case with $8,000–$12,000 in attorney fees. That case settles.
Who Qualifies as “Owner” Under §1946.2(b)(2)(A)?
Not just anyone can justify an owner move-in eviction. The statute defines the universe of qualifying persons who can trigger the OMI exception. Under Civil Code §1946.2(b)(2)(A), the unit must be intended for occupancy by:
| Qualifying Person | Relationship to Owner | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Owner | The landlord themselves | Must be a natural person, not an LLC or corporation; principal owner if multiple co-owners |
| Spouse | Legal spouse of the owner | Marriage must be legal; common-law relationships may not qualify |
| Domestic partner | Registered domestic partner under California law | Must be registered with the California Secretary of State |
| Children | Owner’s children (including adopted) | Includes adult children; no age restriction |
| Grandchildren | Owner’s grandchildren | Includes adult grandchildren |
| Parents | Owner’s parents | Biological, adoptive, or step-parents who legally occupy that role |
| Grandparents | Owner’s grandparents | Biological or adoptive grandparents |
Critical point: The owner must be a natural person. If title is held by an LLC, a corporation, a trust, or another entity, the OMI exception under AB 1482 is generally unavailable unless the LLC or trust can demonstrate that a natural person qualifies as the “owner” with majority or controlling interest. Courts scrutinize entity-held properties carefully in OMI disputes. If your property is held in an LLC, consult an attorney before serving an OMI notice.
The family relationship must be documented. If you serve an OMI notice claiming your parent will move in, you should be prepared to produce the qualifying person’s birth certificate, your own, or other proof of the relationship. SB 567’s declaration requirement (signed under penalty of perjury) makes false representations about the qualifying person’s identity a criminal exposure in addition to the civil treble-damages risk.
Required Documentation: The Written Declaration
SB 567 adds a new documentation requirement that did not exist before April 1, 2024. At the time you serve the owner move-in notice on the tenant, you must also serve a written declaration signed under penalty of perjury. The declaration must state:
- The name of the qualifying person who intends to occupy the unit
- That person’s relationship to the owner (owner, spouse, domestic partner, child, grandchild, parent, or grandparent)
- A statement that the qualifying person intends to occupy the unit as their primary residence
- A statement that the owner understands the 90-day and 12-month obligations under §1946.2(b)(2)(A)
The declaration is served with the termination notice — not before, not after. A notice served without the accompanying declaration is legally defective and subject to challenge. A defective OMI notice can be challenged in unlawful detainer proceedings, and courts have discretion to dismiss the action or require re-service, restarting the notice clock.
What “Under Penalty of Perjury” Means Practically
Signing a false declaration — for example, naming a parent as the qualifying person when you have no genuine intention of having them move in — is perjury under California Penal Code §118. This is a felony carrying up to four years in state prison. While criminal prosecution for OMI perjury remains rare, the declaration requirement meaningfully deters pretextual evictions by raising the personal stakes for the landlord who signs it.
Keep a copy of the signed declaration and proof of service. If litigation arises, the declaration is your primary evidence of good faith at the time of service.
Notice Requirements for Owner Move-In Evictions
The notice period for an OMI eviction under AB 1482 and SB 567 depends on the length of the tenancy:
| Tenancy Duration | Required Notice Period | Statutory Basis |
|---|---|---|
| Less than 1 year | 30 days | Cal. Civil Code §1946.1(b) |
| 1 year or more | 60 days | Cal. Civil Code §1946.1(c) |
Local ordinances may require longer notice periods. Sacramento’s Measure Q requires 90 days for OMI notices. San Francisco requires 60 days minimum (and longer for protected tenants). Los Angeles’s RSO has its own notice periods for owner move-in that differ from state law. Always check your local ordinance before serving notice — providing only the state minimum in a city that requires more is a defective notice.
What Must the Notice Contain?
A legally compliant SB 567 owner move-in notice must include:
- The termination date (30 or 60 days from service, as applicable)
- The no-fault just cause basis: owner or qualified family member move-in under Civil Code §1946.2(b)(2)(A)
- The name of the qualifying person and their relationship to the owner
- Reference to the relocation assistance obligation and the amount
- The written declaration signed under penalty of perjury (served simultaneously)
Notice may be served by personal delivery, substituted service (posting + mail per CCP §415.20), or first-class mail with extended notice period (add 5 days for mailing per CCP §1013). Certified mail is advisable to establish proof of service dates precisely.
Relocation Assistance Obligations
Owner move-in evictions are no-fault, meaning the tenant has done nothing wrong. California law requires relocation assistance to compensate displaced tenants. The amount depends on which law governs your property.
AB 1482 Baseline: One Month’s Rent
Under Civil Code §1946.2(d), landlords serving an OMI notice under AB 1482 must provide relocation assistance equal to one month’s rent. This can be structured as:
- A payment to the tenant of one month’s rent prior to or on the date of vacatur; or
- A waiver of the last month’s rent (the tenant does not pay the final month)
The amount is based on the rent in effect at the time the notice is served — not the market rate, not the new rent. If rent is $1,600/month, the relocation payment is $1,600.
Local Ordinances: Often Much Higher
Many California cities with local rent control impose substantially higher relocation assistance requirements for OMI evictions. These supersede the AB 1482 baseline:
| Jurisdiction | OMI Relocation Assistance | Additional Requirements |
|---|---|---|
| AB 1482 (statewide) | 1 month’s rent | Baseline for all covered properties |
| Sacramento (Measure Q) | 2 months’ rent minimum; 3 months for seniors, disabled, or families with minor children | 90-day notice required; payment due before or on vacatur |
| Los Angeles (RSO) | 1 month’s rent (base); additional 2 months for seniors, disabled, or tenants with minor children; additional 1 month for low-income tenants | LAHD filing required before notice is served |
| San Francisco (Rent Board) | Sliding scale based on years in unit; can range from $7,600 to $23,000+ for long-term tenants | Rent Board filing and approval required; protected tenant categories have higher minimums |
| Oakland | 3 months’ rent; seniors and disabled tenants receive 4 months | City filing required; re-rental restrictions within 3 years |
| Berkeley | Calculated by ordinance; generally 2–3 months minimum depending on unit size and tenancy length | Berkeley Rent Board has detailed OMI regulations |
Failure to pay relocation assistance is independently actionable. Even if the OMI itself was legitimate, failing to pay the required relocation assistance exposes the landlord to tenant lawsuits for actual damages, civil penalties, and attorney fees under the applicable local ordinance.
How SB 567 Interacts with Local Ordinances
SB 567 sets a statewide floor for OMI eviction restrictions. Local ordinances that impose stricter requirements remain in effect and supersede state law within those jurisdictions. The interaction works as follows:
Sacramento — Measure Q (2022)
Sacramento’s Tenant Protection and Relief Act (Measure Q, effective December 2022) requires 90-day OMI notices (vs. AB 1482’s 60-day minimum) and imposes higher relocation assistance tiers. SB 567’s 90-day move-in and 12-month residency requirements stack on top of Measure Q’s notice and relocation rules. A landlord in Sacramento must comply with both: Measure Q’s 90-day notice period and higher relocation amounts, plus SB 567’s post-vacatur occupancy obligations and declaration requirement.
Los Angeles — Rent Stabilization Ordinance (RSO)
The LA RSO has its own OMI framework with tiered relocation payments and LAHD pre-filing requirements. SB 567 does not displace the RSO — it adds the declaration requirement and the 90-day/12-month post-vacatur obligations as additional compliance layers. A landlord in Los Angeles must comply with the RSO’s pre-notice LAHD filing, the RSO’s relocation schedule, and all SB 567 requirements simultaneously.
San Francisco — Rent Board Rules
San Francisco’s Rent Board has some of the most detailed OMI regulations in the state, including specific procedures for qualified relatives, re-rental bans, and tenant buy-back rights. SF’s rules on the 12-month residency requirement and re-rental restrictions predate SB 567 and are more restrictive. SB 567’s provisions operate as an additional layer; where SF’s rules are stricter, SF’s rules govern. Where SB 567’s rules are stricter (e.g., the explicit treble-damages remedy), SB 567 applies.
Properties Under AB 1482 Only (No Local Ordinance)
For properties in cities without local rent control — Sacramento County unincorporated areas, Stockton, Fresno, San Diego, most of the Inland Empire — the governing framework is AB 1482 as amended by SB 567. These landlords must comply with SB 567’s declaration requirement, 90-day move-in deadline, 12-month residency requirement, and one-month relocation assistance. No additional local layer applies.
Substantial Remodel Evictions: SB 567’s Second Major Change
SB 567 also tightened the “substantial remodel” exception to no-fault just cause under Civil Code §1946.2(b)(2)(D). Before SB 567, landlords could evict tenants claiming a substantial remodel with relatively low documentation thresholds. The amended statute raises the bar significantly.
What Now Qualifies as a Substantial Remodel?
Under SB 567, a substantial remodel must:
- Involve the replacement or substantial modification of structural, electrical, plumbing, or mechanical systems — surface cosmetic work (painting, flooring, cabinet replacement) does not qualify
- Require building permits from the local authority having jurisdiction
- Require the tenant’s unit to be vacant to complete the work — work that can be staged around an occupied tenant does not qualify
- Take at least 30 days to complete (excluding preparatory work)
New Documentation Requirements for Substantial Remodel Evictions
Under amended §1946.2(b)(2)(D), a landlord serving a substantial remodel termination notice must now provide:
- A copy of the building permit (or confirmation the permit application has been filed)
- A description of the scope of work sufficient to demonstrate that structural, electrical, plumbing, or mechanical systems will be replaced or substantially modified
- Confirmation that the work cannot reasonably be completed with the unit occupied
A notice served without these documents is defective. Landlords who serve substantial remodel notices and then fail to begin work promptly, fail to obtain required permits, or complete only cosmetic renovations are exposed to the same treble-damages framework under §1946.2(i) as OMI bad-faith evictions.
The Re-Rental Restriction After Substantial Remodel
Once a substantial remodel eviction is completed and the work is done, the landlord must offer the unit back to the displaced tenant at the same rent they were paying, adjusted for any lawful AB 1482 increases that would have applied during the displacement period. Failure to make this offer before re-renting to a third party is a treble-damages violation.
SB 567 Compliance Checklist for Landlords
Before Serving an Owner Move-In Notice
- Confirm the property is subject to AB 1482 (not exempt as new construction or single-family)
- Confirm the tenancy has lasted at least 12 months (AB 1482 just-cause requirement)
- Confirm the owner is a natural person (LLC/corp-held properties require attorney review)
- Confirm the qualifying person is on the statutory list (owner, spouse, domestic partner, child, grandchild, parent, grandparent)
- Confirm the qualifying person genuinely intends to and is able to move in within 90 days
- Confirm you are prepared to maintain the unit as the qualifying person’s primary residence for 12 months
- Check local ordinance for notice period (30-day, 60-day, or 90-day) and relocation assistance amount
- Check local ordinance for pre-notice filing requirements (LA RSO, SF Rent Board)
- Calculate and set aside the correct relocation assistance amount
- Draft the written declaration signed under penalty of perjury
When Serving the Notice
- Serve the written declaration simultaneously with the termination notice — not before, not after
- Use an authorized service method: personal delivery, substituted service, or first-class mail (add 5 days)
- Document service date with proof of service or certified mail receipt
- Pay or waive relocation assistance before or on the date tenant vacates
- Provide notice in a language the tenant understands if required by local ordinance
After the Tenant Vacates
- Note the exact date the tenant surrenders possession in writing (this starts the 90-day clock)
- Ensure the qualifying person moves in and establishes primary residence within 90 days
- Retain evidence of occupancy: updated driver’s license, voter registration, utility bills, mail at the unit
- Do not re-rent the unit to any third party before the qualifying person has moved in
- Calendar the 12-month residency end date
- If the qualifying person must vacate before 12 months (other than death/disability), offer the unit back to the displaced tenant immediately
- If re-renting after 12 months, do not re-rent before the qualifying person’s primary residency period is complete
Common Mistakes That Trigger Liability Under SB 567
1. Failing to Serve the Declaration With the Notice
Serving a termination notice without the accompanying declaration signed under penalty of perjury is the most common technical defect after April 1, 2024. The notice is defective and can be challenged in court. If the tenant does not challenge it and vacates, the landlord’s exposure shifts: the absence of a declaration is evidence of bad faith that courts consider in treble-damages proceedings.
2. Naming a Non-Qualifying Person
Some landlords name a sibling, cousin, nephew, or unrelated person as the qualifying occupant. None of these relationships are on the statutory list. A notice naming a sibling as the intended occupant fails on its face — there is no valid OMI exception for siblings under §1946.2(b)(2)(A). The eviction is unlawful regardless of any genuine intent to have that person occupy the unit.
3. Letting the 90-Day Deadline Pass
Family circumstances change. The parent who was supposed to move in decides to stay in their current city. The adult child gets a job offer elsewhere. Once you serve the notice and the tenant vacates, the 90-day clock is running. There is no legal mechanism to extend it. If Day 90 passes and no qualifying person has moved in, the presumption of bad faith attaches automatically. At that point, your only options are to immediately move the qualifying person in (late, but better than never) or to contact an attorney about your exposure.
4. Re-Renting the Unit Within 12 Months
This is the most financially damaging mistake. A landlord who evicts a tenant via OMI and then re-rents the unit to a new tenant at market rate 60 or 90 days later — without the qualifying person ever having moved in — has committed a textbook §1946.2(i) violation. The displaced tenant is entitled to treble actual damages from the date of displacement forward, plus attorney fees. The re-rental itself is the evidence of bad faith.
5. Using OMI to Avoid Required Maintenance or Habitability Repairs
Courts scrutinize OMI evictions that follow habitability complaints, repair requests, or tenant organizing activity. Serving an OMI notice within months of a documented habitability dispute creates a retaliatory eviction inference under Civil Code §1942.5. Even if the OMI notice is technically compliant with SB 567’s requirements, the retaliation claim can independently void the eviction and generate additional damages.
6. Substantial Remodel Without Permits or Structural Scope
Serving a substantial remodel notice and then performing cosmetic renovations (painting, new appliances, flooring) without building permits is an independent SB 567 violation. The displaced tenant can sue under §1946.2(i) just as in a bad-faith OMI case. The remodel documentation requirements are not optional — they are elements of a valid notice.
7. Ignoring Local Ordinance Requirements Layered on Top of SB 567
A landlord in Sacramento, Los Angeles, San Francisco, or Oakland who complies with SB 567’s state requirements but ignores local ordinance layers — failing to file with LAHD before service, failing to provide 90 days notice under Measure Q, underpaying relocation assistance — is partially compliant at best. Local ordinance violations carry their own penalty frameworks independent of SB 567. Full compliance requires satisfying both simultaneously.
FAQ: SB 567 and Owner Move-In Evictions in California
Q1: My property is held in an LLC. Can I still do an owner move-in eviction?
A: Probably not under AB 1482/SB 567. The OMI exception under Civil Code §1946.2(b)(2)(A) applies to “owners” intending to occupy the property as a primary residence. Courts have held that LLCs and corporations cannot have a “primary residence” and do not qualify as natural persons for this purpose. If you personally (as a natural person) hold majority or controlling interest in the LLC and your name or the LLC’s operating agreement identifies you as a qualifying owner, some attorneys argue the exception can still apply — but this is legally contested ground. Before serving any OMI notice where title is in an LLC, consult a California real estate attorney.
Q2: I served an OMI notice in good faith, but my parent decided not to move in 2 weeks after the tenant vacated. What do I do?
A: Contact the displaced tenant immediately in writing and offer to re-rent them the unit at the same rent they were paying, adjusted for any lawful annual increases. Do not re-rent the unit to anyone else before making this offer. Document everything. If the tenant accepts and returns, your exposure is minimized. If the tenant declines, retain written proof that you made the offer. The fact that your parent changed their mind is not itself a defense to a bad-faith claim if you re-rent at market rate — the tenant’s right to return is the required remedy. Consult an attorney as soon as possible.
Q3: Does SB 567 apply to single-family homes?
A: Single-family homes are generally exempt from AB 1482 (and therefore SB 567) under Civil Code §1946.2(e)(8) if the landlord provides the required exemption notice to the tenant at the time of lease signing or renewal. If the single-family home exemption notice was properly given, AB 1482 does not apply and SB 567’s amendments do not govern. However, if the exemption notice was not given, AB 1482 and SB 567 apply. Additionally, if the property is subject to a local rent control ordinance (rare for single-family homes, but possible in some cities), the local OMI rules apply regardless of AB 1482 coverage.
Q4: How does the 90-day clock interact with an unlawful detainer proceeding if the tenant refuses to leave?
A: The 90-day move-in clock begins when the tenant actually vacates — not when the notice period expires, not when a judgment is entered in an unlawful detainer, and not when the writ of possession is issued. If a tenant contests the OMI eviction in court, the process can take 2–6 months or more. Once the court rules in your favor and the writ is executed, the 90-day clock starts from the date of actual vacation. Courts understand this dynamic and generally do not penalize landlords for the delay caused by contested litigation, provided the qualifying person moves in promptly after actual possession is restored.
Q5: Can I serve an OMI notice on a tenant who has lived in the unit for less than 12 months?
A: AB 1482’s just-cause requirement applies only to tenants who have occupied a unit for 12 or more months. For tenants with less than 12 months of tenancy, you can terminate without just cause (subject to any applicable lease terms), which means you do not need to use the OMI exception at all — you can serve a standard 30-day notice. SB 567’s OMI requirements only govern terminations that must be based on just cause under AB 1482, which kicks in at the 12-month mark.
Q6: My city (Sacramento) requires 90 days notice for OMI. My tenant has been there 5 years. Do I give 60 days (AB 1482) or 90 days (Measure Q)?
A: Sacramento’s 90-day requirement under Measure Q is stricter than AB 1482’s 60-day requirement and therefore governs within Sacramento city limits. You must give 90 days notice. Giving only 60 days is a defective notice under local law, regardless of AB 1482 compliance. Always apply the longer notice period when state and local requirements conflict.
Q7: What if I want to sell the property? Can I use OMI to get the tenant out first?
A: No. Using an OMI notice to displace a tenant for the purpose of selling the property vacant (to command a higher price) is a bad-faith OMI eviction if no qualifying person ever moves in. Courts and arbitrators have found bad faith where the property was listed for sale shortly after a tenant vacated pursuant to an OMI notice. If you want to sell, the applicable no-fault just cause is sale-to-owner-occupant (which has its own requirements) or withdrawal from the rental market under the Ellis Act — not owner move-in. Using OMI as a pretext for sale is a textbook treble-damages case.
Q8: What is the statute of limitations for a tenant to sue for a bad-faith OMI under SB 567?
A: The statute of limitations for claims under Civil Code §1946.2(i) is three years from the date of displacement under California’s general three-year tort statute (Code of Civil Procedure §338). Tenants have three years from the date they were displaced to file a bad-faith OMI claim. This means a violation that occurs today can still generate litigation in 2027 or 2028. Document compliance carefully and retain records long after the incident.
This guide is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a licensed California attorney for advice specific to your situation.
