BILL ANALYSIS SENATE COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY S David Roberti, Chairman B 1993-94 Regular Session 2 0 8 8 SB 2088 (Mello) As introduced Hearing date: June 14, 1994 Civil/Penal Codes GWW:rn LANDLORD AND TENANT LAW -REMOVAL OF OCCUPANTS FROM HOTELS AND MOTELS- HISTORY Source: California Hotel and Motel Association Prior Legislation: None Support: Unknown Opposition: None Known (THIS ANALYSIS REFLECTS AUTHOR'S AMENDMENTS TO BE OFFERED IN šCOMMITTEE.) KEY ISSUES SHOULD A "TENANCY" AT A HOTEL OR MOTEL, A STATUS WHICH DOES NOT šALLOW THE TERMINATION OF THE PERSON'S OCCUPANCY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS šAND COURT ORDER, BE DEFINED TO EXCLUDE: (A) ANY PERSON WHO HAS NOT MADE VALID PAYMENT FOR ALL ROOM AND šOTHER RELATED CHARGES THEN OWING ON THE 30TH DAY OF HIS OR HER šOCCUPANCY WHEN THE PERSON SEEKS TO ESTABLISH A TENANCY BY REASON OF šOCCUPYING THE PREMISES FOR MORE THAN 30 CONSECUTIVE DAYS? AND, (B) FOR PURPOSES OF ENFORCING THE TRESPASS LAWS, ANY OCCUPANCY AT A šHOTEL OR MOTEL FOR A CONTINUOUS PERIOD OF 30 DAYS OR LESS, IN THE šABSENCE OF A CONTRARY WRITTEN AGREEMENT OR OTHER WRITTEN EVIDENCE šOF A PERIODIC TENANCY OF INDEFINITE DURATION? (More) SB 2088 (Mello) Page 2 PURPOSE 1. Existing law contains various provisions regulating the hiring š of real property. Civil Code Section 1940, subdivision (b), provides that "persons who hire" real property (a "tenant") does not include a person who, either, (1) maintains a transient occupancy at a hotel or motel when that occupancy is subject to a room tax, or (2) maintains an occupancy at an "exempt" hotel or motel where the innkeeper retains a right of access to and control of the dwelling unit and the hotel or motel provides central dining, maid, mail, room, and recreational services. This bill would revise that subdivision. It would: (a) preclude a person from acquiring "tenancy" or "persons who hire" status based on more than 30 consecutive days of occupancy in a hotel or motel where that person who has not made valid payment for all room and other related charges then owing on the 30th day of his or her occupancy. (b) instead require an "exempt" hotel or motel to provide "food service" as defined, and "maid, mail and room services", in order to preclude occupancy at that establishment from being deemed a "tenancy". 2. Existing law, Penal Code Section 602, makes certain trespasses punishable as a misdemeanor. Section 602(r) makes punishable as a criminal trespass the refusal or failure to leave a hotel or motel where the person has obtained accommodations and has refused to pay for those accommodations, and the occupancy is not a tenancy under Civil Code Section 1940. This bill would provide, for purposes of enforcing the trespass laws, that an occupancy at a hotel or motel for a continuous period of 30 days or less shall not be deemed to be a tenancy in the absence of a written agreement to the contrary or other written evidence of a periodic tenancy of indefinite duration. The purpose of this bill is to clarify the legal distinctions šbetween a hotel "guest" and a hotel "tenant". COMMENT 1. Stated need for clarifications According to the California Hotel and Motel Association, source of SB 2088, their members are facing increasing incidences of hotel "guests" suddenly claiming that they are "tenants" and, therefore, cannot be evicted without an unlawful detainer (More) SB 2088 (Mello) Page 3 action. Under Civil Code Section 1940, an occupancy at certain types of hotels or motels (which do not provide food or maid service, etc.) for more than 30 continuous days may create a "tenancy". As a tenant, the person cannot be evicted without due process and the right to a jury trial. As a guest, however, the person may be evicted without court process or order and even arrested for trespass upon the non-payment of rental charges. This bill would provide clarifying distinctions between a hotel or motel "guest" and "tenant" to better enable a hotel or motel to enforce its rights against non-paying guests. 2. Clarification of Civil Code provisions SB 2088 would make two clarifying amendments to Section 1940. First, it would change the requirements for certain hotels and motels to be exempt from Section 1940; i.e., their guests can never acquire tenant status. Under current laws, these hotels and motels must provide, among other amenities, "central dining, maid, mail, room, and recreational services." SB 2088 would repeal the requirement to provide "recreational services" and require the provision of "food service", as defined, rather than "central dining". According to the sponsor, recent development trends have led to the building of some "four-star" facilities which do not provide "recreational services", but for all intents and purposes are like other four-star facilities. These facilities, like "Embassy Suites", should not be denied the protections offered to other similar establishments simply because of the failure to provide recreational services. Similarly, many of these newer establishments may offer dining in an affiliated food establishment located on or adjacent to the hotel or motel, but is not "central dining". The changes proposed to Section 1940 thus updates the code to reflect development trends. Second, it would clarify the conditions under which a guest staying at an non-exempt hotel or motel (does not provide required services) would acquire tenant status. Under existing law, that status may be acquired by a continuous occupancy for more than 30 consecutive days. Proponents assert that some hotel and motel guests are using creative ruses to claim "tenant" status even though they have not paid for 30 consecutive days of occupancy to establish a legal tenancy. This bill would provide that a tenancy is not established at (More) SB 2088 (Mello) Page 4 these hotels and motels by reason of a continuous occupancy of more than 30 days unless the person has made valid payment for all room and other related charges owing as of the 30th day - the last day the occupancy is subject to a room tax. This clarification and the clarification of the trespass law, asserts the proponents, would greatly assist hotel and motel owners to enforce their rights against non-paying guests. 3. Clarification of trespass laws According to the sponsor, law enforcement agencies (Los Angeles County particularly) rarely enforce the trespass law to evict non-paying hotel and motel guests because of the fear of liability for an unlawful arrest and eviction. SB 2088 would clarify Section 602 to provide guidance to law enforcement agencies. Using the new provision, an law enforcement officer can better and more easily determine whether the accused violator is a non-paying guest or tenant and act accordingly. ******