Also known as: month to month tenancy · month-to-month tenancies · periodic tenancy
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A periodic tenancy that continues from month to month and automatically renews unless terminated by proper notice at the end of a period.
Meredith Maxwell and Malcolm McKinley exchanged emails agreeing to rent a warehouse space but the writing failed the Statute of Frauds. Meredith took possession and paid monthly rent for six months which Malcolm accepted. When Malcolm later tried to end the arrangement with only ten days notice the court treated the arrangement as a month-to-month tenancy requiring full period notice before termination.
Monica Morgan signed a month-to-month lease with Millennium Media for an apartment. After several months of timely rent payments Millennium Media attempted to evict Monica without giving the required notice period. The court held that the ongoing monthly payments and acceptance created a continuing month-to-month tenancy that could be ended only at the conclusion of a full rental period.
Evelyn Smith owns and leases four rental units located in two duplexes in Chico, California. They are operated exclusively for business and commercial purposes, with income generated from the rentals reported as business income. Smith is a Christian. She is a member of Bidwell Presbyterian Church in Chico and has attended there for approximately 25 years. She believes that sex outside of marriage is sinful. She believes that it is a sin for her to rent her units to people who will engage in nonmarital sex on her property. She believes that God will judge her if she permits people to engage in sex outside of marriage in her rental units. If she does so, she will be prevented from meeting her deceased husband in the hereafter. From on or about March 29, 1987, to April 13, 1987, Smith advertised the availability of one of her units in the Chico Enterprise-Record. On April 1, 1987, Kenneth Phillips and Gail Randall saw the advertisement, viewed the unit that night, and called Smith the next morning. During that call Smith stated that she preferred to rent to married couples. On or about April 2, 1987, the complainants met with Smith and were shown the premises. On April 7, 1987, a lease agreement was executed between the parties for the unit located at 677 Eastwood Avenue. It was for a month-to-month tenancy commencing May 1, 1987 at a rent of $325 per month. Complainants also paid respondent a security deposit of $150 for which a receipt was given. Complainant Randall signed the lease agreement "Gail Phillips." Later on the same day, complainant Phillips called respondent and told her that he and Randall were not married. Respondent told him that she could not rent to an unmarried cohabiting couple because that would violate her religious beliefs. Respondent said that she would return their deposit. She sent them a check for $150. Randall and Phillips filed separate complaints against Smith with the commission. Based on the complaints, the commission issued two accusations. As subsequently amended, the accusations alleged Smith had violated Government Code section 12955, subdivisions (a), (b), (c) and (d), Civil Code section 51 (the Unruh Civil Rights Act), and Government Code section 12948. The commission exercised its power not to adopt the proposed decision and to hear the case itself on the existing record. After additional briefing, the commission issued its decision in favor of Randall and Phillips. The commission found Smith had violated Government Code sections 12955, subdivisions (a) and (d), Civil Code section 51, and Government Code section 12948. As relief, the commission ordered Smith to cease and desist from discriminating on the basis of marital status; to post and give to prospective tenants various notices setting out the provisions of FEHA, the outcome of this case, and the statement that Smith practices equal housing opportunity; and to pay Randall and Phillips a total of $454 in compensatory damages and $500 in damages for emotional distress. Smith sought review of the commission's decision by petition for writ of mandate. The Court of Appeal reversed. We granted review.
View caseMadison Meyers occupied a unit under a month-to-month arrangement with Mosaic Retail. When Mosaic Retail proposed new rules and a rent increase Madison refused and Mosaic Retail responded with a short-notice demand to vacate. The court ruled that the month-to-month tenancy continued until proper notice equal to the rental period was provided.
In 1963, the Mulkeys filed an action in California superior court against Reitman and other property owners under sections 51 and 52 of the Civil Code. They alleged that the owners had refused to rent them an apartment solely because of their race and sought an injunction and damages. After the filing of the complaint, California voters approved Proposition 14 in the November 1964 statewide election, which added section 26 to Article I of the California Constitution. The defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting that the new provision had rendered the statutory claims invalid. The trial court granted the motion, and the Mulkeys appealed to the California Supreme Court. In December 1964, the Prendergasts filed a separate suit in superior court against Snyder to enjoin their eviction from an apartment. They alleged that the eviction was motivated by racial prejudice and would violate sections 51 and 52 of the Civil Code. Snyder filed a cross-complaint seeking a judicial declaration that he was entitled to terminate the month-to-month tenancy even if his action was based on racial considerations. The trial court dismissed the cross-complaint with prejudice after concluding that judicial enforcement of a racially motivated eviction would violate the Equal Protection Clause, without addressing the validity of Proposition 14. Snyder appealed to the California Supreme Court. The California Supreme Court heard the two cases together. In the Mulkey appeal it reversed the trial court's grant of summary judgment. In the Prendergast appeal it affirmed the dismissal of the cross-complaint. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the judgments because the cases presented an important issue under the Fourteenth Amendment. Prior to the adoption of Proposition 14, the California Legislature had enacted several statutes addressing racial discrimination in housing. The Unruh Act of 1959 prohibited certain discriminations in business establishments. The Rumford Fair Housing Act of 1963 prohibited racial discriminations in the sale or rental of private dwellings containing more than four units and was enforceable by the State Fair Employment Practice Commission. Proposition 14 provided that neither the State nor any subdivision or agency thereof shall deny, limit or abridge the right of any person to decline to sell, lease or rent residential real property to such person or persons as he in his absolute discretion chooses. The two cases arose after the passage of Proposition 14 and presented challenges to its effect on prior antidiscrimination legislation and on claims of racial discrimination in housing.
View caseProper notice equal to the length of the rental period must be given and the termination must take effect at the end of a period. Shorter notice is insufficient to end the tenancy.
Supporting sources
The arrangement is treated as a periodic tenancy that renews monthly and requires one full month's notice to terminate. The absence of explicit notice language does not convert it into a tenancy at will.
Supporting sources
Yes. When a tenant takes possession and pays rent monthly that is accepted by the landlord a periodic month-to-month tenancy arises by operation of law with all lease terms except duration.
Supporting sources
…1987. A lease agreement was executed between the parties on that date for the unit located at 677 Eastwood Avenue. It was for a month-to-month tenancy commencing May 1, 1987 at a rent of $325 per month. Complainants also paid respondent a security deposit of $150 for which a receipt was given. Complainant Randall signed the lease…