Attorney Stephanie Germani; and some of the Walnut St. property

[Version in Spanish coming soon]

We’d like to give a shout-out to a half-dozen Anaheim tenants who fought back against unjust evictions and won last week! They live at an apartment complex right across S. Walnut St. from Disneyland, with “Hermosa Village” right behind them. Some of us met these folks when we were campaigning against Disneyland Forward last year, and then again when Francisco Rosas was running for Council district 4.

In order to get around the California Tenant Protection Act‘s modest limit on rent hikes, the owner (Xi Capital) and manager (Helix Properties) used a trick that we’ve seen used throughout Anaheim, and California – the SUBSTANTIAL REMODEL ploy. Popularly known as a “RENOVICTION”, this is when an owner gives tenants 60 days to leave, so they can do some “substantial” work on the apartments, after which they turn around and rent the units out for much more, generally to someone new who can afford that.

The vast majority of these Walnut St. tenants, not knowing their rights or having the ability to fight, reluctantly moved, finding housing elsewhere, doubling or tripling up with other families, moving out of town. Some families are even reportedly homeless now.

But half-a-dozen hardy souls refused to leave. These folks fought their evictions in court with the help of attorneys Stephanie Germani and Lorena Tejeda, and now they’ve had their evictions dismissed, and they can stay in their apartments paying the original rent. Damn – let’s hear their story!

But first…

The “Substantial Remodel” ploy

(a.k.a. “Renovictions”)

You may think the annual rent increases allowed by California’s Tenant Protection Act – cost of living PLUS FIVE PERCENT (which has been 10%, 8.8% and 8.9% over the past few years) – you may think that should be plenty high enough. In fact you may think it is TOO HIGH, and so do we. (Why should landlords increase their PROFITS 5% every year?) But a lot of landlords – particularly out-of-town corporate landlords – would like to raise rents even higher. And one way they are ALLOWED to do that LEGALLY is with a “substantial remodel.”

In fact this has become such a popular, common way to get rid of tenants and raise rents that a lot of owners get sloppy with it, and don’t really do the major, “substantial” work on their property that the loophole requires. So last year a new state law tightened up the loophole a little. In short, if your landlord wants to pull a “renoviction” on you:

The work they’re planning must be “substantial” enough that it’ll take them more than 30 days AND render your place uninhabitable during that time.

They have to give you 60 days notice to move out, and then if you don’t they can evict you (also called “unlawful detainer.”)

SINCE LAST APRIL, they have to have PERMITS from the City detailing the “substantial work” they intend to do, and give you a copy of the permits.

You have the “right to return” when the work is done, and you can leave them your contact info, except at that point they can charge you whatever they want. (IF you can show they didn’t do the work they said, you can move back at the same rent.)

We think the whole thing is still unfair and shouldn’t be legal, in a city or state that wants to keep its residents housed – why should the owners be able to force you out so they can do a big “remodel” nobody’s making them do, just so they can raise rents, sometimes DOUBLE? Los Angeles, which has its own strong tenant protection laws, just outlawed these Renovictions. We’ll get to that later if we have time. But this is how the law is now, and sometimes they STILL get lazy and don’t do it right. Like on Walnut Street last year.

One more thing, before our story:

Tenants Shouldn’t HAVE to hire Attorneys.

Almost always, landlords and owners have crack attorneys that specialize in that line of work, while tenants don’t know what their rights are, can’t afford or don’t know how to find a good attorney, and put all their effort into the panicked search for a new place. California’s Tenant Protection Act HAS NO “ENFORCEMENT MECHANISM” unless you’re lucky enough to live in a city like Santa Ana or LA that has opted to enforce it. In Anaheim, for example, you basically have nowhere to go for help. (This is one reason we’ve started TUA, to help make sure the laws are enforced here in the City of Kindness.)

Our friends on Walnut Street were lucky to find the very thorough and aggressive attorney Stephanie Germani (left), who agreed to come up from San Diego with her bilingual colleague Lorena Tejeda to help give these Anaheim tenants a leg up. Stephanie has a passion for this fight. She says, “the legal process favors the landlords because they can afford attorneys who know the process. So without a complete understanding of their rights and the unlawful detainer [eviction] process, it’s really tough for tenants to win such a case. And this isn’t a plug for tenants to hire attorneys, it’s a wake-up call that the current unlawful detainer process isn’t fair.”

And Stephanie has written reams more in response to our questions, which we’ll print at the bottom of this story in smaller print with footnotes. But meantime, she invited us to court, and:

We go to Hearings!

Up on the third floor of Santa Ana’s “Central Justice” Courthouse, in Dept 61 and across the hall at Dept 66, you can watch a steady stream of evictions being dispensed, like an assembly line of displacement. The landlords have attorneys, the tenants don’t. Both parties are often told to go to “mediation,” where, at most, the landlord will give a little on the money-owed side; then the parties return to the courtroom where the judge orders the tenant to pay that money and vacate their home.

It was different when the first Walnut St case came up last week, and Judge Jason Baez seemed to appreciate the change of pace, with both Stephanie and Lorena on the tenants’ side. (We’ll call them “Team Tenants.”) The other side, the Helix guy and the Helix attorney (“Team Landlord”) didn’t know what hit them. Stephanie presented a thick binder of discovery, marked with sticky notes as “Exhibit A” etc. Getting copies of the permits from landlord-friendly Anaheim had been like pulling teeth, but Helix DID accidentally send Stephanie a document showing the owners’ plan to increase the property’s value from $3.6 million to $5.2 million.

Team Tenants found lots of discrepancies in Team Landlord’s paperwork, especially in their service of eviction notices. Team Tenants got the Helix Guy to admit that his company is rewarded with $1000 for each NEW tenant they bring in, that if a unit became a (Disney-adjacent) Short-Term Rental they’d get 25% of the rent receipts instead of the usual 4%, and that after the Substantial Remodels units will be rented for over twice the previous rent.

This hearing went for two afternoons. On the second day the Helix Guy admitted on the stand that, lo, he was “nervous.” Team Landlord was not used to getting such competent pushback. Germani zeroed in on the NON-substantialness of the remodel, as the Anaheim permit they got was for “fixtures, not systems,” and there didn’t seem to be a health or safety issue involved. Helix Guy insisted the remodel was NOT “cosmetic” but “extensive,” but still couldn’t answer what health codes would have been violated if the tenants stayed.

Then suddenly Judge Baez (left), who is brand new on the bench, surprised everyone by siding with the tenants and voiding the eviction – but on the grounds that they hadn’t been given appropriate notice. This was a victory, but not the one that Team Tenants wanted – we wanted to chart new legal territory under last year’s reform, demonstrate how “Substantial Remodel” is abused, create a PRECEDENT … but this may have been too bold a move for a newly elected Judge.

Long story short though, three other Walnut St tenants WERE awaiting their own hearings, but a few days after this victory, Helix dismissed ALL the cases. Presumably they knew they’d probably lose, but on which grounds we can only guess. What about those dozens of other tenants who left Walnut Street when Helix threatened them? Stephanie writes:

“They should consult a lawyer, as they may have been wrongfully evicted. Even if they signed an agreement to vacate, it could be void since tenant rights under the Tenant Protection Act are not waivable.”

You see how we need Tenants United Anaheim.

In fact that’s the title of the next piece we will print on this blog, “Why We Need a Tenants United Anaheim.” So we won’t get into too much detail answering that here. One of our goals – along with letting tenants know their rights, and getting stronger tenant protection laws here – is to at least have the City enforce the law here like many other cities do. We’ve been told that would mean Anaheim would have to hire some new attorneys with that expertise. Maybe Anaheim should hire Stephanie Germani and Lorena Tejeda.

Our next general meeting is this Saturday, Feb. 22, at 2pm, at the Unitarian-Universalist Church of Anaheim. Find us on Facebook, or e-mail us at TenantsUnitedAnaheim@gmail.com.

**********************************

As promised, some more info and thoughts from Ms. Germani:

Reasons for Dismissal

The dismissal likely stems from Helix’s realization that they would lose these cases. They may attempt again in the future, but if I were their attorney, I’d advise them to thoroughly prepare to avoid another loss.

Regarding the “substantial remodel” claim, we won the first trial due to Helix’s lack of proof of service for the 60-day notice, which was likely common to all cases. It’s unclear if Helix considers their substantial remodel claim inadequate.

Ownership Structure

– Xi Capital is listed on the grant deed from the old owner of the South Walnut Street complex as the entity to receive the new deed.

– Xi Capital LLC’s sole member is Timothy Marshall Trout (3685 Fairmeade Road, Pasadena, CA 91107).

– Xi Capital is the only member of Walnut Growth LLC, owning 60% of the South Walnut Street apartment complex.

– While we don’t have specific information about Xi Capital’s properties in Anaheim, their website (XiCapital.co) claims ownership/development of over 450 apartment units in Southern California.

Advice for Vacated Tenants

South Walnut Street tenants who vacated based on the original notice should consult a lawyer, as they may have been wrongfully evicted. Even if they signed an agreement to vacate, it could be void since tenant rights under the Tenant Protection Act are not waivable.

Legal Process Challenges

While the law favors tenants, as it disfavors eviction, the legal process favors the landlords because they can afford attorneys who know the process. So without a complete understanding of their rights and the unlawful detainer process, it’s really tough for tenants to win an unlawful detainer case. And this isn’t a plug for tenants to hire attorneys, it’s a wake-up call that the current unlawful detainer process isn’t fair. And California’s 2025 reforms fail to address the structural inequities baked into these summary proceedings. Even with AB 2347’s extension to 10 days for tenant responses—double California’s previous 5-day window—the system remains rigged as a summary proceeding designed for landlord advantage.

The core issue lies in the accelerated timeline and procedural constraints unique to unlawful detainers:

– Without representation, most, if not all, tenants don’t even know how to propound discovery or that they even have a right to it. Discovery allows tenants gather evidence about improper notices, retaliatory motives, or defects in the landlord’s “substantial remodel” claims. But when you only have days to learn how to be your own lawyer, it’s unlikely most tenants will get to the discovery stage. I file discovery requests at the same time as my answer. Landlords get a week to respond to that discovery and it’s often crucial to helping the tenant retain possession of their home.

– Courts pressure the parties to settle. These agreements, often unfavorable to the tenant, are made under a tight deadline as once the landlord requests to set trial the court must set it within 20 days. Every unlawful detainer court I’ve been in, the judge has started the session encouraging the parties to settle. In Orange County, mediators are on hand to move along these settlements.

– The process also allows landlords to exploit technicalities like improper service notices to secure default judgments. When the landlords do file a proof of service, check if the claimed registered process server is a registered process server. Many counties make this information public so tenants can verify it, other counties only allow you to obtain documentation for a registered process server in person. That’s a problem when you live in San Diego County and the process server is registered in San Bernadino County. If you thinks its weird that a process server from San Bernadino County would take a service job in San Diego County, it is, and it’s usually sewer service – aka no service.

So why do courts prioritize expediency for unlawful detainers? I don’t know for certain, but my guess is landlords wrote the unlawful detainer laws.

Unique Challenge With No-Fault Just Cause

California’s “no-fault just cause” eviction protections under the Tenant Protection Act contain a critical flaw: they operate on the naive assumption that landlords will act in good faith when invoking substantial remodels, owner move-ins, or other no-fault justifications. The law’s framework places disproportionate trust in landlords’ honesty while burdening tenants with nearly insurmountable obstacles to verify claims or seek redress.

The Substantial Remodel Loophole

Under the TPA, landlords can evict tenants for a “substantial remodel” if they obtain permits and provide proper notice. However:

– No verification occurs upfront – Under the TPA there is no independent assessment whether the remodel is legitimate.

– Tenants’ “right to return” is a mirage – the law requires landlords to offer the unit back at the same rent if the remodel isn’t completed, but this assumes:

1. The tenant can afford to break their new lease (often with penalties)

2. They have savings to cover moving costs *twice* (out and back in)

3. The landlord actually notifies the former tenant that the remodel wasn’t completed.

In practice, landlords frequently exploit this:

– Phantom remodels: A 2024 UCLA study found 42% of “substantial remodel” evictions in L.A. resulted in only minor repairs (e.g., repainting cabinets), with no permit re-inspections.

– Retaliatory abuse: Landlords use remodel claims to oust rent-controlled tenants, then re-rent units at market rates after minimal upgrades.

Burden Of Proof

Tenants must sue *after* being displaced to prove bad faith.

Legislative Fixes Needed

True accountability requires:

1. Pre-eviction review: Mandate city inspections to confirm remodel scope *before* eviction notices are issued.

2. Extended right to return: Allow tenants 12 months (vs. current 30 days) to reclaim their unit at the original rent if remodel is not completed, with landlords covering relocation costs both ways.

3. Treble damages: Penalize bad-faith evictions with 3x the tenant’s actual damages + automatic rent control reinstatement and tenant’s repossession of the unit.

Until California stops privileging landlords’ convenience over tenants’ stability, “no-fault just cause” will remain a legal fiction enabling economic evictions. The legislature must recognize that trust cannot substitute for enforceable safeguards in a system where power and profit align against vulnerable renters.

The tension between protecting generational wealth for property owners and safeguarding tenants from homelessness reveals a stark hypocrisy in California’s housing policy framework. During revisions to the Tenant Protection Act, lawmakers defended lowering the ownership threshold for owner move-in evictions to **25%** (for individuals) or any percentage for family-owned LLCs/partnerships, arguing it preserves families’ ability to build intergenerational wealth through property ownership. This rationale ignores the devastating human cost: prioritizing minor ownership stakes enables landlords to displace tenants under pretextual “owner move-in” claims, risking housing instability for vulnerable renters.

Systemic Priorities Exposed

1. Generational Wealth for Landlords > Tenant Stability

– The 25% ownership rule allows partial stakeholders (e.g., children inheriting fractional interests) to evict tenants for owner occupancy, even as:

– Tenants face **no equivalent pathway** to generational stability—displacement often traps families in cycles of transient housing.

– Landlords exploiting this provision face trivial penalties (e.g., offering the unit back *after* displacement), while tenants bear double moving costs and lease-breaking fees.

2. Policy Double Standard

– Wealth-building tools like generational wealth protection trusts let landlords shield property from taxes/creditors, yet tenants receive no parallel protections against predatory evictions.

– Laws protect property tax breaks for inherited homes, while displaced tenants lose access to rent-controlled housing permanently.

3. **Imbalanced Enforcement**

– Owner move-in evictions require tenants to prove bad faith post-eviction, an impossible burden for most. Meanwhile, landlords enjoy automatic presumptions of legitimacy for remodel or move-in claims.

– Data shows 42% of “substantial remodels” involve minor upgrades, yet the TPA requires zero pre-eviction inspections.

Preserving Wealth Rhetoric Rings Hollow as Tenants pay the Human Cost

The same legislators who championed AB 1482’s tenant protections simultaneously carved loopholes for landlords under the guise of generational wealth. This contradiction exposes a deeper truth: California’s housing system privileges property ownership as a wealth vehicle over housing as a human right.

Protecting fractional ownership interests while 97% of evicted tenants lack legal representation entrenches inequality. True equity demands abolishing summary eviction procedures and aligning “generational wealth” policies with tenant protections—ensuring housing stability isn’t a privilege reserved for property owners.

Sorry that was so much!

Some sources to review:

[1] https://www.zfplaw.com/why-are-unlawful-detainers-summary-proceedings/

[2] https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1155&context=mjlr

[3] https://www.jrgattorneys.com/blog/2024/october/new-california-landlord-tenant-law-extended-resp/

[4] https://nlihc.org/resource/tenants-face-numerous-barriers-navigating-eviction-court-new-research-finds

[5] https://poverty.umich.edu/2024/07/16/research-shows-far-reaching-costs-of-eviction-filings-to-tenants-regardless-of-the-outcome-in-court/

[6] https://www.nossaman.com/newsroom-insights-reversal-of-unlawful-detainer-judgment-puts-evicting-landlord-at-risk-for-damages-action

[7] https://martinezlawcenter.com/ab-2347-for-eviction-in-2025/

[8] https://scholarship.shu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2905&context=shlr

[9] https://scholarship.shu.edu/shlr/vol53/iss1/1/

[10] https://frostbrowntodd.com/2025-brings-important-legislative-amendments-to-californias-summary-judgment-procedure-commercial-unlawful-detainer-procedure-and-notices-triple-net-expense-protections-for-qualifi/