The three principals of Zanghi Torres Arshawsky LLP are John P. Zanghi, Francisco G. Torres and Paul Arshawsky. We have a combined 38 years of experience practicing landlord-tenant law.
Zanghi Torres Arshawsky LLP is a 3-attorney law firm representing landlords in landlord-tenant and unlawful detainer matters. Zanghi Torres Arshawsky LLP currently represents property owners, landlords, property management companies, and real estate investors throughout the San Francisco Bay Area. The largest percentage of our unlawful detainer work is performed in San Francisco. Our sub-specialty is government-subsidized, federal, state and local housing programs. We are knowledgeable of the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, the HUD regulations, and state and local laws related to government housing programs.
Three of our largest current clients are property management firms that manage properties that receive various forms of government subsidies: project-based Section 8, tenant-based (voucher) Section 8, other federally -subsidized programs that are subject to the HUD regulations, California Tax Credit properties, Shelter Plus Care, and San Francisco’s “Cash Benefit Package” also known as “Care Not Cash” Program. We are therefore familiar with the various layers of regulations applicable to these programs.
John P. Zanghi
John P. Zanghi received a B.A. from California Polytechnic State University at San Luis Obispo in 1985. He received his J.D. from Loyola University in 1989. He has been practicing landlord-tenant law in San Francisco since 1991. Mr. Zanghi has taught MCLE classes related to landlord-tenant law as part of a program sponsored by the Volunteer Legal Services Program of the Bar Association of San Francisco. Mr. Zanghi is currently working with the Homeless Advocacy Project to create a grievance procedure and guidelines for tenants’ retention of housing services in the Care Not Cash Program.
One recent example of Mr. Zanghi’s creative resolution skills is as follows:
One of our property management clients had issued a letter of acceptance for housing to a family that was later withdrawn when it was discovered that the family had a pending unlawful detainer action for nonpayment of rent in one of the other properties also managed by that client. The family obtained legal counsel who was threatening to sue the client for discrimination, among other things. The client became aware that there were also behavioral issues with the family in their current unit in addition to nonpayment of rent. A mediation session was arranged and Mr. Zanghi represented the property management client.
The end result of the mediation is that the family is staying in their current unit, with a stipulation to repay all of their unpaid rent and comply with various requirements regarding the condition of their unit. Once they successfully complete this probationary period, if the family still meets composition, income and credit requirements for the new property, they will then be eligible to move into the property at which they were previously accepted.
The property management client was then able to recover all of the past due and unpaid rent at the property currently occupied by the tenants. The property management company is protecting the owners of the new property by ensuring that if and when this family is allowed to move into the new property, they are fully qualified. And, the property management client has avoided potential litigation for discrimination. This resolution also provided this family with an opportunity to retain their current housing and eligibility for future subsidized housing.
Mr. Zanghi was able to help create and structure a resolution of this matter that was acceptable to all the parties and saved the client from defending itself in litigation brought by the tenants. And, the tenants were able to maintain their housing.
Francisco G. Torres
Francisco G. Torres obtained his B.A. degree from U.C.L.A. in 1987, and his law degree from the University of California, Hastings College of Law in 1991. After graduating from law school, Mr. Torres worked as a Deputy District Attorney in the Kern County District Attorney’s Office, where he obtained extensive hands-on jury trial experience prosecuting both misdemeanor and felony cases. After leaving the Kern County District Attorney’s Office, Mr. Torres moved back to San Francisco and worked as an associate attorney for the law firm of Lilienthal & Fowler. Mr. Torres practiced in the areas of landlord-tenant, unlawful detainer, real estate, creditors’ rights, and entertainment law. In 1996, Mr. Torres opened his own law office, working in the practice areas of landlord-tenant, unlawful detainer, and real estate law. Mr. Torres represented both landlords and tenants in unlawful detainer actions and transactional matters.
Francisco Torres recently obtained possession of a rental unit from a tenant after a three-day, jury trial. The landlord sought to terminate the tenancy because the tenant had begun engaging in a pattern of nuisance activity which included playing a stereo and television surround sound system very loud throughout the day and night, making harassing and threatening comments to other tenants and staff members, and yelling at, arguing with, and assaulting other tenants. An unlawful detainer action was filed and Mr. Torres attempted to reach a settlement with the tenant. At first the tenant seemed receptive to entering into a settlement under which he would agree to move out of the building, but when the details were being worked out at the mandatory settlement conference, the tenant refused to make any agreement unless he was given at least one year to move out. The tenant also refused to enter into any agreement, even one which would allow him to retain possession of the rental unit, which contained behavioral or conduct stipulations. On the day set for trial, settlement negotiations again failed because the tenant demanded no less than six months to surrender possession of the rental unit, and refused to have any conduct stipulations in place during that six-month period. The tenant defended the unlawful detainer on the ground that he was disabled, and that the management staff and the other tenants of the building had made false accusations and were conspiring to force him from the building because he stood up for his rights concerning living conditions in the building. The jury returned a verdict of 12-0 in favor of the landlord. The Sheriff’s Office returned possession of the rental unit to the landlord two weeks later.
Francisco Torres recently resolved a nonpayment of rent case through the use of a “pay and stay” settlement agreement. The landlord sought possession of the rental unit because the tenants, “Keesha” a young mother and her boyfriend, had fallen two months behind in rent. Mr. Torres contacted Keesha to see if the tenants had any desire to enter into a settlement agreement. Mr. Torres then learned that the boyfriend, who had been paying one half of the rent, had been arrested and had stopped paying for his share of the rent. Mr. Torres was able to resolve the unlawful detainer through the use of a written settlement agreement with a term of 18 months that permitted Keesha to retain possession of the rental unit so long as she paid the monthly rental value of $850.00 on time each month, and made additional monthly payments of $200.00 which would be applied to the unpaid rent, court costs and attorneys’ fees. The landlord was very pleased with the result. The landlord knew he had the opportunity to recover all unpaid rent, and all amounts that he had incurred in pursuing the action. He also knew he was avoiding the additional cost and time of advertising and re-renting the rental unit; He also likes the fact that if a default under the settlement does occur, he has the ability to seek judgment against Keesha, on an ex parte basis, and quickly recover possession of the rental unit without the time and expense of a trial.
Francisco Torres recently obtained possession of a rental unit through the use of a “stay and comply” settlement agreement. The landlord had received complaints from neighbors that the tenant was keeping a rottweiler dog at the premises. The landlord requested that the tenant remove the dog from the premises, but the tenant informed the landlord that the dog had already been given away to a relative. Over the next few weeks the neighbor heard the dog barking in the rental unit and made complaints to the landlord. Each time when the landlord confronted the tenant about the dog barking, the tenant stated that the relative had come by the apartment for a visit, and had brought the dog with him. The landlord had Francisco Torres serve the tenant with a Three Day Notice To Cure Covenant Or Quit. The tenant then obtained legal counsel. The lawyer, contacted Mr. Torres and argued that there was no lease violation because the written lease did not specifically prohibit visitors to bring their pets with them of to the rental unit. The written lease for the premises provided that the tenant shall not keep a pet at the rental unit, but was silent as to whether pets or animals could be brought to the premises on a temporary basis, such as a guest bringing a pet for visits. Mr. Torres realized that the story being told by the tenant was probably false; but Mr. Torres also realized that the tenant’s lawyer had a reasonable chance of prevailing if the case went to trial. A settlement agreement, with a term of 12 months, was reached under which the tenant was permitted to retain possession of the rental unit provided that the tenant kept no animals at the premises, and did not allow any animals to be brought to the premises by any other person. If there was no default in the 12-month period then the unlawful detainer would be dismissed; however if there was a default, then the landlord was entitled to entry of judgment against the tenant. After the settlement had been entered into, neighbors reported that they saw, and heard the dog leaving and entering the building with the tenant and other persons on a regular basis. Several weeks later, while the landlord was at the building, the landlord heard the dog barking. Based on these observations, Mr. Torres prepared an ex parte application for judgment. The court entered judgment against the tenant, and the Sheriff’s Office then returned possession of the rental unit to the landlord. The landlord was very pleased with the result. Possession of the premises was obtained without the time, expense, and risks associated with a trial.
Paul Arshawsky
Paul Arshawsky received his B.S. in Business Administration from the University of Southern California in 1981. He received a J.D. from the University of California, Hastings College of Law in 1984. He has been a licensed attorney in California since 1984. He has practiced in the area of landlord-tenant law for more than 10 of those years. He has taught classes to more than 100 property managers of one of the firm’s clients, covering general property management principles, requirements of HUD regulations, and changes in state law.
Recently, Mr. Arshawsky was representing a client who had a tenant in a project-based Section 8 property who was alleged to have violated a Lease Addendum for Drug-Free Housing. The owners of the property and the management company had been working with the San Francisco Police Department to clean up the illegal drug activity around the property and obtained a copy of a police report indicating that a drug bust had occurred in the tenant’s unit. While the tenant was not arrested or charged, the father of her children, who was not listed as a household member, was arrested from the inside the unit.
Based upon the information in the police report, a notice to terminate tenancy was served. The tenant requested a grievance hearing, which was held. She repeatedly claimed no knowledge of her allegedly estranged boyfriend’s drug activity in the unit. She claimed that he was in the unit to provide childcare services while she was at school, and that she had no current relationship with him. She sought to have the notice withdrawn and her tenancy maintained.
Again, based upon the information in the police report as well as information from other tenants who were interviewed, the client believed that there had been ongoing drug activity by the boyfriend from this unit. After the Summons and Complaint were filed, the tenant obtained legal counsel who served a substantial amount of discovery and insisted that there would be no settlement that involved the tenant giving up possession of her unit. The defense attorney made it clear that this case would go to trial.
Mr. Arshawsky employed the services of an investigator who was able to obtain from the San Francisco Police Department and the San Francisco Superior Court the following documents: the search warrant that was issued to search the premises, the drug analysis report from the crime lab, the Complaint in the boyfriend’s criminal case, and the abstract of judgment indicating that he had pled guilty to a felony charge of possession of illegal drugs with the intent to sell (which was based upon his arrest in the unit). In these reports was information that included the following: the boyfriend had been using the unit’s address as his own on his driver’s license and automobile registration; the San Francisco Police Department had conducted a “controlled buy” at the unit prior to the date of the arrest, at which time a confidential informant was able to purchase cocaine at the unit from a person later identified through photographs as the tenant’s boyfriend; and, the crime lab drug analysis confirmed that the substances seized from the unit the date of the boyfriend’s arrest were cocaine bases. With this information, a motion for summary judgment was filed on the client’s behalf and granted by the court. The tenant’s eviction was set for two weeks later. This was a much more cost effective resolution of this case, particularly considering the opposing counsel’s rigorous defense of the case and insistence that the case would likely go to trial.
Additional Experience
The three principals have also taught classes to property managers, explaining how the unlawful detainer process works, general property management principles, and changes in state law.
Staff and Logistics
Zanghi Torres Arshawsky LLP is located in San Francisco and has three support staffs: an office manager, a legal secretary and a file clerk.
FIRM’S PAST PERFORMANCE
Firm’s References:
Flomer Williams
Regional Manager
John Stewart Company
1388 Sutter Street, 11th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94109
415-345-4425 Office
415-265-1285 Cellular
Fred Doughty
Property Manager
Caritas Management Corporation
1358 Valencia Street
San Francisco, CA 94110
415-647-7191 x 25 Office
415-846-1075 Cellular
Mark Bennett
Director of Real Estate
Conard House, Incorporated
1385 Mission Street, Suite 260
San Francisco, CA 94103
415-864-7833 Office
Victor Makras
Owner
Makras Real Estate
1193 Church Street
San Francisco, CA 94110
415-282-8400 Office