Scott Harrison California Realtor © and Landlord
Is a 60 day notice always required?
Changes in codes may not effect specific items in contractual lease rental agreements which were signed prior to the law going into effect. A landlord sent the following research casting some uncertainty on weather these changes will effect specific items in contracts entered into before the law went into effect. In his case the 30 day notice in exsisting contract supercede the 60 day notice implemented by the new law in 2003 on termination of tennancy because since his contract adddressed terms of giving notice and the "ex post facto law" which prevents the new law from changing this terms in his exsisting contract.
I am not an attorney and should you want specific on your situation you should consult one.
Both the US Constitution, and the California Constitution. California's wording is even stronger than the US Constitution. Here are the direct quotes:
United States Constitution, Section 9, Article 3
"No bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed."
That is the entire statement.
Constitution of the State of California - Article I, Section 9
"A bill of attainder ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts may not be passed."
This also is a quotation of the entire section. This first one was a March 5, 2003 Supreme Court Decision:
"The Alaska case involved a challenge by a group of convicted sex offenders who said that they should not have to register with the state because they were convicted of sex offenses before the state passed that Megan's law. It says that applying the Megan's law requirement to them violated the Constitution expos facto clause, which means that you should not be able to subject people to additional punishments after they have already served time for their crimes. . . ."
COMPOUNDED QUESTIONS FOR EXAM 1
Political Science 105
American Government and Politics
27. Give an example how a "Expos Facto Law" would be violated if used in court.
- If I were to be arrested for a crime that didn't exist, then, when I was in jail waiting for my court appearance, a law was created to punish what I had done.
52. Imposing punishment for an act that was not illegal when the act was committed is:
a. Bill of Attainder
b. Ex post facto law
c. Judicial review
d. Supremacy clause
Post September 11 Case speaking of Expos Facto - showing still in effect.
RAY SUAREZ: Is there in technical terms an expos facto problem? Because he was held before September 11, because he was held before these military tribunals were proposed, does he make a dicier case on technical grounds or is it really a simple matter.
Guilty verdict could end in death
RAY SUAREZ: Is this a death-eligible case?
PHILIP SHENON: Absolutely. Four of the six charges involve the death penalty.
CBS News story on Expos Facto (After the fact) measures - common sense relating to safety bags on cars.
"Safety has to be enforced ahead of time. Expos facto safety measures don't work. If you're dead you're dead," says Gow.
Comment A:
Commenter contends that these amendments would violate the Expos Facto and due process of law by adding the word "original", which means that this section would apply to the past and could retroactively be applied only to crimes committed after 1994 for those crimes listed under Penal Code (PC) Section 667.5(c)
and not the those listed under PC Section 1172.7(c).
Accommodation: Yes
The word "original" was striken because it is redundant when used to modify "received date." Under Title 15, section 3000, a received date is the day the inmate initially enters an institution. There can be only one received date per incarceration, thus the word original is striken as unnecessary. This regulation, as written, does violate the ex post facto clause, and a corrective accommodation has been made.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO: SC02-1426
"To say that a new constitutional amendment could be retroactively applied would effectively negate all of this activity and would change the law of this case in midstream. This is precisely the reason that both federal and state constitutions forbid Expos facto loss."
"Appellant further maintains that any change in the law following the commission of any offense by the Appellant would further violate the Florida and United States Constitution prohibitions against ex post facto laws..."
