Introduction to the Issue

Cody Recker and Jessica Perez loved their Boyle Heights rental — warts and all. Lots of warts. The plumbing broke, spraying raw sewage puddles on the floor. The floor and foundation were falling apart, inviting hordes of mice and fleas. The basement flooded 14 times, and there so many leaks in the attic that mushrooms sprouted through a bedroom ceiling.

Background on the Tenants’ Experience

They made these allegations in a lawsuit against their landlord, Invitation Homes. Over the course of the decade-long tenancy, the pair said they pleaded with the company to fix the litany of problems. But after years of bare-minimum patch jobs done by what they contend were unlicensed contractors, the home was verging on uninhabitable. In 2023, Invitation Homes acknowledged the damage and urged them to move out, claiming repairs were necessary, Recker said. At the time, L.A. allowed evictions for substantial remodels.

The Unexpected Turn of Events

But the house was never fixed. When the couple moved out last March, the home was listed for sale the same month. “We were being betrayed left and right,” Recker said. Recker and Perez’s former home in Boyle Heights, which their landlord sold instead of renovating. (Cody Recker)

The Landlord’s Response and History

Invitation Homes and its attorney in the lawsuit declined to comment for this article. They have not yet responded to the allegations in the lawsuit. The couple’s complaint is one of thousands against Invitation Homes, the nation’s largest single-family landlord. Just last year, the Dallas-based property management company — which owns or manages more than 100,000 homes in the U.S. and more than 11,000 in California alone — agreed to pay $3.7 million to settle a price-gouging case and $48 million to settle a Federal Trade Commission investigation into alleged undisclosed junk fees, withheld security deposits and illegal evictions.

The Broader Context of Corporate Landlordship

“It’s really horrifying how Invitation Homes treated Recker and Perez,” said Joseph Tobener, a tenants rights attorney representing the couple in the lawsuit. “I’ve been doing this for 25 years and the conditions are as bad as I’ve seen.” Tobener said the situation is a direct result of the corporatization of housing, where large companies and investors buy up as much single-family housing stock as possible in attempts to rent out the homes. After the 2008 housing crash, companies such as Blackstone Inc., which created Invitation Homes in 2012, began buying up foreclosed single-family homes and converting them into rentals.

The Impact of the Housing Market

The situation grew to new extremes during the pandemic, when the hot housing market became a feeding frenzy for investors; in the second quarter of 2021 alone, the number of residential properties bought by companies hit an all-time high of 67,943, according to Redfin. “These companies are doing whatever it takes to report high earnings to their investors” at the expense of their tenants, Tobener said. Cody Recker and Jessica Perez had to store many of their belongings in the garage at their rental home in Pasadena a year after they were illegally evicted from their rental home in Boyle Heights. (Genaro Molina/Los Angeles Times)

The Lawsuit and Its Implications

Recker and Perez’s lawsuit, which is set to be heard by a jury in June 2026, hurls a litany of accusations at the corporate landlord including negligence, wrongful eviction, tenant harassment, breach of contract and unfair business practices. When Recker first moved into the home in 2014, everything looked great. Built in 1908, it was aging but enormous with six bedrooms and three bathrooms across two stories and 2,312 square feet. When Perez moved in with Recker in 2020, the house was still habitable, but flooding was becoming an issue.

The Deterioration of the Property

Every time it rained, the walls, floors and carpet would get drenched, creating a moldy stink, according to the lawsuit. Recker used a Shop-Vac to remove an average of 35 gallons of water from the basement with each storm. “We’d complain and put in work orders, but they’d get deleted in the tenant portal or pushed back,” he said, echoing claims in the lawsuit. Over the next few years, Recker and Perez noticed signs that the house was shifting, according to the lawsuit: the kitchen floor was sinking, the counter tops were separating from the backsplash, and the garage foundation was cracking. After rain leaked into the attic of the Boyle Heights home, mushrooms sprouted through the ceiling, a lawsuit alleges. (Cody Recker)

The Final Straw

After years of deterioration, Invitation Homes sent an engineer to examine the property in October 2023. Two months later, they got a call from the company. “This house is unsafe, so we need you guys to move out ASAP. The sooner the better,” an agent for the company said, according to the lawsuit. When they asked if they could move back in after repairs were made, the agent said no, since the process could take six months or a year.

Conclusion

The case of Cody Recker and Jessica Perez against Invitation Homes highlights the issues with corporate landlordship and the need for stronger tenant protections. The couple’s experience is a stark reminder of the consequences of prioritizing profits over people’s well-being. As the lawsuit moves forward, it will be important to consider the broader implications of corporate landlordship and the impact it has on communities.

FAQs

• Q: What were the conditions like in the rental home?
  A: The home had significant issues including plumbing breaks, flooding, foundation problems, and infestations of mice and fleas.
• Q: Why did Invitation Homes urge the couple to move out?
  A: Invitation Homes claimed that repairs were necessary due to the home’s condition, but the couple alleges that the real intention was to sell the property.
• Q: What actions has Invitation Homes taken in response to the lawsuit?
  A: Invitation Homes and its attorney have declined to comment on the lawsuit and have not yet responded to the allegations.
• Q: What are the broader implications of this case?
  A: The case highlights issues with corporate landlordship, the prioritization of profits over tenant well-being, and the need for stronger tenant protections.