I'm a subtenant of a master tenant who is being evicted for failing to pay rent.
Today (Oct 20) I recieved a "prejudgement claim of right to possession"
notifying me of the pending eviction.  I am not named on this notice, but
it asks for all occupents to complete the form at which point they will be added
as co-defendants.

This is the first notification that I have received indicating that my
master tenant is being evicted.  I was also informed today that there was
a "three-day notice to pay rent or quit" posted on our door on Oct 3, but
I had not heard this until today  (the master tenant never told me about it). 

I am a subtenant and my sole relationship has been paying rent to the
master tenant (including a deposit and the last month's rent).

I'm starting the process of looking for a new place to move to.

1. Can I realisticly expect to continue to occupy the
property through the period of time I have already paid for
(through Nov 30)?
2. If I sign and return the court form will I be potentially liable for
my master tenants failure to pay rent?

At this point I am primarily trying to decide whether to return the court
form and risk liability for my master tenants failure to pay his rent
or to not sign it and try to move out as quickly as possible.

---

Clarification of Question by bogonflux-ga on 21 Oct 2004 00:27 PDT

Looking at the papers more carefully, it looks like in addition to the
"prejudgement claim of right to possession" there is also a summons
for "unlawful detainer - eviction" (form SUM-130).

Both ask for a response.
The "prejudgement claim of right to possession" allows 10 days for a response.
The "unlawful detainer" summons allows 5 days for a response.

---

Clarification of Question by bogonflux-ga on 28 Oct 2004 09:52 PDT

I'm updating this question to let people following it know the
situation's current status:

So far I have not replied to the court summons or officially notified
the court that there is a subtenant.  This is primarily so that if a 
monetary judgement is sought against the master tenant, it will not be
pinned on me (I have deeper pockets and have not heard assurances that
this would not happen [part 2 of the question]).

I've been actively searching for a place to move into on Nov. 1.  The
master tenant has filed a response and is attempting to negotiate a
settlement
*move out by $date and have no judgement for damages".  It seems
likely that even if he settles we will still be able to occupy the
premises through at least Nov 15.

With respect to ipfan's comments:
* I have been scrambling as fast as possible in good faith to
  find a new apartment.  The degree to which I am "squating" is solely
  due to the late notification I have received
* At an emotional level, I don't feel bad about squatting since
  I DID PAY FOR IT - albiet to the master tenant and not the landlord.
  I expect that I will have a great deal of trouble collecting the
  remaider of the moneys that I had paid to the master tenant in advance.
  There is a strong likelyhood that it would never happen even if I were to
  secure a judgement against him.

The answer really depends on what the master lease says, and I'll bet
you lunch at Postrio that it says some or all of this: "Tenant may not
sublease without landlord's permission.  In all respects, the terms of
this master lease shall govern over the terms of any sublease.  Tenant
remains responsible for performance by any subtenant."

So, did the tenant/sublandlord get the master landlord's permission
before subleasing to you?  Assuming that they did, in any event the
master lease trumps your sublease, and if the master lease is
terminated for non-payment, so is the sublease, by definition.  Thus,
your rights expire when the sublandlord's rights expire.  If I were
you, I would (a) not sign any court papers and (b) move out as soon as
you can.  You could always try to go back later and recover from the
sublandlord the rent money you paid for the time period during which
you did not occupy the apartment.  So you say your paid up through
November 30?  If you move out today, you could sue the sublandlord
(assuming you're neither in breach of the master lease or the
sublease) for the rent between October 21 and November 30.

Now, having said all that, San Francisco?s city ordinances are very
tenant-friendly, and there may be some law that gives subtenants
rights when the sublandlord breaches or fails to pay.  You might want
to look through the SF Housing Code at
http://207.250.124.121/cgi-bin/om_isapi.dll?clientID=95665&infobase=sanfran.nfo&softpage=Browse_Frame_Pg42.

This kind of thing depends on the tenant laws in your area.

Where I live, for example, once you've been living somewhere for 3
days you can't be forcibly evicted for 30 days unless there is a court
order.  The court date won't likely occur for several months, and all
the while there's nothing that the landlord can do (so long as you
respond to the eviction notice and attempt to set the court date)...

So I suggest you respond to the notice and get comfortable.

I respectfully disagree with curious.  Assuming that the sublandlord
is not paying rent, you have no rights as a subtenant, even if you are
paying rent to the sublandlord.  Unelss the sublandlord gets current
with the master landlord, you really have no rights of tenancy.  Do
you really want to stay on as a "squatter," just milking the system
since it may take a few months for the master landlord to get an
actual formal eviction notice?

re: ipfan,  their really is no such term as 'squatter' in california
law.  you refer to 'milk the system'  I respectfully request that if
you can so easily afford two months san francisco rent please submit a
donation to my ministry.  thank-you.

Dear ejesus101,

Note that I was using "squatter" in the generally understood sense,
e.g., as is defined at merriam-webster.com as, "one that settles on
property without right or title or payment of rent."  Please also see
http://www.sftu.org/chronhnj.html.  And actually, there are California
cases recognizing "squatters" as those adversely possessing land. 
See, e.g., Peck v. Howard, 73 Cal.App.2d 308.  Your further comment,
"I respectfully request that if you can so easily afford two months
san francisco rent please submit a donation to my ministry[,]" seems
to be completely irrelevant to this discussion thread.  Are you
arguing that bogunflux is entitled to live there rent free just
because SF rents are high?

Dear bogunflux,

I applaud your efforts to find a new dwelling.  I understand that it
is appealing to think you have a right of tenancy since you paid the
sublandlord, but think of it from the master landlord's perspective:
he has not received any money, yet you are in possession of his
apartment.  How is that equitable and fair to the landlord?  Do you
have an entitlement to live there rent free (from the master
landlord's perspective)?  The master landlord is trying to provide you
and the sublandlord with due process as required by California law. 
As a purely personal matter, I find it bothersome when someone
actively exploits the time allotted for due process ("milking the
system.")  The lesson to subtenants is obvious: your rights of tenancy
are only as good as your sublandlord's rent checks to the master
landlord.