California Eviction Defense Law 2026: Social Security Delays

AB 246 adds a new Civil Code section, 1946.3, defining Social Security hardship as a loss of income caused by an interruption in the payment of Social Security benefits due to the action or inaction of the federal government, not something the tenant did or failed to do. The tenant has to show that this interruption is what actually prevented them from paying the rent in question.

[Cite: AB 246, Stats. 2025, ch. 337, adding Civil Code section 1946.3]

This is narrower than a general hardship defense. A tenant who missed rent for an unrelated reason, and separately also experienced some benefit delay, still has to connect the two; the law is aimed at cases where the federal disruption is the actual cause of the nonpayment.

The defense isn't automatic. A tenant raising it has to present evidence to the court's satisfaction demonstrating both that their Social Security benefits were terminated, delayed, or reduced through no fault of their own, and that this hardship is what prevented them from paying the unpaid rent.

[Cite: AB 246, Stats. 2025, ch. 337, adding Civil Code section 1946.3]

A landlord facing this defense in court should expect the tenant to bring supporting documentation rather than simply asserting the hardship verbally, since the statute puts the burden of proof on the tenant to connect the benefit disruption to the specific missed payment.

If the court is satisfied the tenant has proven Social Security hardship, it must stay the unlawful detainer action. That stay lasts until the earlier of two points: 14 days after the tenant's Social Security benefits are restored, or six months after the stay is issued, whichever comes first.

[Cite: AB 246, Stats. 2025, ch. 337, adding Civil Code section 1946.3]

The six-month outer limit matters for landlords: this isn't an indefinite pause. Even if a tenant's benefits remain disrupted past six months, the stay itself expires on that outer timeline rather than continuing indefinitely.

Once the tenant's Social Security benefits are restored, the clock starts running. The tenant has 14 days from that point to either pay all past-due rent in full or enter into a payment plan that the landlord agrees to.

[Cite: AB 246, Stats. 2025, ch. 337, adding Civil Code section 1946.3]

This is a real deadline with a real consequence attached. The law doesn't forgive the rent that accrued during the disruption; it gives the tenant a structured window to catch up once the underlying cause of the nonpayment is resolved.

If the tenant pays the past-due rent in full, or reaches an agreed payment plan with the landlord, within that 14-day window, the court dismisses the unlawful detainer action with prejudice, or sets aside a judgment already entered against the tenant.

[Cite: AB 246, Stats. 2025, ch. 337, adding Civil Code section 1946.3]

Dismissal with prejudice means the landlord can't simply refile the same eviction case based on that same instance of nonpayment. A landlord who wants to pursue eviction again after that point would need a separate basis, such as a later missed payment that isn't covered by a fresh hardship defense.

The protection isn't open-ended. If the 14-day window after benefits resume passes without the tenant paying the past-due rent or reaching a payment plan, or if the six-month outer limit on the stay runs out first, the underlying eviction case is no longer paused by this defense. A tenant who successfully raised Social Security hardship once doesn't get an automatic second stay for the same missed rent if they fail to follow through within the deadlines described here.

[Cite: AB 246, Stats. 2025, ch. 337, adding Civil Code section 1946.3]

AB 246 adds a specific, narrow defense rather than rewriting California's broader unlawful detainer process. The standard requirements for filing and serving an eviction, and other existing defenses a tenant might raise, aren't affected by this law. A landlord should treat Social Security hardship as one possible defense that can come up in a nonpayment case, evaluated on its own facts, rather than as a change to the eviction process generally.

Unlike most of the changes covered in this batch, AB 246 isn't a permanent addition to California law as written. The statute is scheduled to remain in effect only until January 20, 2029, at which point it repeals itself automatically unless the Legislature acts to extend or replace it. Landlords and property managers should be aware that this defense has a scheduled end date built into the current version of the law, rather than assuming it will remain available indefinitely without any further legislative action.

[Cite: AB 246, Stats. 2025, ch. 337, adding Civil Code section 1946.3]

For a tenant, meeting the evidentiary burden generally means bringing something more concrete than a verbal explanation, records or correspondence from the Social Security Administration showing the disruption, alongside whatever documentation ties that disruption to the specific rent payment that was missed. The statute puts the burden on the tenant to make that connection for the court, not just to state that a benefit delay happened at some point.

For a landlord or property manager, the practical response when this defense is raised is less about contesting whether Social Security delays happen, they clearly do, and more about evaluating whether the tenant's evidence actually ties the specific missed rent to that disruption. Since the law also expects a landlord to be a willing party to a payment plan once benefits resume, entering that conversation in good faith, rather than treating every hardship claim as adversarial, is likely to matter both for resolving the individual case and for how the case looks to a court evaluating whether the parties are complying with the statute's framework.