Foreclosed home with ex-owners and bona-fide tenant occupied


#1

Hello, Everyone; <br><br>

The property we picked up from the trustee?s sale in California got home owners and?a bona-fide?tenant as a ?package deal?. <br><br>

We are in the midst of eviction proceeding. The tenant has already added himself into the UD lawsuit. Since this is a very tricky situation, when the trial date comes, I am wondering what kind of judgement the state court could make.<br><br>

If judge strictly follows the federal ?Protecting Tenant at Foreclosure Act of 2009?, then the judge will honor the tenant’s?lease until the end of 90-day period. If that?s the case, then would?the judge allow the tenant who just pays for?one room to occupy the whole premises after the ex-owners got evicted out? Or would the judge allow us to move in immediately to share the same roof with the tenant until his 90-day period runs out?<br><br>

Please help.<br><br>

Thanks a lot


#2

I presume you (new homeowner post trustee sale) intend to occupy (live in) the home as your primary residence? < If not,? then under the PTFA, the ‘bona fide’ tenant (i.e. ‘fair market’ rent, + legit ‘arms length’ lease negotiated/signed before trustee sale & tenant is not child or parent of ‘ex’-owner) can stay until their lease is up (or through the end of the UD process). In such cases, your best strategy may be to negotiate ($ buy out the lease) w the tenant and get a written/signed agreement whereby tenant agrees move before their lease term expires.?

If the tenant’s lease notes that he/she has one (1) room, then that’s most likely how it will stay until his/her tenancy is over. Does the tenant’s lease describe kitchen/bathroom privileges? Most such ‘room rental’ lease agreements will ‘so specify,’ and you will have to honor those ‘use’ rights. But he/she does not have ‘full run’ of the house. Albeit may feel like it. Read the lease!

I’m confused when you say the tenant “added himself to the UD lawsuit.” Presumably you?initiated a UD against the occupying ‘ex’-homeowner … And hopefully the tenant is not suing anyone??? I’m not a lawyer, but I would draw a line (and keep separate) any legal actions and/or negotiations I enter vs the ‘ex’-homeowner and the ‘on-lease’ tenant … They are on very different footing post foreclosure.


#3

Thank you for your reply, Danny. Yes, we do intend to occupy this property as our primary residence. So, the tenant has the maxmium of 90 days remained. According to the tenant’s reply to my attorney, we take the worst assumption that he is a bona fide tenant even though we still have not seen the actual lease yet. I assume this tenant has the “use” rights including his own room and all the common areas, but definitely not the “full run” of the premises. We didn’t know there was a tenant existing in that property, so we dropped a copy of the Prejudgement Claim Right of Possesion form along with the UD lawsuit papers to the previous owners. Later, this tenant answered the UD lawsuit, so he “added” himself into the lawsuit. Even the ex-owners raised the “wrongful foreclosure” excuse to try to stop by UD proceeding, they will still be evicted out due to the reason that any title related issues may not be allowed in the UD (a summary) proceeding. I don’t really worry about that part. The part I do worry about is that in case the judge evicts the ex-owners out, but in the meantime, refuses us (the new owners) to move in, then the tenant will invite the ex-owners back as “guests”. This tricky situation just got confirmed by my attorney. Even it is extremely fair, but the UD court judge has a lot of discretion to order so. I am just wondering whether anybody on this forum has the same experience. Thanks a lot


#4

Yep …this is a tricky one … I would still request a copy of the lease from the tenant. You are now the legal owner of the property and the rents are due (payable) to you …and you certainly have every right & expectation to see the lease.?

I had one such recent experience … the hold-over tenant presented me with a lease that was clearly a forgery. A 5-year lease @ well below market rent and granted the tenant some expensive fixtures upon his eventual departure. First thing I did was go down to the recorder’s office and closely compare the owner/landlord’s (who skipped town B4 trustee sale) signature with his purported signature on the lease … a blatant forgery. I considered suing the tenant for fraud, but after carefully weighing the time/expense involved, I opted to ignore the fraud, and ‘bribed’ ($4Keys) the tenant via a stipulated judgement (SJ) whereby I agreed to pay him $$$ to move out within 3 weeks time and leave property undamaged and broom clean. If he failed to comply w the SJ (which he signed) he would not get his $$$ and the action would move immediately to a UD (< has outlined in the SJ).


#5

Just to add a bit to my previous comment, the stipulated judgment (SJ) was signed by a judge, an if the tenant failed to live up to his end of the bargain, the action moves to a UD by default (immediately) and no extra time/delay/expense/filings are required … as that is all covered under the SJ. A SJ is basically a Cash-4-Keys agreement on steroids.?


#6

" A SJ is basically a Cash-4-Keys agreement on steroids. " ***************** Wow! I really like the way you described the stipulated judgement. I was gonna use the California Realtor Association’s Cash4Key form to finalize the deal with the tenant. But that realtor association’s form is not really enforceable in the eyes of county sheriff in case the tenant overturn the deal at the end of the bargin. Thank you for reminding me the powerful SJ option!