Renters find foreclosure relief in new law

Rent it Right

Inman News®

Q: I've got a lease for one year, but it looks like I'm about to get the boot. My landlord stopped by to say that he can no longer afford to pay his mortgage, and he's received a notice of default. He advised me to get ready to move, once the bank forecloses. What are my options? --Bruce B.

A: Your question is very timely. Before May 20, 2009, most renters lost their leases upon foreclosure. The rule in most states was that if the mortgage was recorded before the lease was signed (mortgages are usually recorded right after they're signed), a foreclosure wiped out the lease (this rule is known as "first in time, first in right"). Because most leases last no longer than a year, it was all too common for the mortgage to predate the lease and destroy it upon foreclosure. Sadly for most renters, your landlord's advice was accurate.

These rules changed dramatically on May 20, 2009, when President Obama signed the "Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act of 2009." This legislation provided that leases would survive a foreclosure -- meaning the tenant could stay at least until the end of the lease -- and that month-to-month tenants would be entitled to 90 days' notice before having to move out (this notice period is longer than any state's nonforeclosure notice period, a real boon to tenants).

An exception was carved out for buyers who intend to live on the property. These buyers may terminate a lease with 90 days' notice. Importantly, the law provides that any state legislation that is more generous to tenants will not be preempted by the federal law. These protections apply to Section 8 tenants, too.

Though you don't mention being under rent control, I should add that tenants who live in cities with rent control "just cause" eviction protection have always been protected from losing their homes at the hands of an acquiring bank or new owner. These tenants can rely on their ordinance's list of allowable, or "just causes," for termination. Because a change of ownership, without more, does not justify a termination, the fact that the change occurred through foreclosure will not end the tenancy.

So here's the bottom line: If your home is sold to a new owner at a foreclosure sale, and that owner intends to live there, your lease may be terminated with 90 days' notice. But if the bank hangs onto the property, or if it's bought as an investment property, your lease will survive.

Q: I've ended up with a deadbeat tenant, though I checked him out when I reviewed his application. I called his landlord, who said "No" when I asked if there had been any problems. That recommendation was the deciding factor in my decision to choose this applicant over a couple of others -- then the trouble began. I've since learned that he was about to be evicted from his last place and had caused all kinds of grief. In other words, that landlord lied to me in order to get me to take this guy off his hands. It's going to take me a lot of time and money to get this tenant evicted. Can I sue that liar? --Brian P.

A: Your experience is not unique, alas. Landlords without scruples will do just as this one did in order to save themselves the expense of an eviction (or in order to get rid of someone whose behavior, though not eviction-worthy, is highly annoying). That's one reason why savvy landlords always call the previous landlord as well as the current one -- a landlord once-removed has no motive to lie. ...CONTINUED

Share with REmessenger

You must login or register to post a comment.

 
Submitted by Jon Astaris on July 9, 2009 - 2:01pm.

Only in a sick terminal society such as ours would the moron landlord who relies entirely on the previous landlord's word look for ways to make THAT guy responsible for his own stupidity, and a real lawyer actually suggest that such passing of the buck is legit. First, all the "previous" need say is NO I did not say what he says I said. In the real world a real judge armed with nothing but common sense would laugh his robe off at the idiot plaintiff: Until a lemon law for people is passed, and it MAY be in the works, you're on your own.

It's like a wife who's divorcing her philandering man and gets a call from the hubby's new girlfriend: Hey hon, did he ever CHEAT on you before?

 
Submitted by Keith Labrecque on July 10, 2009 - 9:07am.

Is this different than giving job references? I worked for a huge, well known multinational corporation with a strict policy on giving information to reference inquiries: DO NOT, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES. We were to refer all such inquiries to the Human Resources Dept., who would give carefully proscribed info (dates of employment, title, perhaps pay) but NOTHING MORE. Their position was that answering questions on some former employees but not others would, as Janet put it, in fact allow the savvy listener to draw appropriate conclusions. This was apparently tantamount to making a negative comment on the (so deserving) lousy employee, if good employees got good remarks and the lousy got "no comment".

Are different legal theories at work here?

Is there a parallel risk for a landlord in giving good references but "no comment" in place of negative ones?

Or does the fact of being a perceived "deep-pocket" target draw predatory lawsuits, knowing that the large corporation is likely to settle rather than attempt to win in court? That is, the plaintiff and/ or his lawyer are banking on the corporation wanting to avoid the publicity and $50k cost of defending even a weak lawsuit, and would rather just settle instead?

Keith Labrecque
Two Maples Properties LLC