Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A relative of mine has a house in Arizona that had a trustee sale on 9/14/11 and was sold to a group of investors. He needs to stay there till the end of the year and wanted to stay there till the end of the year if at all possible.
How long before he has to be out? and what options does he have to be able to stay there till the end of the year? Paying rent is definitely an option but should this just be offered directly to the investor or would the terms be more favorable if he offers to pay this to a judge during an eviction proceeding.
Your friend could be required to be out in just a few weeks depending on the time it takes the new owner to file the necessary paperwork and vacate notice, how soon the trial date can be set, and the time for the sheriffs to show up to enforce eviction.
Your friend should consider talking to an attorney and also discuss renting the property from the new owner. If they are investors, this may be a good option for them.
Options are almost null, because your relative no longer owns the property
- it was sold September 14th.
- the normal time is 30 days to receive a vacate notice.
- in your state there is no redemption period.
You have to ask him why he didn't do something before hand? There were many alternatives they could of taken to save or postpone the foreclosure...........
...
- the normal time is 30 days to receive a vacate notice. ...
In AZ, a vacate notice can be delivered very quickly, within a week. It's the followup court date and final eviction that can stretch it out a few more weeks depending on the volume being processed.
Do you think its worth paying for a lawyer to negotiate on our behalf so the relative can stay till the intended date? Or just make the offer directly to the buyers?
If the buyer was an investor, and your friend contacts them and would like to rent back for a few months, they likely will be fine with that, as long as he is paying a reasonable amount of rent, keeps maintaining the property, and paying the utilities, etc.
If he doesn't contact them, or makes them start the eviction process, that indicates that he is not going to be cooperative, and they will be much less likely to work with him.
Your friend is not in control anymore. If the investors want him to move, so they can fix up the house and flip it, or if they already have a tenant lined up, then your friend is just out of luck. If he refuses to move, he will be evicted. Just because he "needs to stay" doesn't mean they have to let him. All he can do at this point is ask and negotiate.
If it ends up in court, then your friend has already cost them a bunch of money, and they probably won't let him rent back at any amount, they will just want him gone.
Edited to respond to your most recent post. My parents do a lot of investing, including buying houses at foreclosure. I know we would be MUCH MUCH more willing to negotiate directly with an occupant who wants to stay and contacted us, in a timely manner, directly. Hiring a lawyer adds a ton of headache, and has the implication that "if you don't agree to my terms, I'm going to sue you". We would likely turn down anyone who approached us through a lawyer. I would try going directly to the new owners first. If the results aren't satisfactory, then you can consult an attorney and see if they think they can help. But that is just me.
I agree the best bet will be to contact the investor directly and take it from there. I guess if the investor doesnt agree then he'll just have to take his chance in front of a judge and plead his case for more time in exchange for rent.
... I guess if the investor doesnt agree then he'll just have to take his chance in front of a judge and plead his case for more time in exchange for rent.
Good advice from Lacerta. I agree, contacting the new owner should be the first step.
It's unlikely that a judge will force an owner to rent to someone. The only option I can imagine is if your friend or lawyer could come up with some reason the foreclosure may not have been legal and delay eviction based on that issue.
When the property was foreclosed/bought at auction, the prior owner became a tenant and has tenant rights. Depending on the state, and the specifics for the tenant, the new owner has to follow a timeline and eviction process according to the state law. Look that up for your area.
When the property was foreclosed/bought at auction, the prior owner became a tenant and has tenant rights. Depending on the state, and the specifics for the tenant, the new owner has to follow a timeline and eviction process according to the state law. Look that up for your area.
I don't think that is true for most areas. When you sell a house normally, the prior owner doesn't become a tenant, they are the prior owner, with no further rights to be in the house, unless granted by the new owner. The same is true when the house is purchased at auction. The prior owner has no further right to be there.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
