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.
There was a ownership dispute between our landlord and they split into two entities, one being the original one we signed our lease with and a new entity that actually holds the deed. The landlord we signed our lease with said the second landlord illegally transfer the deed in their name, second land lord says something similar. Both asked us to pay rent however we have just been paying who was stated in our lease.
However our lease is about to end and both entities want us to resign with them, so we are confused who to sign lease with (actually this whole thing makes us want to leave which we probably will) Are we legally suppose to sign with whomever owns the deed? Searching on ACRIS shows the second company (the one we did not sign original lease) has the latest record although I am not too adept at reading these things and what they actually mean...
Also can you live/rent a place without being on a lease? We wouldn't mind going month to month until this is sorted out don't want to commit. How hard is it for them to evict us? I heard "squatters" rights protect us but I am not too confident in these matters...
A lease is a lease, unless you have a piece of official government issued paper instructing you to do otherwise, you continue to pay every month to the entity named on your lease - that is your only concern and obligation
A lease is a lease, unless you have a piece of official government issued paper instructing you to do otherwise, you continue to pay every month to the entity named on your lease - that is your only concern and obligation
Is it really as simple as that? Only the owner of the property should be able to lease the apartment and since the original landlord no longer seems to hold the deed, he probably can't collect any more rent on it.
If the tenant wrote a check to the entity named on the landlord on the lease, and sent the check to the address given on the lease, the tenant has satisfied their duty under the lease. If the tenant can show that the above described entity deposited that check, that's pretty much all the proof they need that they satisfied their duty under the lease. If there's a dispute over who has ownership of the property, the parties have to resolve that dispute. The only time I, as a tenant of a regular rental building, would change who I would send my rent to, is if I was given a court order directing me to do so.
If there is an ownership dispute, and a new owner tried to evict me for paying the old owner, the new LL would have to take me to housing court. In housing court, I would show the deposited returned checks (or images nowadays) to the judge. That would likely be enough to squash the eviction.
Inform them both that you will deposit the rent into an escrow account until they settle their dispute and then put the money into a separate account every month. Any lawsuits and you will be able to instantly show your good faith by producing the entries into the escrow account.Don't give any money to either one until a judge settles their dispute.
As mentioned I have been paying the the entity on the lease however the lease expires this month. Thus there is some confusion whom I pay now, the previous land lord on the expiring lease or the "new" landlord who technically has the deed. My other concern is if we pay the new landlord, will he try to claim back pay of the previous months rent he did not collect? He did send us notice but again, we simply followed our lease.
We're not trying to skimp anyone out of any money but are hesitant on sending out rent for next month until we are confident who to pay, this would hold up in a housing court as well right in terms of avoiding eviction?
Is it really as simple as that? Only the owner of the property should be able to lease the apartment and since the original landlord no longer seems to hold the deed, he probably can't collect any more rent on it.
Yes, simple as that. The counterparty to your lease (or a government/court mandate) must notify you in writing that there is a new owner and that you should pay them instead. Not only that, but the new owner must notify you in writing that he has taken possesion of your security deposit otherwise that deposit must be returned to you:
"If the building is sold, the landlord must transfer all security deposits to the new owner within five days, or return the security deposits to the tenants. Landlords must notify the tenants, by registered or certified mail, of the name and address of the new owner. Purchasers of rent stabilized buildings are directly responsible to tenants for the return of security deposits and any interest. This responsibility exists whether or not the new owner received the security deposits from the former landlord."
As mentioned I have been paying the the entity on the lease however the lease expires this month.
Your lease automatically renews on a month-to-month basis at the end of the term unless the owner has given you written notice within 30 (?) days of lease expiration. The owner, and hence the people you pay money to, DOES NOT CHANGE until such time as that owner has provided you written notice or the government / court informs you that ownership has changed
Yes, simple as that. The counterparty to your lease (or a government/court mandate) must notify you in writing that there is a new owner and that you should pay them instead. Not only that, but the new owner must notify you in writing that he has taken possesion of your security deposit otherwise that deposit must be returned to you:
"If the building is sold, the landlord must transfer all security deposits to the new owner within five days, or return the security deposits to the tenants. Landlords must notify the tenants, by registered or certified mail, of the name and address of the new owner. Purchasers of rent stabilized buildings are directly responsible to tenants for the return of security deposits and any interest. This responsibility exists whether or not the new owner received the security deposits from the former landlord."
This is all great from a legal standpoint but a person shouldn't have to worry about this when renting an apartment. The OP has already indicated both parties have tried to collect rent even though only one party can legally collect rent. The best route is probably to move to avoid all this headache.
The best route is probably to move to avoid all this headache.
Sure, but the police can always kick you out of your cardboard box spot under the bridge
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.
