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.
All most every law protects the owner of the property. Which is all fine and good. But, when the landlord doesn't do is job like secure his house or property from the bank or lender or government rent money should go into a holding pattern. Since banks, mortgages and and every other possible legal issue with fixing the property and repairs tenants have no place to turn when they send rent to landlords. Why must the renter be forced to sue a landlord who probably is BROKE (he is in foreclosure for a reason!) Clearly fixing major problems with a unit or house could be a problem with funding. If you sign a lease and 2 months later you get a sheriff's notice of auction on sale on your door this is clear sign the tenant is in a holding pattern to where his living arrangements should be. Are there laws that protect the tenant in foreclosure? yes In 2009 the federal law to protect tenants in foreclosure because of the housing crisis and that is only to protect them after the bank takes ownership. But that is only after the bank completely takes ownership and that can take MONTHS and still has to deal with the landlord, no heat, no water, leaky roof etc. Currently the law allows him to collect money and gives him a FAST path to eviction when you don't pay rent. A new law should state that rent money should be put into a bank account and the court should review the case to see if the landlord as a valid reason to collect rent while the bank figure out who will own the property. If the landlord shows good intention and that he is working to repair the building and secure property issues or debit and if he gave the tenant any notice of pending foreclosure.
If you feel the system needs to be overhauled in this respect then bring it to the attention of your local representatives and campaign for the change.
All most every law protects the owner of the property. Which is all fine and good. But, when the landlord doesn't do is job like secure his house or property from the bank or lender or government rent money should go into a holding pattern. Since banks, mortgages and and every other possible legal issue with fixing the property and repairs tenants have no place to turn when they send rent to landlords. Why must the renter be forced to sue a landlord who probably is BROKE (he is in foreclosure for a reason!) Clearly fixing major problems with a unit or house could be a problem with funding. If you sign a lease and 2 months later you get a sheriff's notice of auction on sale on your door this is clear sign the tenant is in a holding pattern to where his living arrangements should be. Are there laws that protect the tenant in foreclosure? yes In 2009 the federal law to protect tenants in foreclosure because of the housing crisis and that is only to protect them after the bank takes ownership. But that is only after the bank completely takes ownership and that can take MONTHS and still has to deal with the landlord, no heat, no water, leaky roof etc. Currently the law allows him to collect money and gives him a FAST path to eviction when you don't pay rent. A new law should state that rent money should be put into a bank account and the court should review the case to see if the landlord as a valid reason to collect rent while the bank figure out who will own the property. If the landlord shows good intention and that he is working to repair the building and secure property issues or debit and if he gave the tenant any notice of pending foreclosure.
What is your point? The tenant is protected under the law and both sides should conduct heir due diligence and nobody has to face within 2 month's an eviction for foreclosure without being able to know this info prior to renting...so any tenant to who this happens didn't do their job and probably moved in without a background check for a reason...
What is your point? The tenant is protected under the law and both sides should conduct heir due diligence and nobody has to face within 2 month's an eviction for foreclosure without being able to know this info prior to renting...so any tenant to who this happens didn't do their job and probably moved in without a background check for a reason...
Actually, I see the OPs point. He's saying, if I understand correctly, that the tenant can't expect to get things fixed by the current landlord (prior to bank taking over). His remedy would be to withhold rent until things are fixed - but only if they are habitability issues.
Even then, a landlord could start eviction due to unpaid rent. The tenant would likely win the suit, but by now the landlord has filed an unlawful detainer. That's all that shows on an eviction report - the fact that an unlawful detainer was filed. Doesn't matter if the tenant was in the right.
Under the new law, the tenant has to keep paying rent, first to the landlord, then after getting notification from the court, to the bank. The law just protects the tenant from being evicted until the end of the lease - or 90 days if the new owner wants to move in (say it went to auction and someone bought it and wants to move in).
So, still, he has to pay rent, and likely nobody's fixing anything. And again, it has to be a habitability issue, in order to withhold rent - but then the tenant still takes the gamble on the unlawful detainer.
And no, a tenant can't always tell if a landlord is about to be foreclosed on. How would they know that?
I don't know that there's a better way to enforce anything in these situations - even if there was a better law. But, I can feel the tenant's pain.
Tenant’s need to understand that relief is not only limited to habitability issues. Courts have wide discretion to make things whole under most state laws basic requirements for a landlord to provide the service that the tenant is paying for. Habitability is one area where the tenant has absolute rights and remedies in law and enforced by the courts, but, that does not mean you have no other recourse. Almost all state laws have some provision that centers on a landlords requirement to abide by the lease; is obligated to adhere to the general principals of making repairs; and must act in good faith. Although it may not be written with specific legal remedies and action for a tenant to follow, you have every reason to expect all conditions of renting will be honored regardless of the financial condition of the landlord. The problem is way too many tenants have been led to believe their only recourse and remedy is if it’s a habitability issue. Not so, if the landlord refuses to fix or maintain the property, sue them in court to force compliance with state law for them to honor their obligations as a landlord.
Just like a landlord can take action against a tenant who does not abide by the terms and conditions of the lease, so can a tenant.
Actually, I see the OPs point. He's saying, if I understand correctly, that the tenant can't expect to get things fixed by the current landlord (prior to bank taking over). His remedy would be to withhold rent until things are fixed - but only if they are habitability issues.
Even then, a landlord could start eviction due to unpaid rent. The tenant would likely win the suit, but by now the landlord has filed an unlawful detainer. That's all that shows on an eviction report - the fact that an unlawful detainer was filed. Doesn't matter if the tenant was in the right.
Under the new law, the tenant has to keep paying rent, first to the landlord, then after getting notification from the court, to the bank. The law just protects the tenant from being evicted until the end of the lease - or 90 days if the new owner wants to move in (say it went to auction and someone bought it and wants to move in).
So, still, he has to pay rent, and likely nobody's fixing anything. And again, it has to be a habitability issue, in order to withhold rent - but then the tenant still takes the gamble on the unlawful detainer.
And no, a tenant can't always tell if a landlord is about to be foreclosed on. How would they know that?
I don't know that there's a better way to enforce anything in these situations - even if there was a better law. But, I can feel the tenant's pain.
Not in issue where I live...any tenant can pay into the court registry and can provide a 7 day notice to the LL to comply with the lease and fix items under the law. The tenant can call the county for a code violation and the tenant can after the 7 days if the LL is not doing anything have the item fixed and pay it out of the rent without the LL not being able to file for eviction.
Again it all comes down to knowing the law and I assume our County/State is not the only one with these kind of laws.
The problem with the laws in most states is they protect the home owner with the clear understanding that the home owner is providing a place (not pending foreclosure) and will do repairs needed. The first part of that is now in jeopardy once he is pending foreclosure proceedings. During this time OFTEN the landlord knows he is losing the property and doesn't care or on his/her way to bankruptcy court or will just keep collecting rent. The law (new law) should protect the tenant by DEFAULT the tenant has not been the one not paying their mortgage. The Landlord has already at that point put the tenant in a place of stress and not knowing what is going on and or if the landlord is going to have the property back and or lose it to the bank. The landlord OFTEN is not honest and or doesn't tell you what is going on. Money should be put into a bank account "escrow" and in pending to recoupe any security deposit, pet deposit and or other money given at the time that was to be returned to the tenant. This would save court time, hours and fees to track down the landlord who has disappeared and small claims court appearances. The bank never goes after the landlord for the security deposit when continuing a new lease with the tenant or honoring the current one as per the 2009 foreclosure law act. If the landlord has the right to rent "during the foreclosure procedures and auction of the property" the tenant should have a right to a secure unit/house AGREED to with the Landlord and tenant. The tenant did not agree to a lease with a bank. Wondering if repairs will get done and right to general peace and quite expected for tenant with the landlord. The landlord had gotten himself into this mess and he should prove that he is working with the bank and to the tenant via court that the rent is valid, that HE even has the right as per his mortgage to continue to get rent (some mortgages) in default don't allow rent to be collected. Protect the tenant when the landlord is in default. This would also STOP Fraud and or other nonsense that goes on with landlords and foreclosures.
The problem with the laws in most states is they protect the home owner with the clear understanding that the home owner is providing a place (not pending foreclosure) and will do repairs needed. The first part of that is now in jeopardy once he is pending foreclosure proceedings. During this time OFTEN the landlord knows he is losing the property and doesn't care or on his/her way to bankruptcy court or will just keep collecting rent. The law (new law) should protect the tenant by DEFAULT the tenant has not been the one not paying their mortgage. The Landlord has already at that point put the tenant in a place of stress and not knowing what is going on and or if the landlord is going to have the property back and or lose it to the bank. The landlord OFTEN is not honest and or doesn't tell you what is going on. Money should be put into a bank account "escrow" and in pending to recoupe any security deposit, pet deposit and or other money given at the time that was to be returned to the tenant. This would save court time, hours and fees to track down the landlord who has disappeared and small claims court appearances. The bank never goes after the landlord for the security deposit when continuing a new lease with the tenant or honoring the current one as per the 2009 foreclosure law act. If the landlord has the right to rent "during the foreclosure procedures and auction of the property" the tenant should have a right to a secure unit/house AGREED to with the Landlord and tenant. The tenant did not agree to a lease with a bank. Wondering if repairs will get done and right to general peace and quite expected for tenant with the landlord. The landlord had gotten himself into this mess and he should prove that he is working with the bank and to the tenant via court that the rent is valid, that HE even has the right as per his mortgage to continue to get rent (some mortgages) in default don't allow rent to be collected. Protect the tenant when the landlord is in default. This would also STOP Fraud and or other nonsense that goes on with landlords and foreclosures.
There are some states that have provisions where you can pay rent to a state controlled escrow account if repairs and such are not made.
San Francisco is very pro tenant and has added laws in light of the foreclosure problems.
When all is said and done... both sides have the courts to settle disagreements.
In my experience, some of the worst owners are financial institutions...
Helped several friends that rent and were simply told to get out because the bank now owns the property... wrong in so many ways... least of all, it's a violation of local ordinance.
The reality is renting will never equate with owning and this is why many struggle and sacrifice to own.
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.
