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.
So, my wife and I have been looking to move up from our townhouse in the District to a SFH in the city or a close in suburb for about a month. This week, a nice 4BR home comes on the market in DC right in our price range. We go see it today; it's beautiful, the neighborhood is lovely, even in the rain.
The problem is that the current tenants' lease doe not expire until April 2010. We would be willing to work with them, but we can't wait that long. We know that DC's tenant laws are super strong. Is it worth putting an offer on this house or should we just avoid the headache and move on?
Personally I would move on. If you can't wait to move in, your only options would be to hope the tenants are amenable to a buyout offer from you, or to take illegal action against them, which obviously is not advisable. There really is no room for 'interpretation' in the tenants' rights ordinances regarding kick-outs.
Personally I would move on. If you can't wait to move in, your only options would be to hope the tenants are amenable to a buyout offer from you, or to take illegal action against them, which obviously is not advisable. There really is no room for 'interpretation' in the tenants' rights ordinances regarding kick-outs.
Thanks kodada,
Obviously, we are not interested in doing anything illegal. I guess I should have framed the question more along the lines of, if we wanted to try to buy them out, how do we go about pricing it? We'd have to consider that as an additional cost for buying the house, but how much? X number of months rent? Moving expenses? What would be a fair starting point?
If a landlord wanted to buy me out, I think I'd only consider if they were offering at least two months rent plus moving expenses and a complete return of my deposit. Of course I would need this in advance in order to put down a deposit elsewhere and arrange for movers.
The risk, I think,is the potential that the tenants won't take any amount of money to move early. Maybe they've got plans to relocate next spring and don't want to move twice, or want to keep their kids in school or whatever, but they could simply turn down even a very large buyout offer. Then what will you do?
Is there a way you can speak to the tenants before putting in an offer on the house, to see how amenable to a buyout they are?
Why is it a dumb law? It isn't any different than the principles behind all contract law. Two parties entered into a legal agreement. Why should one party be permitted to renege on a lease any more than on a signed home sale or a service contract or a corporate merger?
Just like with any of those contracts, one party can offer to buy their way out of the contract, but the other party is not obligated to accept those terms.
AFAIK, there is no place where you can kick out a tenant who has a legal contractual right to reside there.
No, I don't mean it's dumb that the new owner would have to honor the tenant's lease. What's dumb is that tenants get a free right of first refusal. The seller has to notify the tenant when there is a signed contract with the buyer (me). The tenant has THIRTY DAYS to decide if they wish to match the offer. If they choose to exercise the right, they have nearly a year to arrange financing. Even if they don't, they can assign (sell) this right to a fourth party. They get many months to work this deal.
Meanwhile, the seller and the original buyer (me) are left twisting in the wind.
That is an awful lot of power for just singing a lease.
No, I don't mean it's dumb that the new owner would have to honor the tenant's lease. What's dumb is that tenants get a free right of first refusal. The seller has to notify the tenant when there is a signed contract with the buyer (me). The tenant has THIRTY DAYS to decide if they wish to match the offer. If they choose to exercise the right, they have nearly a year to arrange financing. Even if they don't, they can assign (sell) this right to a fourth party. They get many months to work this deal.
Meanwhile, the seller and the original buyer (me) are left twisting in the wind.
That is an awful lot of power for just singing a lease.
I agree. As a landlord, I would not want to buy a property under these rules. I can't imagine the discomfort a landlord would feel if his or her property was under financial distress and had to sell immediately.
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.
