Anyone had any negative experience with 60-day move-out clauses on condo rentals? (Chicago: for sale)

[SmartGXL]

I recently signed a lease for a condo unit here in Chicago, and in the rider, the landlord placed a clause that states:

"Lessor or new owner reserves the right to terminate the lease with 60 day notification for any reason including but not limited to sales of property, unit remodel, or condo conversion. Otherwise this lease will be deemed binding until stated expiration date."

When I was signing the lease, I read everything, but for some reason, I didn't 'see' this in the contract while reading it, I must have been reading the contract too fast.

So my question is - has anyone ever had a landlord activate that clause and ask them to move out, because of them deciding to sell the unit? This is one thing that I have tried to avoid in the past...agreeing to a 60-move out clause just because the landlord wants to try to sell the unit. Who in their right mind, would agree to move into a building, with the risk being there that you might have to move right back out in a couple of months?

The building is three years old, and I believe the building was built as a condo development, but as the project came to completion, was when the housing market turned down and so the landlord has been renting them out since that time. But, the building is in a prime Lakeview location, so I imagine the landlord is probably biding his time, waiting for the market to go back up so that he can put them back on the market and (finally) make his intended profit.

Has anyone here had this happen to them before? Or, what do you think the chances are of the landlord actually converting the unit and asking all the renters to move out?

[emathias]

Originally Posted by SmartGXL

I recently signed a lease for a condo unit here in Chicago, and in the rider, the landlord placed a clause that states:

"Lessor or new owner reserves the right to terminate the lease with 60 day notification for any reason including but not limited to sales of property, unit remodel, or condo conversion. Otherwise this lease will be deemed binding until stated expiration date."

When I was signing the lease, I read everything, but for some reason, I didn't 'see' this in the contract while reading it, I must have been reading the contract too fast.

So my question is - has anyone ever had a landlord activate that clause and ask them to move out, because of them deciding to sell the unit? This is one thing that I have tried to avoid in the past...agreeing to a 60-move out clause just because the landlord wants to try to sell the unit. Who in their right mind, would agree to move into a building, with the risk being there that you might have to move right back out in a couple of months?

The building is three years old, and I believe the building was built as a condo development, but as the project came to completion, was when the housing market turned down and so the landlord has been renting them out since that time. But, the building is in a prime Lakeview location, so I imagine the landlord is probably biding his time, waiting for the market to go back up so that he can put them back on the market and (finally) make his intended profit.

Has anyone here had this happen to them before? Or, what do you think the chances are of the landlord actually converting the unit and asking all the renters to move out?

I don't blame the landlord for putting that in there - if he can get someone to sign the lease that way, it sure helps him. I wouldn't sign anything with less than a 90 day notice, and I would insist on immediate return of the deposit with notification. Otherwise, I'd insist on a standard lease and walk if the landlord wouldn't do it.

But, honestly, crap like that is a big part of why I'm a homeowner now.

[Jandur]

I'm not sure on the legality of that to be honest. I'm no lawyer though. It seems that like signing a 12 month lease (presumably) that also says "hey I can also kick you out with 60 days notice" might not be too kosher.

[SmartGXL]

Well, I did call the listing agent this morning and she did tell me that the landlord (who, apparantly owns many properties) puts this in all of his contracts. She asked him about it before, and his reply was that he has no plans to sell the unit or go condo at this time, as he has "loan commitments" that prevent him from selling or going condo for the next two years.

It does seem a little unfair anyway, that at any time he can just decide to make someone leave by just giving 60 day notice. You are right - it is like I do not have a true 1 year lease. I have seen these clauses before, on other condo units. I guess if anything, it is a way for a landlord to get a "bad tenant" out sooner, without going thru the formal eviction process with the courts.

[SmartGXL]

Originally Posted by emathias

I don't blame the landlord for putting that in there - if he can get someone to sign the lease that way, it sure helps him. I wouldn't sign anything with less than a 90 day notice, and I would insist on immediate return of the deposit with notification. Otherwise, I'd insist on a standard lease and walk if the landlord wouldn't do it.

But, honestly, crap like that is a big part of why I'm a homeowner now.

I agree with the "crap" part of this, and the more I think about it, the angrier I am getting that I signed this lease with this clause in the rider. This guy has some nerve. It is basically like having a month-to-month lease (on his end) but with me locked in to 12 months. Shady!!

Fortunately, there was no security deposit with this lease. But crap like this is making me want to own a HOME...not rent an apartment, not buy a condo, but own a HOME with my own yard. The housing downturn, and all of the over-the-top greed associated with it, has made for a lot of wierd situations as far as housing goes.

[aragx6]

I get why you wish your lease didn't have this clause in it, but I fail to see how it's particularly shady of him to do so. And, I mean,you did sign it. It wasn't written in sanskrit or anything. When my brothers bought their condo it had renters in it and so they had to buy them out of their lease -- it would have been great for them if they could have simply given notice to the tenants.

[soulful]

Such a clause is extremely common for condo owners. Also, even without such a clause, most standard lease language allows the landlord to put the property up for sale and show it while you have it leased.

It is extremely inconvenient to have the place you live "on the market" with realtors constantly coming in and out with prospective buyers (even though they must give you a certain amount of notice before each showing).

For the above reasons, I would steer away from renting a condo.