Sale of rental property we are leasing

What is the name of your state?What is the name of your state? California

My wife and I are renting a single family residence that has been sold - the sale should be final on Feb. 1. We have a lease that is good until Aug. 2006 - I know that I have that right to stay until that time and the new owner is obligated to abide by the lease terms. However, we don't necessarily want to stay. Reading through these forums, it looks like the default answer is that the lease transfers with the property, and I'd be breaking the lease if I were to move. However, does this have to be spelled out in the lease? The seller was originally willing to let us break the lease - now he's saying that he'll have to check the lease and consult with his lawyer, and the fact that we are there as existing tenants was part of the sale conditions.

A couple side points - CA law requires him to give us 120 days written notice before the sale of the property - this was not done. Also, his realtor did not give us proper notice when showing the property, or hold the open house during normal business hours (in my research, this would be 9-5 Mon. thru Fri.; he normally held open houses on Sundays from noon to 5.) Do I have any legal recourse? I've read that I could take him to small claims, but I'm not sure what kind of case I would have or what "damages" I could pursue.

Also, does CA law require the property manager to be licensed?

Thank you!

Blackwell said:

What is the name of your state?What is the name of your state? California

My wife and I are renting a single family residence that has been sold - the sale should be final on Feb. 1. We have a lease that is good until Aug. 2006 - I know that I have that right to stay until that time and the new owner is obligated to abide by the lease terms. However, we don't necessarily want to stay. Reading through these forums, it looks like the default answer is that the lease transfers with the property, and I'd be breaking the lease if I were to move. However, does this have to be spelled out in the lease? The seller was originally willing to let us break the lease - now he's saying that he'll have to check the lease and consult with his lawyer, and the fact that we are there as existing tenants was part of the sale conditions.

A couple side points - CA law requires him to give us 120 days written notice before the sale of the property - this was not done. Also, his realtor did not give us proper notice when showing the property, or hold the open house during normal business hours (in my research, this would be 9-5 Mon. thru Fri.; he normally held open houses on Sundays from noon to 5.) Do I have any legal recourse? I've read that I could take him to small claims, but I'm not sure what kind of case I would have or what "damages" I could pursue.

Also, does CA law require the property manager to be licensed?

Thank you!

Click to expand...

This is a nifty little site I found. It might be helpful to you. It has statutes in it so I like it. It is a little heavy handed. But Take it with a grain of salt.
http://www.caltenantlaw.com/ForSale.htm



About property managers.

The California Department of Real Estate (DRE) requires that all property managers have an active real estate salesperson's or broker's license unless you qualify for the limited exemption allowed for a resident manager or rental hostess.

In certain circumstances, an unlicensed person employed by and under the direct supervision of a licensed real estate broker may perform limited management or leasing functions for residential apartments.

Under the California Business and Professions Code, these activities are limited to:

1. Showing rental units and common areas to prospective tenants.

2. Providing or accepting preprinted rental applications or responding to inquiries from a prospective tenant concerning the completion of the application.

3. Accepting deposits or fees for credit checks or administrative costs and accepting security deposits and rents.

4. Providing information about rental rates and other terms and provisions of a lease or rental agreement, as set out in a schedule provided by the employing broker.

5. Accepting signed leases and rental agreements from prospective tenants.

Blackwell said:

However, does this have to be spelled out in the lease?

Click to expand...

Nope.

A couple side points - CA law requires him to give us 120 days written notice before the sale of the property - this was not done.

Click to expand...

Sorry, but that is NOT what the CA Civil Code S1954 says. It says:
"(2) If the purpose of the entry is to exhibit the dwelling unit to prospective or actual purchasers, the notice may be given orally, in person or by telephone, if the landlord or his or her agent has notified the tenant in writing within 120 days of the oral notice that the property is for sale and that the landlord or agent may contact the tenant orally for the purpose described above. Twenty-four hours is presumed reasonable notice in the absence of evidence to the contrary. The notice shall include the date, approximate time, and purpose of the entry. At the time of entry, the landlord or agent shall leave written evidence of the entry inside the unit."
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=civ&group=01001-02000&file=1940-1954.1

The key word there is IF!! It only says that the NOTICE can be oral if 120 days notice was given of the sale.

Also, his realtor did not give us proper notice when showing the property, or hold the open house during normal business hours (in my research, this would be 9-5 Mon. thru Fri.; he normally held open houses on Sundays from noon to 5.)

Click to expand...

Though not requires, it is too late to argue that one. Should have been done at the time.

Do I have any legal recourse?

Click to expand...

Against what?? There is nothing in your post to even suggest you have a valid legal claim against the landlord or new owner.

Also, does CA law require the property manager to be licensed?

Click to expand...

What does this 'property manager' do??

JETX said:

Nope.

Click to expand...

thanks.

JETX said:

Sorry, but that is NOT what the CA Civil Code S1954 says. It says:
"(2) If the purpose of the entry is to exhibit the dwelling unit to prospective or actual purchasers, the notice may be given orally, in person or by telephone, if the landlord or his or her agent has notified the tenant in writing within 120 days of the oral notice that the property is for sale and that the landlord or agent may contact the tenant orally for the purpose described above. Twenty-four hours is presumed reasonable notice in the absence of evidence to the contrary. The notice shall include the date, approximate time, and purpose of the entry. At the time of entry, the landlord or agent shall leave written evidence of the entry inside the unit."
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=civ&group=01001-02000&file=1940-1954.1

The key word there is IF!! It only says that the NOTICE can be oral if 120 days notice was given of the sale.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure of your interpretation here. Yes, the key word is "if"; "...MAY be given orally, in person or by telephone, IF the landlord or his or her agent has notified the tenant in writing within 120 days of the oral notice that the property is for sale"
This reads to me like a conditional statement; they DID NOT notify us in writing, at any time; thus, the condition was not fulfilled. The following is from CA's official tenant handbook. This passage references s1954; note the use of the word MUST (which when read in relation to your link, seems to be an odd interpretation):
"Special rules apply if the purpose of the entry is to show the rental to a purchaser. In that case, the landlord or the landlord’s agent may give the tenant notice orally, either in person or by telephone. The law considers 24 hours’ notice to be reasonable in most situations. However, before oral notice can be given, the landlord or agent must first have notified the tenant in writing that the rental is for sale and that the landlord or agent may contact the tenant orally to arrange to show it. This written notice must be given to the tenant within 120 days of the giving of the oral notice."

JETX said:

Though not requires, it is too late to argue that one. Should have been done at the time.

Click to expand...

Yep, agreed. I should have looked into this long ago.

JETX said:

Against what?? There is nothing in your post to even suggest you have a valid legal claim against the landlord or new owner.

Click to expand...

Against the 120 day requirement. See above.

JETX said:

What does this 'property manager' do??

Click to expand...

Not much. Payments go directly to the owner; any other communication goes through her. We've contacted her regarding broken appliances, leaking pipes, fumigation, etc. She just doesn't seem to be a "professional" manager, and she is apparently a friend of the owner who is handling the management duties out of her home. Her management really has nothing to do with our lease questions, but she's difficult to deal with; she doesn't seem to know much about what's going on with the property.

ENASNI said:

This is a nifty little site I found. It might be helpful to you. It has statutes in it so I like it. It is a little heavy handed. But Take it with a grain of salt.
http://www.caltenantlaw.com/ForSale.htm

Click to expand...

Thanks for the info, ENASNI. Yeah, I came across that site, too. I agree, it's a little heavy handed, but he has a lot of info. Too bad I didn't run across it months ago.
Thanks for the management info.

Blackwell said:

Thanks for the info, ENASNI. Yeah, I came across that site, too. I agree, it's a little heavy handed, but he has a lot of info. Too bad I didn't run across it months ago.
Thanks for the management info.

Click to expand...

You are welcome.

Bottom line:
You have a valid lease.
Your lease obligation is NOT waived upon sale of the property.
Make sure that your deposit is transferred to the new owner.
You have NO legal claim against the landlord or sales agent.
Your 'problem' with the former 'property manager' will presumably be resolved with the new owner.

Pay your rent on time.

JETX said:

Bottom line:
You have a valid lease.
Your lease obligation is NOT waived upon sale of the property.
Make sure that your deposit is transferred to the new owner.
You have NO legal claim against the landlord or sales agent.
Your 'problem' with the former 'property manager' will presumably be resolved with the new owner.

Pay your rent on time.

Click to expand...

Correct me if I am wrong OP but what I think you are trying to get at is;

If the landlord did not give you the required 120 day notice that the property was for sale is that reason enough to break your lease?

acmb05 said:

If the landlord did not give you the required 120 day notice that the property was for sale is that reason enough to break your lease?

Click to expand...

Doesn't matter... since it isn't.

Is the property is a rent controlled area?

HomeGuru said:

Is the property is a rent controlled area?

Click to expand...

No, HomeGuru, it is not.

acmb05 said:

Correct me if I am wrong OP but what I think you are trying to get at is;

If the landlord did not give you the required 120 day notice that the property was for sale is that reason enough to break your lease?

Click to expand...

acmb05 -- yes.

JETX said:

Doesn't matter... since it isn't.

Click to expand...

JETX -- why isn't it? I appreciate the replies, but a little more info would be helpful. Some of the things I've read (including the official CA tenants guide I referenced and the catenantlaw.com site that ENASNI referenced) seem to indicate that I could.

Blackwell said:

JETX -- why isn't it? I appreciate the replies, but a little more info would be helpful. Some of the things I've read (including the official CA tenants guide I referenced and the catenantlaw.com site that ENASNI referenced) seem to indicate that I could.

Click to expand...

Because in order to assert your 'rights' to notice, you would have to prove to a court that the landlord abused his right of entry.
If the landlord failed in complying with the 120 day written notice AND/OR failed to properly notice, the time to assert your rights was then. You can't do it after the fact.... and it is not a significant violation to justify you to terminate your otherwise valid lease.