Parking lot

[Rcobert]

What is the name of your state? LA
I purchased a pay by semester parking lot near a university. The contract did not include any information pertaining to any permits purchased from previous owner prior to the sale. After the sale, I was provided a list of people who purchased permits from him as a "courtesy" but he would be keeping the monies paid for those permits. I have reached out to those people and let them know they would need to purchase new permits from me and should ask for a refund from previous owner. Previous owner is now threatening to sue me. Does he have any legal ground to stand on?

 

[PayrollHRGuy]

You should have a lawyer look over the rental agreement that the former owner had people sign as well as the new agreement you had them sign.

My bet is that you bought the liabilities of the lot when you bought the lot. In other words, they have already paid.

 

[Zigner]

This would really depend on the terms of your purchase. A full review of your contract is in order, and such a review is beyond the scope of this (or any) internet forum. I would seek the opinion of a local attorney.

 

[quincy]

What is the name of your state? LA
I purchased a pay by semester parking lot near a university. The contract did not include any information pertaining to any permits purchased from previous owner prior to the sale. After the sale, I was provided a list of people who purchased permits from him as a "courtesy" but he would be keeping the monies paid for those permits. I have reached out to those people and let them know they would need to purchase new permits from me and should ask for a refund from previous owner. Previous owner is now threatening to sue me. Does he have any legal ground to stand on?

Possibly. He could have a legal leg to stand on if the purchase contract did not entitle you to rental payments already made.

You will probably find you have to honor the current leases and, when they expire, you at that time can have new leases signed.

You should have all terms of the sale reviewed by a legal professional in your area.

 

[Rcobert]

What is the name of your state? LA
I purchased a pay by semester parking lot near a university. The contract did not include any information pertaining to any permits purchased from previous owner prior to the sale. After the sale, I was provided a list of people who purchased permits from him as a "courtesy" but he would be keeping the monies paid for those permits. I have reached out to those people and let them know they would need to purchase new permits from me and should ask for a refund from previous owner. Previous owner is now threatening to sue me. Does he have any legal ground to stand on?

As of yet, he has not provided any proof they purchased the spots other than a copy of a handwritten list. Thanks.

 

[Zigner]

As of yet, he has not provided any proof they purchased the spots other than a copy of a handwritten list. Thanks.

What else does he need to provide?

 

[LdiJ]

What is the name of your state? LA
I purchased a pay by semester parking lot near a university. The contract did not include any information pertaining to any permits purchased from previous owner prior to the sale. After the sale, I was provided a list of people who purchased permits from him as a "courtesy" but he would be keeping the monies paid for those permits. I have reached out to those people and let them know they would need to purchase new permits from me and should ask for a refund from previous owner. Previous owner is now threatening to sue me. Does he have any legal ground to stand on?

You should have insisted (before closing on the property) that he transfer to you the prorated amount of money still unused for those permits. How much time was left on the permits?

 

[quincy]

As of yet, he has not provided any proof they purchased the spots other than a copy of a handwritten list. Thanks.

All of this should have been discussed prior to your purchase of the lot - with a list of current lot permit holders and their leases and when the leases expire and how the money for the remaining months of the leases should be handled. If this was not part of your purchase contract, it could be a costly mistake.

 

[adjusterjack]

Does he have any legal ground to stand on?

Possibly. When you buy a rented house you typically have to honor the existing lease. My guess it's the same with the parking lot and you are obliged to honor the existing rental agreements. If the former owner is compelled to give refunds because you don't honor the agreements he could sue you for indemnification.

You apparently bough the lot without addressing the current rental agreements. That's on you.

 

[LdiJ]

Possibly. When you buy a rented house you typically have to honor the existing lease. My guess it's the same with the parking lot and you are obliged to honor the existing rental agreements. If the former owner is compelled to give refunds because you don't honor the agreements he could sue you for indemnification.

You apparently bough the lot without addressing the current rental agreements. That's on you.

Yes, but with a lease the next month's rent goes to the new owner, not the outgoing owner. Since these passes are per semester, I would love to know how much time was left on the passes. If there was just a couple of weeks its one thing, but if the passes are for the semester just starting, that is a whole nuther story.

 

[Zigner]

Yes, but with a lease the next month's rent goes to the new owner, not the outgoing owner. Since these passes are per semester, I would love to know how much time was left on the passes. If there was just a couple of weeks its one thing, but if the passes are for the semester just starting, that is a whole nuther story.

How is it a "whole nuther story"? It's actually exactly the same. The buyer needs to factor these liabilities in to the offer price.

 

[LdiJ]

How is it a "whole nuther story"? It's actually exactly the same. The buyer needs to factor these liabilities in to the offer price.

Imagine this scenario. They just closed on the property in December. The seller sold passes to people for the upcoming semester and did not disclose this before the sale closed, and did not disclose that he intended to keep the money he got for those passes either. That is a substantial non-disclosure. One would not have expected him to sell passes for a time period when he knew he would no longer own the property. That would be like a landlord collecting six months of rent in advance, and not disclosing that there was a tenant at all in the property, let alone one who had paid six months in advance.

Then there is another scenario. They closed on the property half way through a semester. The buyer should have been well aware that there were passes sold for that semester. Although the owner did not disclose, in that instance the buyer had enough info to know that he needed to do due diligence.

 

[PayrollHRGuy]

The OP admits to having a list of those that have paid. The OP messed up by no getting prorated rent from the seller.

 

[quincy]

LdiJ, your scenarios are not supported by anything stated.

A personal review of the ACTUAL terms of sale is required to know where buyer and seller stand legally in regard to the leases currently in effect.

 

[Zigner]

Imagine this scenario. They just closed on the property in December. The seller sold passes to people for the upcoming semester and did not disclose this before the sale closed, and did not disclose that he intended to keep the money he got for those passes either. That is a substantial non-disclosure. One would not have expected him to sell passes for a time period when he knew he would no longer own the property. That would be like a landlord collecting six months of rent in advance, and not disclosing that there was a tenant at all in the property, let alone one who had paid six months in advance.

Then there is another scenario. They closed on the property half way through a semester. The buyer should have been well aware that there were passes sold for that semester. Although the owner did not disclose, in that instance the buyer had enough info to know that he needed to do due diligence.

I don't agree. If the buyer was buying all of the liabilities (that's the assumption I am making), then the onus is on the buyer to inquire, particularly since the assumption should be that some number of passes would likely had been sold. Now, had the buyer asked and the seller not provided the information, things would be different...but that's not what happened here.