Landlord agreed to rent property verbally and in SMS texts, now says he got an offer to buy

[SpookyDonkey]

What is the name of your state? California

My wife and I looked at rental property on Tuesday, April 23rd. After viewing the property we told the landlord, who was showing the home himself, that we wanted to rent it. He ran our credit and texted me Wednesday to tell me that we were accepted and that he was going to draft the lease soon. I texted him on Thursday April 25th to ask when I could expect the lease and he stated "Prob this weekend. Gonna get a lease and draft it.". We turned in our intent to vacate form to the apartment we were in a month-to-month lease in on Thursday the 25th. The landlord texted me on Saturday, April 27th (yesterday) stating "Hi. Unfortunately we won't be leasing the property out. We had an investor offer to buy the house, above market."

He stated to us while we were touring the house that we didn't need to worry about him selling the house while we leased it, he had no interest in selling. I am not buying the story and suspect he either got a renter that offered above asking rent, or got an Asian applicant. We live in Irvine and in the month+ looking for a rental here have had a realtor we've worked with tell us that Asian landlords will try to rent to Asian tenants when possible. Do I have any legal rights here?

 

[Zigner]

I would suggest that you speak to your current landlord about retracting the notice that you gave a mere 3 days ago.

 

[justalayman]

If you can show there was an issue based on ethnicity you would have a basis for a suit based on illegal discrimination. That is often hard to prove and unless you have actual losses attributable to the issue, it isn’t generally worth the effort.

As Zigner suggested, speak with your current landlord about rescinding your notice.

 

[adjusterjack]

Do I have any legal rights here?

You might have a case for detrimental reliance (google it) but so far you haven't lost anything. You were looking for a new place to live and you would have incurred the same moving expenses.

If your current LL refuses to let you stay and you start incurring unexpected expenses you might eventually have grounds for a lawsuit. Detrimental reliance is easier to prove than discrimination.

 

[justalayman]

You might have a case for detrimental reliance (google it) but so far you haven't lost anything. You were looking for a new place to live and you would have incurred the same moving expenses.

If your current LL refuses to let you stay and you start incurring unexpected expenses you might eventually have grounds for a lawsuit. Detrimental reliance is easier to prove than discrimination.

So even though the op knew it required a written lease and the op didn’t even know the terms of the contract, including, especially, a move in date, you believe the op can argue they relied on the owners statement as reliable such that they should be owed damages if they occur?

I guess the owner should present a lease with the most burdensome, but legal, obligations placed on the tenant and go; ok, you win. Sign here.


Then if the op refuses, the owner gets to assert the same claim of detrimental reliance and sue for any losses from the sale he quashed to accept the tenancy, right?


Sometimes it’s just a case of one party overreacted and counted their chickens before they hatched.

 

[adjusterjack]

Whatever.

 

[SpookyDonkey]

So even though the op knew it required a written lease and the op didn’t even know the terms of the contract, including, especially, a move in date, you believe the op can argue they relied on the owners statement as reliable such that they should be owed damages if they occur?

I guess the owner should present a lease with the most burdensome, but legal, obligations placed on the tenant and go; ok, you win. Sign here.


Then if the op refuses, the owner gets to assert the same claim of detrimental reliance and sue for any losses from the sale he quashed to accept the tenancy, right?


Sometimes it’s just a case of one party overreacted and counted their chickens before they hatched.

The term of the lease was all agreed to over text. The rental rate, the term (12 months), the deposit amount and the move-in date.

 

[justalayman]

The term of the lease was all agreed to over text. The rental rate, the term (12 months), the deposit amount and the move-in date.

Really? You had ALL the terms of the lease? Did it automatically renew? Did you have to give notice within a certain time to avoid an auto renewal? That is only one of many terms often included in a lease you didn’t mention as being agreed upon.

While you may have had the general gist of the terms, until the lease is placed in front of you, you did not have the lease to review.


And even with all those bits of info you didn’t lay down your deposit. Why is that?

 

[reenzz]

Without the exchange on money...consideration of a verbal contract, I doubt you have any legal action.

 

[SpookyDonkey]

Really? You had ALL the terms of the lease? Did it automatically renew? Did you have to give notice within a certain time to avoid an auto renewal? That is only one of many terms often included in a lease you didn’t mention as being agreed upon.

While you may have had the general gist of the terms, until the lease is placed in front of you, you did not have the lease to review.


And even with all those bits of info you didn’t lay down your deposit. Why is that?

The general terms were agreed to over text. Obviously I didn't have the lease legalese to agree to. As far as the deposit is concerned, I offered to Zelle the entire deposit to him on the spot (here in the Irvine area places go really quickly), but he said we could settle that when we met to sign the lease. You seem very upset by all of this. Is your name Tim, by chance?

 

[justalayman]

Yes, the general terms and you were aware it required a written contract that had not yet been signed.

I’m not upset in the least.
The issue doesn’t affect me

 

[Just Blue]

Yes, the general terms and you were aware it required a written contract that had not yet been signed.

I’m not upset in the least.
The issue doesn’t affect me

Are you sure, Tim?

 

[justalayman]

Are you sure, Tim?

Well, I would make a joke about this but Tim happens to be the name of my little brother that died at the age of 51.

I was the last person to see him alive.

 

[Just Blue]

Well, I would make a joke about this but Tim happens to be the name of my little brother that died at the age of 51.

I was the last person to see him alive.

Oh...I am so sorry! I didn't know.

 

[justalayman]

Oh...I am so sorry! I didn't know.

I know. Nobody did including spooky donkey. I just didn’t want to continue that line if discussion. That seemed to be the simplest and clearest way to end it.