• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

Ambiguous Tenancy under city of LA rent control

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

MsMaria

New member
California

I'm a prospective buyer on a triplex (built in the 1960's) in San Pedro, a community of LA City. The property is held in a trust. The seller (wife just died and had rights to the property in the trust; but seems she didn't have will), who started probate to get the funds from the sale, wishes to stay in the property for four months after escrow closes on the sale free of charge while he goes through probate. Once probate is completed he says he plans to move out of the property. I heard from a real estate professional that this would not come under the city of LA rent control ordinance if the seller would pay at least a nominal fee to stay at the property. I could then evict him if he does not leave.

After the 4 month stay after escrow closes would I as the new owner be able to evict him?
 


zddoodah

Active Member
Your post is confusing.

You wrote that the "property is held in a trust," but then you refer to the "seller" as an individual and discuss a probate proceeding (apparently for the "seller's" deceased wife). If the property is owned by a trust, then the trust, not the individual is the seller. Also, if it's owned by a trust, then the probate proceedings are not relevant.

Additionally, since it's not clear who this "seller" is or what his relationship is to the trust that owns the property, it's impossible to discern whether or how the convoluted Los Angeles rent control ordinance might apply.

You should clarify who exactly owns the property and how the individual you mentioned is related to the trust. For example, you might tell us that the most recent deed, dated January 31, 2000, granted the property from "John Smith, a married man as his sole and separate property" to "John Smith, as Trustee of The John Smith Revocable Trust, dated January 1, 2000."

Regardless, since you haven't bought the property and (apparently) haven't yet entered into a contract to buy it, you can take steps to ensure that everything is properly addressed before you bind yourself in any way. If the person in question insists on remaining in possession of the premises even after a sale and you don't like that, then you can refuse to sign an agreement to buy and walk away from the property.
 

adjusterjack

Senior Member
wishes to stay in the property for four months after escrow closes on the sale free of charge while he goes through probate.
Forgive my bluntness but you'd have to be an idiot to go along with that. You'll be giving him hundreds of thousands of dollars and he'll sit there cheerfully, laughing at you, with your money in his bank account. And if his probate takes longer and he doesn't leave, then you'll have to spend thousands and many months going through the eviction process in the courts.

Even if you get him to pay rent he's paying it with your money.

No thanks.

Offer him a four month escrow with the provision that he's completely moved out (everything) before close of escrow and you make sure he's out by then or you don't close. He won't take it. He'll look for another sucker.
 

quincy

Senior Member
You could present an offer to purchase with contingencies, with a date set for all contingencies to be met or the offer becomes void.

One contingency could be that occupancy is to be at the time of closing.

I don’t think it a good idea at all to purchase a house under the terms you have outlined. You do not want to be put in a position where you are paying to have someone occupy your house for four months for free and your only recourse is to evict the occupant if he won’t leave after four months.
 

STEPHAN

Senior Member
I once did this and I insisted to keep 25K in escrow until the seller moved out. He was happy with the lower amount and I would have paid the eviction with the 25K.
 

quincy

Senior Member
I once did this and I insisted to keep 25K in escrow until the seller moved out. He was happy with the lower amount and I would have paid the eviction with the 25K.
The cost of eviction is the least of the problems. Letting the seller live in the house you purchased for four months after closing (for free) leaves your house open to vandalism and leaves your own occupancy in limbo.
 

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top