redsnapper9
Junior Member
I live in Connecticut.
I live in a multi-use property (a converted Victorian house-fairly common in my town), with a real estate company (REC) below and an apartment upstairs. My lease is up in September.
REC does not own the property, they rent from Ms. X and in turn sublease the apartment to me. I don't know the terms of their lease, however, Ms. X allows REC to sublease the apartment. Their lease is up in May, and they have decided not to renew as Ms. X is actively trying to sell the property. Being that my lease is with REC, they have given me verbal notice that I will have to move at the end of May when they vacate. In return, REC has offered me $3,000 and my security deposit. Technically they are required to proffer such a notice and additional terms in writing, certified return receipt, as per CT state housing statutes...but maybe I'm just being picky.
My question is, can REC force me to move? If so, are they required to offer me an incentive? Would it be wrong to negotiate more?
On to the legalese: Pursuant to CT housing statute 47a-23c. (prohibition on eviction of certain tenants except for good cause), which governs why a landlord can force someone to move, this does not appear to be explicitly covered, "A tenant may not be dispossessed for a reason described in subparagraph (B), (F) or (G) of subdivision (1) of this subsection during the term of any existing rental agreement." (section F applies the best, "permanent removal by the landlord of the dwelling unit of such tenant from the housing market") As well, my lease specifies, "If we sell the building, we shall give the new owner your security deposit and any rent you have paid to us in advance. After we have done so, you will look only to the new landlord and not to us, to enfore the landlord's promises under this lease." To me, this means I could elect to stay in the property and have the lease taken over by Ms. X or the building's new owner (should there be one, and should they elect to do so). Any thoughts?
I live in a multi-use property (a converted Victorian house-fairly common in my town), with a real estate company (REC) below and an apartment upstairs. My lease is up in September.
REC does not own the property, they rent from Ms. X and in turn sublease the apartment to me. I don't know the terms of their lease, however, Ms. X allows REC to sublease the apartment. Their lease is up in May, and they have decided not to renew as Ms. X is actively trying to sell the property. Being that my lease is with REC, they have given me verbal notice that I will have to move at the end of May when they vacate. In return, REC has offered me $3,000 and my security deposit. Technically they are required to proffer such a notice and additional terms in writing, certified return receipt, as per CT state housing statutes...but maybe I'm just being picky.
My question is, can REC force me to move? If so, are they required to offer me an incentive? Would it be wrong to negotiate more?
On to the legalese: Pursuant to CT housing statute 47a-23c. (prohibition on eviction of certain tenants except for good cause), which governs why a landlord can force someone to move, this does not appear to be explicitly covered, "A tenant may not be dispossessed for a reason described in subparagraph (B), (F) or (G) of subdivision (1) of this subsection during the term of any existing rental agreement." (section F applies the best, "permanent removal by the landlord of the dwelling unit of such tenant from the housing market") As well, my lease specifies, "If we sell the building, we shall give the new owner your security deposit and any rent you have paid to us in advance. After we have done so, you will look only to the new landlord and not to us, to enfore the landlord's promises under this lease." To me, this means I could elect to stay in the property and have the lease taken over by Ms. X or the building's new owner (should there be one, and should they elect to do so). Any thoughts?
Last edited: