top Ad Widget

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Your landlord got foreclosed. Do you have to go?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Your landlord got foreclosed. Do you have to go?

    February 18, 2010

    Renting a home that is going through foreclosure? If so, don't be fooled: Lenders can't kick you out; they have to honor the terms of your lease.

    Of course, that doesn't mean that some lenders' representatives aren't trying to scare people away.

    Sandra Pearson has lived in her rented townhouse in Santa Maria, Calif., since July 2007. But last October, the single mom -- whose 17-year-old son suffers from epilepsy and autism -- was served with a vacate notice.

    The owner of the home had lost it to foreclosure and the servicer, First Federal Bank, wanted Pearson out. She showed them her lease, which runs through June 2010, and proof of on-time payments and thought everything was cleared up.

    But in December, First Federal failed, and OneWest Bank took over its assets -- including the Santa Maria townhouse. When Pearson went to pay her rent, the agency managing the property for OneWest refused to accept the check. They threatened her with court action and claimed her lease was not legitimate.

    "They scare the wits out of you," Pearson said.

    OneWest eventually agreed to allow her to finish her lease; however, a bank spokeswoman said they still believe there were problems with the documents.

    Under the Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act, which Congress passed last May, tenants like Pearson are usually eligible to stay after the property has been foreclosed as long as they have a valid lease and are paying their rent regularly. Even renters on a month-to-month lease get 90 days to leave.

    But tenant advocacy groups charge that lender representatives, including some unscrupulous real estate agents, have been preying on tenants' ignorance. They pressure renters by sending them misleading letters that drive some out.

    One letter sent out by a Texas law firm stated, "This letter constitutes formal and final demand that you vacate the premises within three days [emphasis ours] of the date this letter is delivered."

    Worse, the message threatens legal costs if tenants don't comply. With that facing them, many fold their tents.

    "The average person wouldn't know the law has changed," said Robert Doggett, an attorney for Texas RioGrande Legal Aid. "People assume they have to leave."

    There is no official data identifying the number of people who have received such letters, but advocates think it could be quite high considering the number of properties bought for investment and rented out during the boom years.

    The attorney general of Connecticut, Richard Blumenthal, has fielded numerous complaints. "Potentially, it could be affecting thousands of tenants," he said. "We're warning banks and real estate interests: foreclosure is not excuse for illegal eviction."

    Early in February, he sent out cease-and-desist letters to 15 lenders, including such big names as Wells Fargo, HSBC and Citibank, nine law firms and six real estate companies, urging them to comply with the act.

    The banks all denied any intentional wrongdoing. Some did say they have absorbed huge volumes of foreclosed properties with little, if any, infrastructure in place to handle the extraordinary number of repossessions.

    In fact, many often contract with outside companies -- law firms and real estate brokers -- to handle the workload. And in some cases it may be those contractors who are overstepping the bounds, without the banks' knowledge, according to Gabe Treves, program director at California advocacy group Tenants Together.

    "The realtors see tenants as a roadblock to their commission," he said, "so they bully and mislead them into signing away their rights to say in their homes."

    That almost happened to taxi driver Owen Casper, who found a note on his door from a real estate agent telling him he had 30 days to get out of his San Diego home.

    "It gave me two options," he said. "Continue in the home on a month-to-month lease or take keys for cash. But the agent told me because I was already month-to-month, my only option was to move."

    The agent represented Fannie Mae, the government sponsored mortgage giant, which has a strict policy of protecting tenants. But, apparently, the agent hadn't gotten that message.

    Casper is thankful he called Tenants Together and fought the eviction. They advised him to speak directly to the mortgage company since the bank might not be aware of the agent's bad behavior.

    After Casper contacted Fannie Mae, it arranged for him to talk over his situation with a new agent. "She made it very easy for me to stay in my home," he said. "I got a year lease at very affordable rent."

    To Blumenthal, whether or not it's policy or rogue representatives is not particularly relevant. "One way or the other, the outside contractors act as the lenders' agents and so [the lenders] are legally responsible," he said.

    Filed Chapter 7 July 2010
    Attended 341 September 2010
    Discharged November 2010 Closed November 2010

    #2
    The new owner must honor your lease, unless they intend to occupy the residence, then you have 90 days max. So you're protected if the new owner is an investor, but not if they are someone just buying the house to live in.
    Case Closed > 2/08/2010

    Comment


      #3
      Originally posted by BobMango View Post
      The new owner must honor your lease, unless they intend to occupy the residence, then you have 90 days max. So you're protected if the new owner is an investor, but not if they are someone just buying the house to live in.
      I believe this varies depending on State law. Anyone in this situation should check with someone knowledgeable about the lease laws in their state.
      Wife Laid off - 11/16/2009 Missed First Payments - 12/5/2009
      Filed Chap 7 - 12/31/2009
      341 - 2/12/2010
      Discharged - 4/19/2010

      Comment


        #4
        Originally posted by BCA2009 View Post
        ...Anyone in this situation should check with someone knowledgeable about the lease laws in their state.
        I agree with this part. In regards to state laws superceding this law, I'm not a constitutional scholar, but I would think that state laws could extend the period of time renters are allowed, but not reduce it. I don't believe there are any carve outs in this legislation.
        Case Closed > 2/08/2010

        Comment


          #5
          yes, federal law pre-empts state laws in this case. the state laws can give the renters more rights, not less.
          filed ch7 May 09
          341 june 09
          discharged, closed Aug 09

          Comment


            #6
            Originally posted by keepinitreal View Post
            February 18, 2010

            "The average person wouldn't know the law has changed," said Robert Doggett, an attorney for Texas RioGrande Legal Aid.
            Heck, the average lawyer doesn't know the law has changed. I had never heard of this law until I read this post just this minute and I make an honest effort to stay abreast of these things. I'll have to get into the books and read it.


            As to the state law / federal law debate below, I think music12 has it right. Federal laws do supercede state laws. But state laws can grant more rights or additional rights, as long as they don't conflict with the federal law.

            The thing I wonder about is whether this law would withstand a constitutional challenge. Federal courts may consider intrastate landlord tenant matters purely local affairs and beyond fedgov's authority to act.
            Pay no attention to anything I post. I graduated last in my class from a fly-by-night law school that no longer exists; I never studied or went to class; and I only post on internet forums when I'm too drunk to crawl away from the computer.

            Comment


              #7
              Originally posted by MSbklawyer View Post
              Heck, the average lawyer doesn't know the law has changed. I had never heard of this law until I read this post just this minute and I make an honest effort to stay abreast of these things. I'll have to get into the books and read it.


              As to the state law / federal law debate below, I think music12 has it right. Federal laws do supercede state laws. But state laws can grant more rights or additional rights, as long as they don't conflict with the federal law.

              The thing I wonder about is whether this law would withstand a constitutional challenge. Federal courts may consider intrastate landlord tenant matters purely local affairs and beyond fedgov's authority to act.
              You're way too modest!
              Well, I did. Every one of 'em. Mostly I remember the last one. The wild finish. A guy standing on a station platform in the rain with a comical look in his face because his insides have been kicked out. -Rick

              Comment


                #8
                i hope this law does withstand any constitutional challenge. when there is a national crisis like the huge number of foreclosures, i think congress can and should step in. of course, it would depend on what the judges have for breakfast the day they decide. hopefully, though, by the time this reaches the courts, the crisis will have subsided anyway.
                filed ch7 May 09
                341 june 09
                discharged, closed Aug 09

                Comment

                bottom Ad Widget

                Collapse
                Working...
                X