After you aquire CA Tax Default Properties: - Posted by Dom

Posted by Dom on March 02, 2002 at 19:14:40:

Thanks for the heads up. Sale is in a couple weeks and the properties look promising… But like Dad used to say, “A deal of the century usually rolls around once a day, you just need to know where to look.”

After you aquire CA Tax Default Properties: - Posted by Dom

Posted by Dom on March 02, 2002 at 05:56:06:

My question has to do with after you aquire a California Tax Default property:

  1. What happens if the property is occupied? And if the occupant is not the owner, but a tenant.
  2. Has any one been in this situation in California?


Re: After you aquire CA Tax Default Properties: - Posted by Ronald * Starr(in No CA)

Posted by Ronald * Starr(in No CA) on March 02, 2002 at 17:32:43:


Unfortunately, there is no specific statute covering eviction of occupants of properties bought on tax sales, or IRS seized property sales.

So Lloyd Cook (CA) may be right about about doing an ejectment action.

However, there is a statute that deals with doing evictions after trustee’s auctions and sheriff’s sales. I used that statute and went after the occupant of a tax-sale property as though that trustee’s and sheriff’s auction law applied. It worked.

The judge will probably not read the statute, and, even if s/he does, may still miss the point that it does not apply to tax sale properties. It is certainly worth it, in my opinion, to try this bluff, since it speeds up getting possession of the house.

Good InvestingRon Starr

an action in ejectment - Posted by Lloyd Cook, Los Angeles

Posted by Lloyd Cook, Los Angeles on March 02, 2002 at 08:59:57:

I am just starting the same thing on property I bought last June in Los Angeles County. Here is what my attorney says:

After sending the two earlier emails to you, I had a conversation with my
partner who, based on several cases that he had in recent years,
has convinced me that we cannot use the remedy of unlawful detainer to evict
a holder over occupant following a tax sale. Instead, we must bring an
action in ejectment which, unfortunately, is not a summary remedy and (if
contested by Ms. Berry) may take somewhat longer to conclude than an
unlawful detainer proceeding.

What this means is that you can disregard the Notice to Quit previously
transmitted. It is not required for an action in ejectment. Instead, I
will prepare a Complaint for Ejectment this weekend that we can file and
serve on Monday. Like most other civil lawsuits in California other than
unlawful detainer proceedings, Ms. Berry will have 30 days to respond to the
Complaint for Ejectment. If she fails to respond, we will take her default
and seek an immediate default judgment for possession. If she does respond,
our best course of action will be to file a motion for summary judgment
which will require approximately 35 days’ notice to the defendant and which,
if granted, will result in a judgment for possession. In my opinion, we
would have an excellent chance for prevailing on such a summary judgment
since there are few, if any, defenses that can be raised.

Overall, recourse to the ejectment remedy will add somewhere between 45-90
days to the time that it would take to obtain an unlawful detainer judgment.
However, under the circumstances, there appears to be no alternative but to

Followup Question from Magician2000 - Posted by Ronald * Starr(in No CA)

Posted by Ronald * Starr(in No CA) on March 05, 2002 at 10:01:29:

I received the following question via e-mail and post here.

-----**–THE E-MAIL----*

From: | Block Address | Add to Address Book

Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 03:01:30 EST

Subject: Re: After you aquire CA Tax Default Properties:


What do you think about trying to evict them just as if they were tenants not paying rent? Which they are in a way. Give them a 30 day notice to vacate, and then evict them? Have you ever tried that approach?


I have never tried and it and never will. You have to sue under a particular statute of the state law. That statute is for rental situations. This does not fit that. The law I sued under is for foreclosure situations with hold-over owners or renters. That is the one I used.

Good InvestingRon Starr