Posted by Redline on April 26, 2007 at 14:27:05:
You can tell by the name of it, that it’s not pro-landlord legislation. It basically lays out the 11 reasons a landlord can evict a tenant. And there are ONLY 11 reasons. Aside from exemptions for owner occupied 2-3 families, you cannot evict a tenant unless it’s one of the 11 reasons, and even then it can be a task. For larger landlords, that can essentially mean a tenant for life.
RL
Have tenants evicted prior to transfer? - Posted by Gary-NJ
Posted by Gary-NJ on April 25, 2007 at 16:56:36:
When you are taking a deed to a house, is the seller usually responsible for getting the tenants out first? Or is it the buyer that should get them out after taking deed?
Re: Have tenants evicted prior to transfer? - Posted by Kristine-CA
Posted by Kristine-CA on April 26, 2007 at 23:12:51:
You’ve gotten some good feedback already. The issue is really one of
contract. Standard contracts often require vacancy at time of close.
You can change that easily.
For what it’s worth, I always agree to take the property with tenants
(with or without leases), squatters and personal property. LOTS of
personal property that requires dumpsters. Oh, and abandoned
vehicles. It’s a negotiating point. I’ve had one seller, and only one,
terminate their lease with the tenants, have them move on time, and
then clean the property before close of escrow. It’s not for everybody,
but I find that taking over these kinds of problems is what separates
my offers from others.
I do suggest, though, that you don’t assume anything regarding
tenants and that the details of who is supposed to do what be in the
contract. Kristine
Hold On a Second. - Posted by Jimmy
Posted by Jimmy on April 26, 2007 at 08:33:24:
Understand that the lease is an encumbrance on the property, just like a lien or a mortgage. You just can’t make it “go away.” if the tenant is 3 months into a year’s lease, the buyer has another 9 months to deal with. of course, the buyer can entice the tenant to leave early by throwing some cash at them, but if the tenant in unwilling, you are out of luck.
if the tenant is month-to-month, its easier. just give them the required written notice, and hope they leave on time. if they don’t, file eviction papers.
there are no rules of thumb (and certain no rules of law) about the responsibility to get rid of tenatns. if the tenant is a big issue for the buyer, then the buyer needs to make it an issue in the contract.
there are some investors on this board who NEVER want to buy a rental property with tenants in place. I repsect that point of view, but I STRONGLY DISAGREE. I’m in TX, and its easy to rid myself of bad tenants. but I inherited many long-term, excellent tenants.
Re: Have tenants evicted prior to transfer? - Posted by IB (NJ)
Posted by IB (NJ) on April 25, 2007 at 22:54:22:
Ben’s right, it’s not all that cut and dry. However, there are exceptions. For instance, the tenants will have to leave if you decide to inhabit the apartment yourself. Then of course you can evict if they stop paying rent. I would do what Ben says and consult an attorney.
Ib
Re: Have tenants evicted prior to transfer? - Posted by ken
Posted by ken on April 25, 2007 at 21:15:15:
It is all negotiable assuming no lease or good reason to kick them out.As a buyer i will take the tenants and kick them out myself if need be all part of a no hassle sale but low price for the seller.As a seller you would have to put down about $10000 non refundable to get me to kick out a decent tenant because if you dcide not to buy i have to clean it up and rerent and that all costs money and too many people back out for me to take that risk without being compensated
Re: Have tenants evicted prior to transfer? - Posted by Rich-CA
Posted by Rich-CA on April 25, 2007 at 18:32:53:
In addition, it depends on if this is in your sales contract.
not that cut and dry… - Posted by Ben (NJ)
Posted by Ben (NJ) on April 25, 2007 at 17:15:59:
I notice you are in NJ, therefore you should be aware of the NJ Tenant’s Anti-eviction Act. If they have a valid lease and are in compliance, they can’t just be run out willy-nilly. Consult your own counsel, the buyer may have to take the property subject to the lease.
Re: Hold On a Second. - Posted by IB (NJ)
Posted by IB (NJ) on April 26, 2007 at 11:09:42:
In NJ, there’s really no such thing as a month-to-month lease. Just an fyi.
Ib
Re: Hold On a Second. - Posted by Kristine-CA
Posted by Kristine-CA on April 26, 2007 at 23:01:14:
Since when is there no month to month lease in NJ? I had one for years in
Jersey City. I did a google search and there is plenty of legal guidelines
regarding month to month in NJ. Did you mean something else? Kristine
No Kidding?? - Posted by Jimmy
Posted by Jimmy on April 26, 2007 at 12:12:47:
no month-to-month’s in NJ?
a. what do you have when a year lease reaches its conclusion, no new extension is executed, and the tenant is still in there paying their rent? does NJ law extend the lease for another year?
b. What do you have when a tenant signs a lease that has no stated term (e.g., it just says $800 a month for rent)?
both of these situations will create a m2m in TX and CA (the places with which I’m familiar).
Well … - Posted by Redline
Posted by Redline on April 26, 2007 at 11:51:47:
There is no month to month lease, but there is month to month tenancy. A tenant who has not signed a lease OR remains after a lease has expired is considered by the law to be a month to month tenant. Either way, they are still covered by NJ’s “Anti Eviction Act”.
RL
Re: Hold On a Second. - Posted by Joe Kaiser
Posted by Joe Kaiser on April 26, 2007 at 23:15:09:
Traditionally, month-to-month tenancies aren’t called leases. You
generally lease for a period longer than a month.
In my area, you’re either month-to-month on a rental agreement, or
your 6 months or 12 months or whatever on a lease agreement.
Same diff.
Joe
nah … - Posted by Redline
Posted by Redline on April 26, 2007 at 14:29:32:
IB is mistaken or talking about something different. NJ has month to month.
Splitting Hairs - Posted by Jimmy
Posted by Jimmy on April 26, 2007 at 12:17:53:
lease v. tenancy? same concept.
but this anti-eviction deal sounds sucky to me. how’s it work?