Legal Question in Legal Ethics in California

Absolutely not. 1. You have a contractual duty to manage the property, not decide what debts and expenses of the property to pay and not pay. As long as they are paying you, you are under contract to do as you have agreed in managing the property. There is nothing void about your contract. If, however, your contract was for a specific term and it ends sooner than that due to the foreclosure, you MIGHT have a claim agains the owner for the net profit you would have made had the contract run the full term. 2. You are the fiduciary of the owner, not the tenant. You owe a duty of undivided loyalty to the owner, as long as you are not required to break any laws. You are not a dual agent. You are an agent of a single principal to manage their property. The tenants are not only not anyone you owe a duty to, their interests are adverse to you and your principal. 3. The owner is absolutely entitled to the rent until the gavel falls on the foreclosure sale. There is no more connected obligation between their right to the rent and a duty to pay the mortgage than there would be to pay their car loan with the proceeds if they were making a profit on the rent. The only exception is in the first year after a property is acquired there is an anti-rent-skimming statute, but even that is between the lender and the owner, not between the owner, you and the tenant.

That doesn't make any sense. The owner is not paying the mortgage (rent skimming) and you are advising the tenants not to pay their rent?