Legal Question in Real Estate Law in California

Mr. Obama may yet protect you, but fraud has been against the law for a long time.

It is actually quite possible for the landlord not to know about the sale. If it was postponed the first time it came on for sale, the landlord would not have received personal notice of the new sale date. The original notice date must be mailed to the trustor, but notices of new sale dates need only be published. It's a huge weakness in California foreclosure law. As for your rights under the federal statutes, I'm afraid they don't apply to you, anymore than if some con artist had found a vacant house and decided to start renting it out. All you can do is work with the new owner. If it's a bank, they may still be willing to give you a little time and maybe even "cash for keys" if you will save them the time and trouble of an eviction.

Your "lease" is void because the "landlord" had nothing to lease to you. It would be like me selling you the Brooklyn Bridge.

You may have a fairly powerful remedy against the "landlord" under parts of the rend-skimming laws. Locate and read Civil Code sections 890 to 893, especially subsection 890(a)(2) and 891(d).

While it might be true that the "landlord" didn't know about the foreclosure, it's also possible he did know, or at least that he should have known or could have guessed.

I agree with Mr. Whipple. It sounds like "rent skimming" to me.