Legal Question in Real Estate Law in California

Yes

I'm not so sure I would agree with Mr. Saltzman. It is something that would require research and review, and more facts than you have provided.

Historically, in California, foreclosure of a deed of trust wiped out junior leases. Title to real property which is conveyed after foreclosure by a trustee's deed relates back to the date the trust deed was executed. The title passed is that held by the trustor at the time of execution. Liens which attached after the foreclosed trust deed was executed are extinguished and the purchaser takes title free of those junior or subordinate liens. (Dover Mobile Estates v. Fiber Form Products, Inc. (6th Dist. 1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 1494, 1498.)

This rule applies to tenants who have leased property which is later sold through foreclosure. A lease made before the foreclosed trust deed was executed survives the foreclosure and the purchaser takes the property subject to the lease. A subordinate lease, which was made after a trust deed was executed, is wiped out by the foreclosure of that deed, along with the tenant's rights and obligations under the lease. (Dover, supra, 220 Cal.App.3d at p. 1498.) If the tenant remains, he does so only as a holdover tenant. If the purchaser of the foreclosed property accepts rent from the tenant, a month-to-month tenancy is created. (Ibid. at p. 1501.)

This provision, however, was recently altered by federal law. The Protecting Tenants in Foreclosure Act, which is Title VII of the Helping Families Save Their Homes Act of 2009, became effective May 20, 2009. It protects tenants from immediate eviction by persons or entities that became owners of residential property through the foreclosure process. (Public Law No. 111-22 (Senate Bill 896).) With limited exceptions, tenants with leases must be permitted to occupy the property until the end of their lease terms. At a minimum, tenants must receive 90 days� notice prior to eviction.

Most of the rent control ordinances provide for relocation assistance when rental property is subject to the Ellis Act. That occurs when the owner of rental property wants to withdraw rental units from the market. Relocation assistance is not provided in the Ellis Act. It comes from the local entities ordinance. (Pieri v. City and County of San Francisco (1st Dist. 2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 886.)

Most of LA's relocation assistance in its rent control program apply to an owner that is withdrawing accomodations to either perform a major remodel (in which case relocation is temporary) or is going to convert apartments into condominiums. I doubt that this would apply to a single family residential that is being illegally occupied by multiple families in violation of Los Angeles' housing laws.

After looking at both preceding answers, and assuming a couple of lawyers based in Tarzana would know better than a guy in Tomales, I'm going to predict, just based on bank behavior in general, that the bank will not voluntarily or willingly pay relocation fees, and that it would not be a reasonable gamble to sue the bank to see how a judge will rule after all the arguments are made. Sure, one might bring such a suit upon moral or theoretical grounds, but it would not be a good risk-reward tradeoff for the average guy.

Mr. Roach does not address your question as directly as my answer. The answer is, indeed, yes. Do you want a straight answer?

Often, I find that I charge a lot less than lawyers who don't give straight answers. I do not know about Mr. Roach's billing practices.