Legal Question in Real Estate Law in California
This question crosses both Real Property and Landlord/Tenant Law.
AND, I have a feeling that most attorneys will not know the answer to this question, based on how I seem to subject myself to unique life-events! Here goes:
It's currently January 27, 2010,
In May, 2008, I found and rented a home through a Property Management Company, the lease expiring in May of 2009. I was informed (May, 2009) that I was a month-to-month tenant as the owner (which is an investor or bank) was attempting a loan modification, and didn't feel it would be right to extend my lease until they knew the outcome. There are several unique issues surrounding my case..
The first fact is, that the original owner, (we will call him John Smith), lost/turned the home over to an investor (we will call them Bank 1) , via what I guess is a deed in lieu of foreclosure. I assume this fact based on ownership changing, but the original deed of trust still being in place. So, my landlord is/was "bank 1". As of (May of 2009) I still didn't realize the real bank is/was Wells Fargo.
And from what I know now, "bank 1" must have been forced by Wells, to take back a bad loan that they originated and make good on it. Not sure what else it could be.
In either case, bank 1 is the landlord and John Smith's loan and deed of trust are still active.
. In July of 2009, the property manager sent me a letter that they are/were unable to reach the landlord, and that the property was foreclosed on. Since they were no longer in touch with the landlord, they told me that I was no longer under contract and that they were no longer representing me as Property Manager. They kept my rent payment for July, and refused to return my Deposit. Late in July, 2009, I did some research and found that the bank Wells Fargo, delayed the sale until September, 2009, and the Trustee's Sale did in fact take place. (yes, my life is complicated).
So, at this point the Bank (Wells Fargo) owns the home. I fail in attempts to get my deposit back from the property manager , who magically "Found" the landlord, (bank 1) who asked for prorated rents and the deposit. (yes my life is complicated)
In September, shortly after the sale date, the bank's "Realtor" left a note on the door, "Knowing your Options" from FANNIE MAE. To this day, I have never seen the Realtor, but she did leave a card, and I did contact her via email.
Given lost Deposit, and expenses, I had paid rent in some fashion, through November, 2009, and have heard nothing until December 15, when a faxed unlawful detainer letter was posted on my door, with the old owner's name on it, along with John Does, etc.. It did not appear that it was stamped by the county or a court. It said, that I have 60 days to move, else they would commence legal proceedings to recover possession.
Assuming February 14, is the 60 day mark, what can I expect, based on the aforementioned scenario? I want to stay as long as possible in the home, as my deposit was eaten up, and I have limited funds to move. I don't know how to verify if any papers have been filed against me or the property, but they don't know my name, and all papers refer to the original owner. I am hoping for insights on what to do to lengthen my stay, and I don't even mind paying my rent to whomever would be entitled to it, but, I don't easily have means to move, and pay a new deposit at this point.
I really hope someone out there has knowledge of how this situation will pan out?
Thanks.
2 Answers from Attorneys
Your situation really isn't as complicated as you think, at least not legally. Your speculation regarding John Smith and Bank 1 are just that, nothing but speculation. All that matters is whoever owned the property lost it in foreclosure to Wells Fargo in September. Since you have no lease or rental agreement of any kind with Wells, you are occupying their property only so long as they want to allow you to. Since you were a tenant at one time and for over a year, they seem to have elected to treat you as a tenant-at-will. Accordingly, they gave you a 60-day notice of the termination of your tenancy, just as any landlord can terminate a tenancy-at-will (often called month-to-month) of over a year by giving 60-days notice. If you refuse to vacate the premises after 60 days, you will be illegally occupying the property. That is called unlawful detainer, and they will file an unlawful detainer complaint against you when the 60 days is up. They do not need to know your name, since it is perfectly legal to name anyone unlawfully detaining a property as "Doe" and allege that they are the person or persons occupying the property. That is sufficient to identify you, since all they want is to get you out, because all they need is a judgment that the sherriff remove anyone occupying the property. Of course if you choose to file any response to the action they will then know your name, since you cannot respond as "Doe." So then they will amend (automatically allowed) to insert your true name. Once they serve you with the unlawful detainer complaint, it will proceed just as any eviction action. You have something like five court days to file an answer, and then the case is set for trial, usually within 21 days. After that they get a judgment for posession against you, and whenever they can schedule an eviction with the sherriff's department they will show up and move you out.
Your only possible option is to contact the realtor and see if they will offer you either a "cash for keys" deal, or a month to month rental agrement until they sell the property. Many banks are happy to do a cash for keys deal, where you agree to move out by a certain date, and if you do they give you an agreed cash payment when you turn over the keys. I belive Wells is doing that often. Since REO is hard enough to sell in general, however, I know of no banks who are allowing renters to stay while they sell the property. It's much easier to fix up, and show a property that is vacant. So I highly doubt they'll accept any offer to rent until it sells.
The only thing I might add to the foregoing analysis is that when a lease for a fixed term ends, neither the tenant nor the landlord needs to give the other notice to terminate the tenancy with no further obligation of one to the other. The arrangement just ends, and the landlord has no further right to collect rent and the tenant has no further right to remain.
If the tenant remains and pays rent, and the landlord accepts the rent, this creates a month-to-month tenancy with notice requirements.
If the tenant remains and does not pay rent, or the landlord refuses to accept the tendered rent payments, the tenant is a "tenant at sufferance" and subject to immediate removal by unlawful detainer action, no 60-day waiting period necessary
Related Questions & Answers
Looking for something else?
10,200 active attorneys ready to answer your legal questions today.
Featured Attorneys
Earn additional revenue and grow your business.
