Legal Question in Real Estate Law in California

Re: renters rights

After researching the law surrounding the implied covenant of quiet enjoyment, I believe you need to keep paying the rent until you are evicted unless you can show there is illegal rent skimming occurring (Civil Cide sections 890 to 893). The cause of action for breach of the implied covenant of quiet enjoyment does not arise merely because you are threatened with loss of possession; you must actually suffer an actual or constructive eviction, and further, a constructive eviction cannot be asserted unless you have moved out.

In many contract situations, a party who foresees a breach as inevitable can sue for the breach before it occurs. The problem here is that you can't prove that you will inevitably have your lease wiped out through foreclosure; the landlord can still reinstate himself.

This leaves you owing the rent, looking at a rent-skimming action for immediate relief, and breach of the implied covenent of quiet enjoyment as a basis for recovery if your right of possession under the lease is actually or constructively cut off.

Re: renters rights

The landlord's status should be of no concern. If the building is foreclosed, you will receive notification from the new owner.