Skip to main content

Tenants in foreclosure and "PROTECTING TENANTS AT FORECLOSURE ACT" of 2009

San Diego, CA |
Filed under: Landlord-tenant

I have a fixed-term lease on a home that was foreclosed upon in Nov. 09. The bank currently holding the deed to the house has said that my lease is invalid. I don't think this is correct:
1)I've had a lawyer examine the document and it is a valid legal contract.
2)I signed the lease Jan 2009; the first Notice of Default was recorded July 2009.
3)the Protecting Tenants At Foreclosure Act signed by Obama May of 2009 protects my right to stay through the lease term (I pay rent at market rate; I'm not a relative; the bank has no intention of occupying the property).

Is there any loop-hole, subtlety or anything else that would allow the bank to force me out before the term is up? My lawyer says no, but my experience is that this is a new area of law with few experts.

Attorney Answers 3

Posted

Your lawyer examined the document and said it is a valid legal contract. You should follow the advise of your lawyer. Ask questions about your situation and have your lawyer explain the details so that you understand all your options. I have said to other posters that "It doesn't make sense for a lawyer hearing a few isolated facts over the Internet to second-guess the lawyer representing you."

Good luck and God bless you.

Mark as helpful

1 comment

Asker

Posted

Hi, Just a question. What's happening with the secure deposit? My contract is ending this month and the property management agency told me they don't have anything to do with that, but I put $1600 in deposit and everything is in the leasing contract I have. Thanks,

Posted

In the State of Illinois, I move the court to stay the order of possession (the banks right to enter the property) pursuant to the Statute you referenced. There has been very little interpretation of the statute, so I would ask the court for the term of the lease and hope you get that or some other additional timeline. Whether this mechanism works in California, I do not know. However, if orders of possession are issued in California foreclosure cases, then I would say that a Motion to Stay the order of possession is your best bet.

Mark as helpful

Posted

I agree with Mr. Brinkmeier but would also suggest that you consider what is most beneficial to you. Yes, you may have a valid legal contract which would provide you an opportunity to stay in the premises until the termination date of the lease. Is the termination of the lease a date further into the future than the 90 day notice you would otherwise be entitled to under the Protecting Tenats At Foreclosure Act? Just an additional thought to consider. . . .

The response given is not intended to create, nor does it create an ongoing duty to respond to questions. The response does not form an attorney-client relationship, nor is it intended to be anything other than the educated opinion of the author. It should not be relied upon as legal advice. The response given is based upon the limited facts provided by the person asking the question. To the extent additional or different facts exist, the response might possibly change.

Mark as helpful

1 comment

Asker

Posted

To Marco Antonio Torres: You want the Asker and other Readers to know --- 1. you admitted you "..agree with Mr. Brinkmeier..". Further, 2. in addition to what was conspicuous from the Asker's question, 3. your agreement admitted you were able to cognize Brinkmeier understood the Asker had a lawyer; specifically ".. Your lawyer ... said it is a valid legal contract. You should follow the advise of your lawyer [sic]..". 4. Ignoring Brinkmeier's "It doesn't make sense for a lawyer hearing a few isolated facts over the Internet to second-guess the lawyer representing.." the Asker [to evade the question and lawyer comparisons]. Notwithstanding all those facts you, nonetheless, "..thought.." it was wise to “..second-guess..” with your question to the Asker "..Is the termination of the lease a date further into the future than the 90 day notice you would otherwise be entitled to under the Protecting Tenats At Foreclosure Act? [sic].."; begging the question --- was it your "..thought.." the Asker was --- too ignorant to arrive at such a conclusion; that his/her lawyer would be --- that ignorant; or, Marco Antonio Torres, was that just --- you? The message, Marco Antonio Torres, to the extent it eludes you, is if you don’t have a cogent “..thought..“, to justify blatant self-promotion, --- don’t respond. By the way, the correct spelling of the word you wanted to use is "..Tenant..". Quoting you, "..Just an additional thought to consider. . . ."

Landlord-tenant topics

Top tips from attorneys

What others are asking

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.

Ask a Question

- or -

Search for lawyers by reviews and ratings.

Find a Lawyer

Browse all legal topics