• There has been a recent cluster of spammers accessing BARFer accounts and posting spam. To safeguard your account, please consider changing your password. It would be even better to take the additional step of enabling 2 Factor Authentication (2FA) on your BARF account. Read more here.

Landlord sold the house to new owner, and asked us to leave

Poxy said:
It's a pain in the ass, and you lose 12 months' rent. Otherwise, that's a strategy.
Click to expand...

Not only that, but it's hard to do if you're an investment fund based in NYC!!! Such as some of the ones buying property.
 
Yes, $900 for all 4 of us, plus around $120 utilities. Around $1000 per month. (It was an average price for 2 bedrooms 1 living room rent 5 years ago)

Chinese people normally don't set up contract unless they have bad experiences with tenants before. They don't speak good English and either my parents do, and we have always been on time with the rent payment every month. We are respectful to them and they do the same thing.
 
Lych said:
Yes, $900 for all 4 of us, plus around $120 utilities. Around $1000 per month. (It was an average price for 2 bedrooms 1 living room rent 5 years ago)

Chinese people normally don't set up contract unless they have bad experiences with tenants before. They don't speak good English and either my parents do, and we have always been on time with the rent payment every month. We are respectful to them and they do the same thing.
Click to expand...

Haha yup, so true, but still a terrible idea. I helped a Chinese friend and his parents deal with some lease shit, WHAT a mess.
 
Even if you don't have a written lease, you still have renter's rights, including rent control. It is considered a verbal lease agreement and is binding. I urge you to look into your rights.

And certainly the new owner has the right to ask you to leave. He just can't make you leave except under specific circumstances.
 
afmotorsports said:
You have said nothing of substance. Not one damn thing to support your point of view. Move along, sweetheart.
Click to expand...

Neither did the people I was challenging. How about this: In the grand tradition of BARF calling for 'taking personal responsibility', I demand that landlord's take personal responsibility for knowing the rules of the game that they have decided to play.

This non-stop whining about the laws that applied to the players (landlords and tenants) from the day they entered the game is just weak sauce for people unwilling to take responsibility for the consequences of their actions.

I.e., becoming a landlord and renting out your space places clearly stated obligations upon you which you are legally bound to honor. So suck it up and deal with it.
 
Archimedes said:
What stops a property owner from simply kicking a renter out, moving in themselves to cover the law, and then re-leasing it a year later at market rates?
Click to expand...

Because your house gets a mark on it and can't be rented out for X amount of years.
 
Entoptic said:
Because your house gets a mark on it and can't be rented out for X amount of years.
Click to expand...

How many years? I mean, if the rent is wayyy below market, it could still be better to forgo rent for years to get out from under that lease. Honestly, with how low I hear the rent is on some of the long-leased rent controlled apartments, I don't know why some landowners even bother renting the property at all.
 
Knowing both renters and lessors in SF, the rules are extremely complicated.

Common decency should be a reasonable rent, some protection from getting kicked out, but that the landlord has the right to do with his property as he pleases.

But that's not the case in SF.

I would go to the experts to find out. I'm curious to know myself.
 
SlideSF said:
Even if you don't have a written lease, you still have renter's rights, including rent control. It is considered a verbal lease agreement and is binding. I urge you to look into your rights.

And certainly the new owner has the right to ask you to leave. He just can't make you leave except under specific circumstances.
Click to expand...

he is in a really unique position

OP, I really think you need SFTU and a lawyer if you wish to stay. If you head this route, you really piss off the new owner.

I would be amazed if you can find a way to enforce a verbal lease on the new owner. I feel you would need either a copy of your current lease (which you don't have) or the previous land lord/owner to make a statement of fact indicating you were under a verbal lease :wtf

this is SF, good luck
 
GiorgioFurioso said:
Neither did the people I was challenging. How about this: In the grand tradition of BARF calling for 'taking personal responsibility', I demand that landlord's take personal responsibility for knowing the rules of the game that they have decided to play.

This non-stop whining about the laws that applied to the players (landlords and tenants) from the day they entered the game is just weak sauce for people unwilling to take responsibility for the consequences of their actions.

I.e., becoming a landlord and renting out your space places clearly stated obligations upon you which you are legally bound to honor. So suck it up and deal with it.
Click to expand...

I neither rent nor own in San Francisco. May I post up occasionally about how bizarre the rent-control laws are in the city?
I find it fascinating that someone can rent a piece of property and seemingly have more rights to that property than the owners themselves.
 
Archimedes said:
How many years? I mean, if the rent is wayyy below market, it could still be better to forgo rent for years to get out from under that lease. Honestly, with how low I hear the rent is on some of the long-leased rent controlled apartments, I don't know why some landowners even bother renting the property at all.
Click to expand...

I talking off the top of my head here but I think its 5 years. I believe owners don't want to even let go of cheap rent because they factor in the cheap rent into their income and probably can't go without it. It's a sad state of affairs for everyone involved.
 
Yakoo752 said:
he is in a really unique position

OP, I really think you need SFTU and a lawyer if you wish to stay. If you head this route, you really piss off the new owner.

I would be amazed if you can find a way to enforce a verbal lease on the new owner. I feel you would need either a copy of your current lease (which you don't have) or the previous land lord/owner to make a statement of fact indicating you were under a verbal lease :wtf

this is SF, good luck
Click to expand...

If a lease can't be produced then the documented payment to the previous landlord is enough to be a current lease. The new owner will have to create a lease for the tenants and carry on from there. I'm betting that the last landlord didn't even take the OPs deposit and put it into a separate checking account which earns interest that the landlord is then supposed to pay the renter.
 
Last edited:
mean dad said:
I neither rent nor own in San Francisco. May I post up occasionally about how bizarre the rent-control laws are in the city?
I find it fascinating that someone can rent a piece of property and seemingly have more rights to that property than the owners themselves.
Click to expand...

The laws governing tenants' rights came about due to widespread abuse by landlords. It got bad enough that the people actually got together and passed some laws making it difficult for landlords to be dicks.

As a class, landlords in SF brought this on themselves.
 
mean dad said:
I neither rent nor own in San Francisco. May I post up occasionally about how bizarre the rent-control laws are in the city?
I find it fascinating that someone can rent a piece of property and seemingly have more rights to that property than the owners themselves.
Click to expand...

+1! From just a basic, commonsense perspective, well wtf.

It is true, owners should know the law; claiming ignorance and complaining later is dumb. But, the policy itself...jeezus.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top