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

[jdhu]

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.

And, tenants brought the housing shortage on themselves (at least in part). As far as "abuse," one serious problem with rent control is the complete disincentive to improve/make repairs. Actually, it is an incentive to drive out tenants by being abusive/neglectful.

 

[Lych]

We will move out in the next month or so, just wanna hear what you guys think of this. There are not much we can do about this, thanks again guys.

 

[Yakoo752]

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.

I was thinking that too

but now I'm reading up on the differences between a master tenant, a co-tenant, and a sub-tenant in SF.

and a 6.14 notice.

and than I read this:

Single Family Homes/Condos—You do not have full rent control protection if you live in a single family home (note that a single family home with an illegal in-law unit counts as a 2 unit building) or a condominium and you (and your roommates) moved in on or after January 1, 1996. While these units do not have limits on rent increases, they do have "just cause" eviction protection, meaning you can only be evicted for one of 14 just causes.

which may imply OP can stay... but be prepared for the rent to triple

oh and

The annual rent increase can be imposed on or after the tenant's "anniversary date." The rent increase can not be given sooner than 12 months from the last increase (the "anniversary date;" it can be given after, in which case that date becomes the new anniversary date. Annual increases can be "banked" by the landlord and imposed in later years.

SFTU is a great resource!

 

[AbsolutEnduser]

We will move out in the next month or so, just wanna hear what you guys think of this. There are not much we can do about this, thanks again guys.

meh. an intimidation tactic gone right..

 

[Sharky]

We will move out in the next month or so, just wanna hear what you guys think of this. There are not much we can do about this, thanks again guys.

Dude you might want to talk to the folks at the Rent board.

 

[Entoptic]

We will move out in the next month or so, just wanna hear what you guys think of this. There are not much we can do about this, thanks again guys.

Dood man the fuck up and deal with the little old Chinese lady that knows nothing about renter rights but knows how to force you out. If you don't man up you will be forever know on barf as "The Chinese Eviction" or TCE for short.

 

[Junkie]

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.

Pretty sure that the landlord or immediate family has to move in, I don't recall how long for.

 

[tgrrdr]

Entitlement Syndrome at its finest.

The house sold......move........don't go trying to scam someone for a buck with a "relocation fee". Honestly, I feel bad for landlords in SF.

I'm not a lawyer but the rules in SF are clearly different than in most other places. I'm not even sure that selling a house would break the terms of your lease in most places.

There was another recent thread related to SF rentals but I'm not sure how to find it...

 

[Lych]

Dood man the fuck up and deal with the little old Chinese lady that knows nothing about renter rights but knows how to force you out. If you don't man up you will be forever know on barf as "The Chinese Eviction" or TCE for short.

I understand what you are saying, and I appreciated your opinion. I will go to the SFTU and talk to them about it or talk to a lawyer about it next week. Like I said, the house has been sold to a new owner, and they will probably move in in a few weeks. We are not moving until we received some relocation fee.

 

[tgrrdr]

here's a quote from the thread last month

OMG facts
http://www.sftu.org/sale.html

Your New Landlord Is Different In Name Only
When a new landlord becomes owner of a property, they "step into the shoes" of the old landlord. This means that all agreements (such as written & oral month-to-month or lease agreements) you made with the old landlord are binding on the new landlord. Similarly, the new landlord is bound to any legal orders or judgments: if the Department of Building Inspection ordered the old landlord to make repairs, the new landlord must make those repairs; if the Rent Board has ordered rents reduced, the new landlord must follow this order.

In a nutshell, nothing changes legally when a new landlord takes over.

 

[Archimedes]

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that the buyer of this house probably did their due diligence, knows exactly what agreements are or aren't in place, and know exactly what the local ordinances are in this regard. Given the seller would have to provide most, if not all, of this information in the disclosures, I'm guessing all parties know what they're doing. Particularly if, as it sounds, the new owner is actually planning on moving into the house, not re-renting it out.

 

[Marlowe]

It is written in law that the owner must pay out the renter if I remember correctly, up to $5001.00. Are you telling me that it isn't advantageous to the renter to request money to move out if the cards are stacked in his favor? Would you look the other way if your landlord said take 5,000.00 and move? Did you even think about what its like to move in SF and find a new place at the same rate? How about those costs onto the renter?

Those costs are part of being a renter. It's not your place for life -- that's why you're RENTING.

This is how it works everywhere else, and most people seem to be able to suck it up.

 

[Marlowe]

here's a quote from the thread last month

You're assuming they are buying the place to rent it out, not to occupy.

 

[Lych]

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that the buyer of this house probably did their due diligence, knows exactly what agreements are or aren't in place, and know exactly what the local ordinances are in this regard. Given the seller would have to provide most, if not all, of this information in the disclosures, I'm guessing all parties know what they're doing. Particularly if, as it sounds, the new owner is actually planning on moving into the house, not re-renting it out.

I feel like they want us to leave and re rent it out for $1500 or more, we are currently paying $900 per month.

 

[Nitewaif]

I feel like they want us to leave and re rent it out for $1500 or more, we are currently paying $900 per month.

I understand you want to keep the cheaper rent, but the entitlement attitude of it all (SF in general) just leaves me dumbfounded.

 

[SlideSF]

I understand you want to keep the cheaper rent, but the entitlement attitude of it all (SF in general) just leaves me dumbfounded.

Good thing for renters in San Francisco that the law is not determined by what you, in your wisdom, have deemed an "entitlement attitude". Perhaps it would fly better in the Dumbfounded State of Nitewaif, but unfortunately for you, neither I nor anyone else I know lives there.

 

[Nitewaif]

Good thing for renters in San Francisco that the law is not determined by what you, in your wisdom, have deemed an "entitlement attitude". Perhaps it would fly better in the Dumbfounded State of Nitewaif, but unfortunately for you, neither I nor anyone else I know lives there.

I'm not from California, and the idea that a landlord would pay a tenant a relocation fee (short of catastrophic maintenance issues that render the structure unsafe) or somehow owe a tenant who is renting at vastly below market rates is a bizarre concept to me. I'm not attacking you, I'm just perplexed by the concept that an owner wouldn't be able to decide if he wants someone else living in his property. Maybe nobody else lives in the "Dumbfounded State of Nitewaif", but I've lived all over the country, and this is the first time I've seen or heard of such at thing. It just isn't the norm for other places.

 

[jh2586]

Hey if it's the law to get compensation, then what's wrong? Sure it's the home owners property, but say a renter paid the mortgage for you for 20 years? I think a little compensation to help them move isn't all that bad

It's the price of doing business. You take a risk when you rent your home out. That's why, study the law, accept the risk, and have a separate fund for things like this.

 

[Yakoo752]

Hey if it's the law to get compensation, then what's wrong? Sure it's the home owners property, but say a renter paid the mortgage for you for 20 years? I think a little compensation to help them move isn't all that bad

It's the price of doing business. You take a risk when you rent your home out. That's why, study the law, accept the risk, and have a separate fund for things like this.

in almost every other city in the US - the risk of renting is instability

in SF it's reversed

the price of doing business in SF is loss of owner rights which is a damn shame - it prevents respectful owners from being kind and/or courteous. I have rented homes in San Diego/Chicago/Detroit to people that didn't "qualify" because we connected on some level... I would NEVER do that in SF. I would NEVER discount in SF, I would never fail to document. I would never NOT run my rental as a BUSINESS.

and that takes some value out of it for us....

 

[Nitewaif]

^Except it's a new owner. The tenant didn't pay them anything in this case.