I’ve found a house that is way undervalued and would be a perfect home for a young family and a perfect target for an straight option. Only problem is there is a tenant in the house now with a July lease. If this house was bought by an owner occ is it legal to do something like give the tenant 30 days to vacate or do they have to allow the person to finish out the lease? I know its not legal to toss them to put different tenants in but is it legal to do so if the owner is to live in the dwelling? The state is CT btw.
House is listed for $120k with a note that they will take less for a quick sale due to divorce. Recent comp, exact same square footage and rooms on the same street (a few doors down) sold in the end of January for $161,500 so there is a big upside potential here.
I think if you are buying the house for you to live in they have to be out before closing. if you are buying to sell to an owner occupant you must honor the lease.if you then selll to owner occupant before the lease is up they must be out by closing.
Unless the lease says the lease is terminated when bought by someone for owner occupancy, then, the tenant gets to stay. Exceptions that exists, subordination claues, allows mortgagors to terminate leases after they forecloses, but generally, its so stated in the lease.
I invest in th NY metro area, and I am not aware of state laws around here with this loophole. In fact, state laws generally strengthens tenant’s rights.
Otherwise, it’ll be too easy to evict any tenant with a lease, at will by any landlord, if the owner only has to say “you’re outta here, the lease means nothing, because I’m moving in”.
I asked the guy a few hours ago to email me a copy of the lease if possible, hopefully that might clear up any questions I have. I was hoping there might be a clause in there regarding change of possession. I would have to necessarily sell this one only to an investor, the cashflow would be slim to none. But for a family this is a perfect starter house.
You never Rich, you might find a notice to vacant allowance in the lease…
Keep us posted.
Regards,
Scott Miller
The good news is the seller says the tenant was thinking about moving anyway to something cheaper like an apartment, a little cash to grease their palms and pay for a security deposit and first month’s rent might just get them out with no trouble. I just emailed her to setup an appointment. Sadly I can’t go check it out tonight, its over an hour away.
I found another great one this week but I just looked up the records online and its owned by the state. This house is in the path of a proposed extension of a highway. What sucks is this house would be a great rehab candidate but its been bought for a project that’s probably never going to happen. They have been buying houses in the area for YEARS. Hell they bulldozed a beautiful marble building that housed the post office when my dad was a kid in the 60’s for this thing and it still hasn’t happened. They seem to be getting more serious though, they did a big report on the expansion about a year and a half ago.
Usually you can’t evict someone if they have a valid lease. When you’re the buyer what you normally do is have a clause in the offer that says the property is to be delivered vacant.
In the purchase and sale contract, there’s usually a clause that says that the property is to be delivered vacant and when you do your walk through before closing, you do a holdback or delay the closing if it isn’t vacant. Basically as the buyer, if you want it empty, you stick it in your offer and if the seller accepts your offer, then it’s the seller’s problem, not your problem. Then it’s up to the seller to get the tenant to voluntarily void the lease.
In CT you could offer ‘relocation’ expenses toget them to exit the lease. You can’t evict them without just cause.