Landlords can't legally evict a leased tenant who hasn't violated their lease.
That there are tenants in the home would be part of the MLS listing, along with bed/bath. If you've gotten as far as inquiring about the property, you would know you're buying tenants (at least until their lease is up or they accept your offer to break it).
Where do you get this from? It's not like any US law I've ever heard of.
For the evictions I've worked on, the homeowner simply wanted the tenants out (non-payment, etc) so they could re-rent or sell the property. They didn't ever have to live there.
The listed causes for eviction all seem fairly typical - like non-payment.
I expect that SF's non-rent controlled property is evictable like any other.
Where this gets kind of crazy is if you own a property and have title insurance on it from when you bought it, then you do a refinance, you're often required to buy the insurance again because that original policy ends.
All said, the loss ratio of title insurance companies is extremely low compared to other types of insurances. But in some places it's cost is fairly high (eg Texas) and it's mostly to do with strong political interests / lobbying
> Property/casualty lines of business typically experience pure loss ratios well above 10%, approaching 70% or higher at times. Title insurers historically have loss ratios in the 5% to 10% range.
https://www.naic.org/documents/topics_title_insurance_brief....
Also, 2017 in Texas 6% loss ratio. Other states are better in that they don't charge as much for the policy. However, loss ratios are still very low.
https://www.texasobserver.org/entitled-to-profit-in-texas-ti...
That's not how it works (at least where I live, US state of Texas). I, having bought from you, would be responsible to have my own title insurance policy. Your policy would have essentially ended when you sold the home. It protects you during your ownership. ANd my policy would protect me during my ownership. Once sold, and title transfers (whether legit or not), you as the seller have no liability (mostly, I'm sure if you committed fraud or something you could be on the hook along with other criminal issues, but my insurance is still going to pay me if I experience a loss of my purchase). So...
> "No, be that as it may, once you 'sold' the house we're off the hook; tell the guy who 'bought' it from you to contact their title insurance company"
Yes, that's exactly what they would say. It's also why it's customary for the seller to purchase the title policy for the buyer during the transaction. Although, it's a hot market the seller could have the power to deny and the buyer would have to buy their own policy.
While you owned the property at some point in time, you never experienced a loss from the title issue because you sold before the title issue was known. Your liability also ended the moment you sold the property. It's always the CURRENT owner that needs protection.
That's when you ask for the re-issue rate.
http://www.insuranceqna.com/title-and-mortgage-insurance/wha...
Let's say your mom lives in a house, and she sells it to you without a title. No big deal, because it was family property she got from her parents and she's lived there her entire life. Right?
Maybe not, when your grandparents children and grandchildren show up and claim their fraction of ownership of the grandparents' estate.
https://www.texasobserver.org/entitled-to-profit-in-texas-ti...
There are a lot of rental properties for sale with "tenants in place" in my area.
If you want to live in it, then yes - Ensure seller is responsible for removal.
If you want to continue renting the property then a lot of times it's easier for both parties to complete the sale and then let the current rental contract conclude before doing reno/construction.
If the new owner wants the tenants out, the tenants have to agree to break the lease. Otherwise the tenants can continue to live there until their lease runs out.
It doesn't matter whether these are the best options for the owner(s). They're the only options.
That's why I say make it the current owners responsibility if you don't want tenants there: They must either invoke their termination clause (and usually pay a fee), or offer to buy the tenants out, or pay you some penalty fee for every day the house remains occupied after sale.
Alternatively - if you plan on gutting the place anyways, and their lease is due to expire in less than 6 months: Leave them in place and keep the property bringing in some income while you schedule contractors and line up work.
I can't say there has never been a home seller that would agree to that. I can say I never ran into it at our office, nor have I heard of it. Commercial real estate does all kinds of build-to-suit but residential property is generally sold as-is, with any improvements done before listing.
In this market tho, sellers don't listen to buyer conditions. They just go to the next all-cash buyer who's probably offering over list price.
> if you don't want tenants there: They must either invoke their termination clause (and usually pay a fee)
Again here, I've never heard of a residential lease with a fee-based termination clause, nor prepared one or had one as a tenant. One possibility is that it's not legal in areas I've lived but I don't know. I'm visiting the attorney (now ret) this week so I'll ask.
> if you plan on gutting the place anyways, and their lease is due to expire in less than 6 months: Leave them in place and keep the property bringing in some income while you schedule contractors and line up work.
This is generally how it goes. That and the keys for cash thing you alluded to earlier. However tenants are less likely to take the latter because moving costs are typically equal to 2mos-6mos rent - and because renters have nowhere to go. Rent cost skyrocketed (15-120% here) and what few rentals there are have 40-400 applicants each.
notes: I was offered a cash-for-keys recently when our previous rental was sold. Unsurprisingly, that seller stiffed us so it's small claims.
My ex and her bf have been squatting in a foreclosure for the past few years. They generally kept it up. The buyer is letting them stay for another month until the remodel begins.
I've literally never had a residential lease that hasn't included a termination clause. Generally speaking, both parties agree up front that the other party may request termination in exchange for compensation (in my experience, 3 months rent is typical, although I've seen fixed payments as well).
Commercial is a different beast, since generally subletting is approved, and space customization is expected (the business will adjust the space as needed for commercial use, like changing walls, installing shelves/chairs/tables, adding or removing kitchen space, etc.)