Legal Question in Real Estate Law in California

Re: Landlord to Pay Moving Expenses?

This sounds like a question I recently answered. If so, I'd be happy to give it a second shot.

First, the landlord didn't break your lease by selling the house during the fourth month of a six-month tenancy, unless the lease provided that the property must not be sold, or you had an option or right of first refusal or something.

Rented properties change hands all the time, and generally speaking the sales have NO EFFECT on the tenants or the leases. In a few rather unusual cases, leases will contain a termination-upon-sale clause, a right of first refusal in favor of the tenant, or an option for the tenant. I assume that none of these is the case in your situation. Thus, the landlord probably had a perfect right to sell the house while you were a tenant.

Now, here's the part you have to understand. The new owner steps into the former owner's shoes as far as the lease(s) and existing tenant(s) rights and obligations are concerned. Your lease is still valid and in full force and effect, binding the new landlord. In fact, if you refused to move out at the new owner/landlord's demand, and the new owner/landlord tried to evict you by bringing an unlawful detainer suit, the new owner/landlord should LOSE in court (unless you were somehow in breach of the lease).

In summary, if you were kicked out by the new owner, your beef is with the new owner, not the seller.

Can you recover your moving expenses? Probably. Your case is somewhat weakened by the fact that since you didn't legally have to move out, but did anyway, a judge might think your move was at least partially voluntary. The amount of your damages might be adjusted to reflect the fact that you would have to move out in two more anyway, so that the moving costs were not pure incremental burdens on you. Even so, if the evidence shows that you left because of threats, duress or a reasonable belief that you had to move, you can probably prevail in a small-claims action and get some damages. I think it is worth your while to try. Ask for your moving expenses, any deposit due you, and any advance rent not earned by the owner.

I should add two things. If the former owner took a security deposit from you, he should either have returned it to you when he sold the house (in which case the new owner could have asked that you give him a fresh deposit), or the seller should have turned over the deposit to the buyer, with notice of that fact to you. Finally, there could be an exception to the general rule that a new owner steps into the shoes of the seller with respect to existing leases; it could be that the seller's power to make the lease was legally impaired in some way, so that the lease is invalid against this purchaser's rights. This would be a highly unusual situation.

Re: Landlord to Pay Moving Expenses?

Here's an afterthought. I do not mean to suggest that the former owner/landlord is completely free from possible wrongdoing. It is entirely possible that he/she committed some kind of fraud on the buyer, perhaps by concealing the fact that there was a tenant or misrepresenting the length of the lease or the amount of the rent. Since such fraud could victimize you as well as the buyer, you might have standing to sue the seller for this fraud, if it (or something similar) occurred

Re: Landlord to Pay Moving Expenses?

You are (were) not required to move when the house was sold, unless the lease stated that you were.

If the landlord terminated your tenancy before he sold the property, you have a valid complaint against the former landlord. If the new owner forced you to move, you have a complaint against him.