Can the bank Raise my rent on a foreclosed single family Home W/ Lease agreement?

[kmixxed]

Hi guys, thanks for taking the time to look over my Question. so here we go..

I have been currently renting a home in the Los angeles for 10 years now.
since a year ago the Owner has run into problems and sadly had to Foreclose on the house in 09" I currently have a written lease that expires in 2011.
Now my Question is, The bank has increased my rent by x3 of the lease agreement. is this legal?, or does the bank have to Honor my previous lease agreement that was dated well before the house went into foreclosure status.
now what has happened, I have not yet paid the rent since the increase which was to go in affect on April 1 2010. Now I have been served a Summons of Unlawful Detainer (Eviction). I will be filing the 5 day notice to respond to the summons... but was wondering if I have case.. by the way I have the rent money in a escrow bank account to show that I have the rent in a bank account...

Thanks again

 

[jharris352]

You seem to be a bonafide tenant according to the new Federal Tenant Protection Act. If someone bought your house at foreclosure who intends to be an owner occupant and you qualify as a bonafide tenant they must give you 90 days notice to vacate the property. If the bank bought your property (most likely) then they must honor the terms of your lease if that lease predates the notice of foreclosure. It sounds like you have grounds to fight. If you need help let me know.

 

[army judge]

Hi guys, thanks for taking the time to look over my Question. so here we go..

I have been currently renting a home in the Los angeles for 10 years now.
since a year ago the Owner has run into problems and sadly had to Foreclose on the house in 09" I currently have a written lease that expires in 2011.
Now my Question is, The bank has increased my rent by x3 of the lease agreement. is this legal?, or does the bank have to Honor my previous lease agreement that was dated well before the house went into foreclosure status.
now what has happened, I have not yet paid the rent since the increase which was to go in affect on April 1 2010. Now I have been served a Summons of Unlawful Detainer (Eviction). I will be filing the 5 day notice to respond to the summons... but was wondering if I have case.. by the way I have the rent money in a escrow bank account to show that I have the rent in a bank account...

Thanks again

The bank has to honor your lease.
A new owner would have to honor your lease.
The fact that the bank tried to raise your rent in order to force you into default or to leave the premises seems to be a tactic to scare you away from the unit.
A judge will be very dissatisfied by their actions.

Read your lease thoroughly.
The lease is your protection until 2011.
They can't evict you.
They are unable to raise your rent, until the lease expires.
You were smart to place your rent in an escrow account.
Bring proof of that account, if not the funds to court for the hearing.
Be prepared to cure the default.

Here are your rights under California law.

http://www.dca.ca.gov/publications/landlordbook/catenant.pdf

 

[kmixxed]

thanks for the responses. Today I went into the L.A. court house and filed the responses for the Claim, And was told that I should have a court date scheduled in about 20 days...

Oh and by the way heres the Response I received when I filed a complaint.

Clam # 1 , The notice of rent increase violates my lease entered into on 8/01/08 which does not expire unti 8/31/11.

Response to Claim #1,
My client purchased at foreclosure sale which took place on 10/01/2009
and pedected its title by deed recorded 10/05/2009. .The foreclosure sale was based on deed of trust placed on the propert by recordation on 6/22/06.

As my client's lien on the property was recorded on 6/22/06 and Mr. John Doe's was entered into over two years later, as a matter of law, the foreclosure sale extinguished Mr. John Doe's lease.
This legal rule is explained in Dover Mobile Estares v. Fiber Form Products, Inc. (1990) 220
Cal,App.3d 1494, As the court in that case noted, this has been the rule in California for over a century.

Thus, Mr John Doe's Claim #1, which is based on his lease, is completely meritless. Absent the Los Angeles Rent Stabilzation Ordinance ("LARSO"),
he would have no right to reside in the property under CA law.

Under the case of Gross v, Superior Cour (1985) 171 CalApp.3d 265, Mr John Doe's occupancy is protected by LARSO, not his lease.

Claim #2. LARSO prevents the giving of the Notice of Rent Increase.

Response to Claim #2. A California state law called "Costa-Hawkins Act" (found at CC § 1954.50 to 1954.30) provides limitations on what local rent control ordìnance may or may provide. To the extent a local rent control ordinance violates the terms of Costa's Hawkins, the local rent control ordinance is pre-empted and unenforceable.
(Palmer/Sixth Street Properties LP v. City of Los Angeles (2009) 175 Cal.App. 4ih 1396.

The Costa-Hawkins Act expressly provides that no city ordinance may control the amount of rent that a property owner may charge a tenant for occupancy of a single family residence or a condominium.
(CC § 1954.52(a)(3)). To confirm this point, I attach a copy of a summary of
the Costa-Hawkins Act contained in the Nolo Press "The Californa Landlord's is Law Book: Rights
and Responsibilities." (at Page 547)

Thus, any claim that LARSO bars the rent increase
specifcally allowed by the Costa-Hawkins Act.
is simply meritless. The rent increase is specifcally allowed by the Costa-Hawkins Act.

Thanks again

Also on another note I have been living in this House since 1999 till now with no lease until 2005-2008 renewed lease 2008-2011
reason no lease for the 1st 6 years is that I lived in the back guest room then in 2005 the owner moved out the front house and I took over the Front house while someone rented out the back house.( take in mind this is a single family residence)

 

[army judge]

You have always had a lease.

You initially had a month to month tenancy.

That is a leasehold by operation of statute.

You need to have the owner testify at trial to prove this up.

The law allows no tenancies (or property transactions) to exist without the operation of law or lease.

There are no property actions without a writing.

That writing takes the form of a lease, deed, month to month tenancy (via statute); but no tenancy without a writing.

This even follows to what the law terms a tenant in adverse posssession.

This means that if the owner of a property does nothing to cure an interest adverse to their legal property rights, the title (deed) passes to the person in adverse possession after so many years of inaction. The time varies by jurisdiction. The principle doesn't.

Bottom line, you occupied the premises legally.

Your occupation was continuous and existed prior to the foreclosure action.

Your leasehold trumps the foreclosure action.

You had a tenancy, albeit month to month, it is still a leasehold.

The leasehold on a month to month basis eventually became a written long term lease.

If you do this correctly, you win.

This is yours to lose!!!!

Don't muck it up!