September 1, 2009

Renters get 90 days If property is Foreclosed on

With all the foreclosures going on nowadays some renters are rightfully concerned that they could be evicted if their landlord will loses the property to foreclosure. Well thanks to a law signed by congress earlier this year called the "Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure act of 2009".

Bottom line of the law is that if you are a renter and the property is lost to foreclosure you have at least 90 days before the new owners can evict you.

The housing authority of Los Angeles outlines what the law does:

- During the term of the lease, the tenant has a right to remain in the unit and cannot be evicted, except for actions that constitute good cause.

- If the lease ends in less than 90 days, the new owner may not evict the tenant without giving the tenant at a minimum 90 days notice.

- At the end of the term of the lease, the new owner may terminate the tenancy if the new owner provides a 90-day notice.

- The new owner may terminate the tenancy if the owner will occupy the unit as a primary residence, and has provided the tenant a notice to vacate at least 90 days before the effective date of such notice. This is the only exception to the rule that the tenant may not be evicted during the term of the lease.

Note the law is currently set to expire in 2012 so its not permanent.


  1. Um, I did a quick checking (... because Congress does not "sign" bills; it passes them, and when the bill passes both houses, the President signs it) and I don't think that it's a done deal. The bill referred in the HACLA (HR 1106, Helping Families Save Their Homes Act of 2009) passed the House in March, but it never passed the Senate and I think it's in the process of being amended, as demonstrated by the referral to subcommittee in July.

    And HR 1247, Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act of 2009, never passed either chamber of the Congress.

    Until either of these bills pass both House and the Senate (is it possible that the govtrack website is just slow to update? or maybe I have the wrong bill altogether?), any of the provisions in the bill are open to amendment and definitely not set in stone ... and I am not sure if Congress should be passing these laws anyway. Isn't this an intra-state issue? From which part of the Constitution would Congress derive the authority to pass a law regulating local rental market?

  2. Ah never mind. The Senate version of HR 1106 did pass and got signed into law by the President. I am assuming that the provisions of the HR 1247 were rolled into that bill ... without having read S 896.

    The Constitutional point still stands, but then, applying that standard to every single bill ("Where in the Constitution does it say that the Federal government can do this?"), a good majority of all bills passed in the last few years would be invalid ...

  3. I should have said the law was "passed by congress" rather than "signed by congress". It is of course the President who signs bills into law.


  4. At least the government has confidence of a rebound in the real estate market by 2012. More House Rental Info.


I'm starting to get too many spam messages in the comments so I'm turning on moderation. Please be patient and wait for your comment to be approved. Note it may take up to a few days for approval, thanks. I've also had to remove anonymous posting of comments to cut down on spam and pure stupidity.

Blog Widget by LinkWithin