Last week my apatment building was sold.
Still in escrow I don't know what the new owner intends but if evicted, what leverage do I have in getting moving costs or compensation to avoid an unlawful detainer?
I want to move anyway so can make the 30 day notice (if they hurry, I've found a place, prefer 60 days notice).
20 year tenant in good standing, month to month. The building is located in Los Angeles Ca. 90028 thanks for your help.

I don't know what the new owner's plans are BUT if you are month to month I see no point in evicting you. He/she gives you the appropriate notice and you have to move. I see no reason for you to get moving costs or compensation and if you force the landlord to evict you I see great harm to your credit rating.

What you are suggesting is tantamount to blackmail - if he pays you you will leave in accordance with a contract you have with him (via the old landlord)? If he doesn't pay you you won't leave in accordance with a contract?

You are asking how to break a contract and get compensated.

Since you are a month to month tenant they have to give you 30 days notice to vacate. They cannot evict you unless they give you a termination notice and you refuse to vacate. They do not have to give you any compensation.

What makes you think they want to clean the building out. If it's a multi-unit building they should want to keep tenants. Especially ones with a good record. But if they do want to clean house, they should be willing to give you a reasonable amount of time.

I've been flooded repeatedly and the current owner has done only the minimum of maintenance to avoid lawsuits. The plumbing is irreparable without complete replacement, or at least competent assessment. Built I believe before 1986.

So it sounds to me you should be giving the owner a 30 daynotice at the end of next month. I doubt if you will be able to get any $$ from the owner to cover your expenses, there is no incentive for him to do that since he can just give you a 30 day notice.

Nothing Illegal! If the new owner decides to evict everyone and demolish the building to rebuild, which is what I believe might happen, am I giving up any advantages by moving Legally before notified?

Best answer yet, Thank You!
I miss typed when I left in the "to avoid an unlawful detainer", had copied another post for content and failed to delete that part, Thrilled about the development and look forward to a smooth legal process.

You keep talking about evictions. Where are you getting this from? An eviction is the legal process used to remove a tenant when they refuse to vacate after their tenancy has been terminated.

If you and the other tenants are month to month, then the landlords don't have to evict anyone unless they refuse to leave. Even if some tenants still have a lease, they can wait until the leases expire. The only tenants that might get some benefit are those with a longer term lease.

I'm no lawyer. Seeking only constructive insight to an unfamiliar situation.

Did you even read my post?

Yes and gave a detailed response, did you read that?

First do you have a lease ?

If so, the new owner will be obligated to it, unless it is sold at foreclosure or bankruptcy.

If you are on a month to month rental ( either verbal or written) the new owner ( if it sold and closed) if it is still in escrow, then the old owner still owns it.

But who ever the owner is can give you a 30 day notice to move ( if no lease) , if you do not, then and only then do they file eviction paper work though the court.

Merely selling a property is a reason to get paid anything to move. If you are in a lease, they may pay you to buy out your lease

Thank You, yes, I'm month to month in good standing, willing to leave on time but have been told by 3 different people on month to month they were paid x$ & with 30+ days notice when their buildings sold. Were those owners just being generous?

Yep, when I sell any of my rental property, I don't even give most a thank you for renting from me, merely a letter telling them of the new owner.

They are under no obligation at all. In fact unless the new landlord wants them out, ( he may just want to be a slum lord) he has no requirement to ask you to leave.

The only way they have to pay you, is if you have a lease.

Now perhaps they find it cheaper to pay you off to leave quickly instead of having to take a month notice and a month to evict if you don't leave.

At most even if you have a lease, they will seldom pay more than 3 to 6 months rental.

Thanks Fr_Chuck, that's what I assumed until others were prodding me to investigate so now I have, just wanted confirmation. New owner rep. coming today so can relax and go with it.
Appreciate All input from everyone giving time here.

Point of interest for anyone reading here:
Found on http://lahd.lacity.org/lahdinternet/LAHDSystems/tabid/153/Default.aspx#Rent

Relocation assistance is required if your unit is under the Rent Stabilization Ordinance (RSO) and your landlord is evicting you for his/her own occupancy, spouse, parents, children or a resident manager. Assistance is also required for major rehabilitation and demolition, as well as orders from a governmental agency to vacate due to a violation of the Los Angeles Municipal Code or any other provision of law. Qualified tenants (those 62 years or older, disabled or those who have minor dependent children) are entitled to $17,080 and all other tenants are entitled to $9,040 [these amounts were increased effective April 11, 2007].

For information about the allowable reasons for eviction, please contact us at (866) 557-RENT [7368] or access the RSO at http://lacodes.lacity.org. The RSO is Chapter XV of the City of Los Angeles Municipal Code.

If you are month to month the new owner doesn't have to evict you, he can just give you a 30 day notice that your lease will not be renewed. If you do not leave after 30 days then he can evict you, it does not appear the RSO applies here.

I get your point. Will be calling the (866) 557-RENT [7368]. At least this explains why so many people are telling me to investigate based on the x$ they've received. http://www.tenantsact.org.au/Advice/pdftips/Eviction%20in%20the%20ACT07.09.pdf

The first question is whether your unit is covered under RSO. The next question is whether you are being evicted or your tenancy is being terminated. Another question is whether the property is in violation of municipal codes.

Based on what you initially told us, new owners bought the property and you THINK they will vacate the building for repairs or demolition. None of that qualifies for incentives to move.

Agreed, if it is a rent controlled building it does change things,

Assuming it is not, of course I would still ask for it, it never hurts to ask.

But in rent control situation, there are also other requirements to evict, so if yours is, that needs to be looked at.

Found Building is Not RSO, shock, since have had so few rent hikes over the years.
Building Rep. shared no status today.
The suspense is killing me! Probably move anyway but will stay till the things stabilize.

Not RSO (had to have been built B4 '78 and it was built in '86) and Ooh, you're good, hadn't occurred to me to ask for it anyway. Will be doing that if things turn that direction.

Still wondering why a owner would give his money to anyone who he could just say I am not renewing your month to month lease. He is not evicting you, he is just not renewing, you could say the same thing to him and he'd have no recourse.

California Tenants, if the building is rent controlled (built B4 1978), get what's called relocation assistance if they're asked to move and being sold and a number of other situations. I've found that my building is not so I don't qualify.

No one has asked you to move either, right? You can always ask but I can't see why any new owner would give you moving expenses. All he has to do is say your month to month will end next month or you can sign his new one year lease for big bucks. All of this is legal too. He does not have to evict you, just give you a 30 day notice to quit.

I can't explain California law. I just know what the CA Consumer Affairs website and other places say, there's a qualification for relocation assistance. Go figure California! Still have no word on anything from the landlord.

This is something I noticed about CA law. California Tenants - California Department of Consumer Affairs (http://www.dca.ca.gov/publications/landlordbook/evictions.shtml#unlawfuldetainerlawsuit)

Here's the answer to my original question: As stated previously.
Bottom of page. My building is not RSO so no assistance.
http://lahd.lacity.org/lahdinternet/LAHDSystems/tabid/153/Default.aspx#Rent
"Relocation assistance is required if your unit is under the RSO and your landlord is evicting you for his/her own occupancy, spouse, parents, children or a resident manager. Assistance is also required for major rehabilitation and demolition, as well as orders from a governmental agency to vacate due to a violation of the Los Angeles Municipal Code or any other provision of law. Qualified tenants (those 62 years or older, disabled or those who have minor dependent children) are entitled to $17,080 and all other tenants are entitled to $9,040 [these amounts were increased effective April 11, 2007]."