I have a problem with the mortgage holder of whom I have a contract for deed with for 2 1/2 years.Says I breached contract by renting the house to a family.He got a 30 day notice(no response)We moved out they moved in.6 Months later he is suing us .Declaring the contract for deed to be in default by using "buyers shall not assign,mortgage,transfer,or contract to sell property w/o prior written consent of the seller.

Now anywhere in there does it say I can't Rent the place?Contract is sealed by county and notarized by mortgage holders bank.Everything is in my name taxes ,insurance,personal prop taxes.


Is this guy in the right?I found out that an appraiser was on the property and a building contractor is wanting 4 houses on that block also.Could this explain the sudden motives?

It is not uncommom to have a clause in there that you can not rent it. One may argue the word "assign" I guess, but what happens, you end up in court, if you are right, he can not evict, if he is right, you will get evicted
It is unusual to have taxes in the name of the person who has the contract, but I guess this is how he does his. Since the actual ownership, deed does not change until the contract is finished.

But remember many sellers make their money by re-sale the same house over and over and over, My uncle as a master at it. He would sale the same house many times. So many sellers after a year or so, start looking for any reason to show buyer in defaut. Most catch them with late payments

Time to talk to an attorney. I am not one, but would think you are in the right, as long as you did not assign any rights to the renter as far as ownership of the property. I do not think rent is covered under the term assign since it is not a case of you giving the new renter anything permanent.

As long as you maintain the right of ownership, and are not "transfering" title of the property for which you want to own and therefore remain in possession of... you do not seem to be in violation of his contract. It would seem to be your possession which you should be entitled to rent... barring specific language against it.

Here is a link about assignment of rights.
Assignment (law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

You can be sued for anything, and it may be that the mortgage holder wants the property back, but you don't have to cave in or be scared by his tactics. Perhaps you can counter sue for your legal expenses and time if the mortgage holder continues with the suit??

I will note also many people when they are being sued to be in default will stop making payments, thinking they should wait till they go to court, don't, keep your payments up to date nad not late, or you will really be in default

There should be a law against that kind of activity with contract for deeds,unless,there is true default.

Should be,would be,could be,right??

Well that sort of depends if you are the buyer or seller, ( sorry) please understand I sell 90 percent of my homes on contract. The issue here is normally *** again not always of course** many contract for deeds are done when the people buying has such poor credit no one else will loan them the money and they can't buy a home anywhere else. Also often they don't have a normal 10 to 20 percent down.

So the owner is risking his investment on the home, so he has tough rules to protect him. For example I often put a clause if a person is in default on payment ( I did not have them in default for one day late, but some do) but had them in default after 15 days late, able to pay a penalty from 15 to 30 days to re-instate the contract, and after 30 days late the contract was defaulted and reverted to a rental agreement.

But I know one person, who found any reason to default, I got caught by one myself, I moved and was going to let my ex wife stay there. The contract was in my name only, he defaulted on the contract on me. This one drug out in court for almost a year.