I am a tenant in CA. My Landlord is in default, (notice was posted to the door). I am planning to ASAP. Am I obligated to pay rent while I remain in the home, if he is not paying the mortgage?

Hello D:

It's OUR understanding, that in California, if a landlord doesn't pay his mortgage, then the tenant doesn't have to pay rent.

I don't have ANY citations, however. ScottGem, our resident expert DOES, however, and he'll be along shortly.

excon

Thank You excon.

SocttGem, I look forward to your reply. Demi67

I finally re found the cite. Its CA Code sections 890-891
TITLE 6. RENT SKIMMING - Sections 890-894 - California Civil Code - California Code :: Justia

This is called Rent Skimming and, as far as I can tell, is addressed by statute only in California.

Its not a cut and dried situation that you can get out of paying rent. There are several provisions and valid defenses. You also don't know that he hasn't been using the rent money to pay the mortgage, but its just not enough.

Also, if you have a lease, you can't move out without permission otherwise you could be liable for the balance of the lease.

If you decide not to pay the rent to the landlord, you have to pay it into an escrow account until the legalities are determined.

Thank You ScottGem.

Demi67

Sorry, Scott. I have to spread the rep around some so I can't give you a greenie. But good job on finding the statute. How about putting it in a sticky post?

I was aware of the CA Civil Code that Scott was kind enough to provide. It specifically states that within one year of purchasing the home, if the Landlord collects rent without paying the mortgage, it is considered rent skimming.

I have rented my home for 5+ years. I learned that the home was in default after the notice was posted to the front door. I am in the process of moving-don't want to be caught up in this mess. Many people have suggested that I discontinue paying rent-stating that I am not legally obligated to-however to date, I have not found legal documentation to justify it. Thank you all for your replies.

As I said, its not cut and dried. The statute appears to have been insitituted to prevent people from buying up distressed properties, renting them, skimming the rent and abandoning them.

If you have rented the home for 5 years have you considered buying it? If the landlord is going to lose it in a foreclosure anyway, then he might be amenable to a sale. Yopu might reach an agreement whereby you assume the mortgage by paying the arrears.

But since its not the first year you can't stop paying the rent. And you can't move unless you have a month to month lease.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LisaB4657

Sorry, Scott. I have to spread the rep around some so I can't give you a greenie. But good job on finding the statute. How about putting it in a sticky post?

---

I may do that. Have you hear of any other states passing or contemplating such rent skimming laws?

Scott-totally uderstand that it's not cut and dried.

My plan was to purchase the home. The Landlord left CA last Fall-without prior notification. After further investigating, he has a negative amortization loan, has NEVER paid taxes or HOA's. The outstanding balance on the home is TWICE the current value of the home-so purchasing isn't an option. Supposedly, the Landlord intends to short sell the home-and has received an extension on the auction date until Mid March.

At this juncture, I'm seeking enough time to pack the house, and find a new home.

Our Rental Agreement has expired. I am on a month to month lease-there is no issue on me leaving.

I am trying to determine whether I am obligated to pay rent at this juncture. My Attorney has heard the same rumblings, that its illegal in CA for the Landlord to collect rent if he's in default-however neither he nor I have found legal justification. One of my friends suggested that I try this forum.

Thanks again to all who have replied.

Unless the CA legistature has extended 890, then you are required to live up to your end of the lease as long as the landlord owns the property.

I suspect the rumblings your attorney has heard are misunderstandings about the extent of 890.

It seems that is the case. Thank you again.