What I said earlier about penalties and fees will be at the local government level. And, as I said, it will be worst case scenario. Give the additional facts you provided that the tenant built the apartment and has not paid rent, it is a longshot that will happen. Tell him to give a written notice. Once the tenant see that he will get evicted, he may leave. No matter what happens, the tenant has no right to continue leaving there,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jammy23

Wow that's a very different opinion then what I've been getting... which is that it's the owner's responsibility. I will discuss this also with him. Thank you for your ... response.

---

As others have discussed in this thread, it is unlikely that the authorities would even attempt to fine him for an illegal apartment. You should understand that the eviction court is an entirely different institution than the code enforcement agency. Thus code enforcement is unlikely to even know it if he sues to evict.

Also, it depends on the circumstances as to who is liable for building an illegal apartment. As I understand what you have told us, the "tenant" made the apartment without the owner's permission. If, for example, a trespasser (i.e.: without your permission or prior knowledge), or even a houseguest, were to build a shack in your back yard and live in it. Under such circumstances, you would not be liable for an "illegal" shack.

I'm curious to know how "the authorities" will even know this is an "illegal" apartment. The owner simply files for an order of eviction. It's not necessary for the codes department to come in send inspect the dwelling for an eviction.

No, but if the area is zoned for single family homes, the court clerk might catch it. The clerk might have to check to ensure the filer owns the property and find out its not listed with an accessory apartment. The tenant may bring it up. There could be other ways that the building dept gets informed. Of course its possible that it won't be checked at all.

Maybe I misuderstand your first post but how does one sell a home with a reverse mortgage? It is not your to sell.

I wondered about that too, but the way I understood it the buyer was offering the reverse mortgage rather than a lender.

I'm afraid that the reverse mortgage is from a lender, is close to over, and the owner has no clue that he can't sell the house. SIGH

Going back to re read it, I agree with Joy. If this person wants to buy the house, she has to do so from the lender.

If the potential buyer does want to buy it from the lender, then of course it's up to the lender to evict.
UNLESS the lender can't be bothered, and is willing to wait for other buyers, or has them.

OP doesn't seem to be very aware of the details, and wants to worry instead. Leaving us spinning our wheels.

Rethinking this, I'm not an expert on Reverse mortgages, but I believe the mortgage holder CAN sell the property, but will need to repay the lender for the reverse mortgage at closing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ScottGem

... I believe the mortgage holder CAN sell the property, but will need to repay the lender for the reverse mortgage at closing.

---

I believe you mean that the mortgagor (the 80 year old man), not the mortgage holder (the entity which owns the reverse mortgage) can sell the property. In other words, the Mortgage holder" would be the same as the "lender". If your theory is correct, that the owner reverse-mortgaged the property and now wants to sell his interest to another party, I suspect that OP and the owner are very confused (the 80-year old owns nothing to sell but what is in effect a minimal-value life estate). Either that, or the potential buyer is as clueless as everyone else in this story.

Sale or not, the tenant can be evicted.

Quote:

---

Either that, or the potential buyer is as clueless as everyone else in this story.

---

Including us! ')

I yes I meant mortgagor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ScottGem

Jammy, that's not necessary true. He treats him as a roommate. While he doesn't need a reason he just tells the court that he has a buyer for the house and he needs to leave before the buyer will close. It is a possibility that the government will come after him, but unlikely. If he hasn't been receiving rent then they won't go after him for it. But that's his ONLY choice. Either he gets him out or he says goodbye to the sale and puts up with this guy for the rest of his life.

An illegal apt, is a totally separate apartment, separate entrance, full bathroom and kitchen. It also one that he is renting at market rates. That's not the case here. So again I doubt if the government would come down on him.

---

That's the part I left out. He lives in the basement. The person who wants to buy the house lives behind him in the same house and pays him rent.
An apt with a separate entrence is there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jammy23

That's the part I left out. He lives in the basement. The person who wants to buy the house lives behind him in the same house and pays him rent.
An apt with a separate entrence is there.

---

That doesn't change the answers. Legally evict the guy in the basement. That's all that needs to be done. It really is that easy and drama free.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ballengerb1

Maybe I misuderstand your first post but how does one sell a home with a reverse mortgage? It is not your to sell.

---

He has been to the lawyer with the person who wants to buy it. She has to
Pay off something to the bank... I never owned a house so I really don't
Understand the terms used... but she is willing to pay whatever but only if
He gets the this guy out.

Start with just evicting him. Once he is out we can discuss the rest of it.

Agree with all the others, the only way to evict hm, is legally though the court.

The court does not report this to code enforcement, and it is a totally different court and office that handles these issues. The only way they will really know, is if the renter, decides to cause problems and reports it.

But that of course is the issue and problem of illegal apartments. You risk these problems.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ScottGem

Jammy, that's not necessary true. He treats him as a roommate. While he doesn't need a reason he just tells the court that he has a buyer for the house and he needs to leave before the buyer will close. It is a possibility that the government will come after him, but unlikely. If he hasn't been receiving rent then they won't go after him for it. But that's his ONLY choice. Either he gets him out or he says goodbye to the sale and puts up with this guy for the rest of his life.

An illegal apt, is a totally separate apartment, separate entrance, full bathroom and kitchen. It also one that he is renting at market rates. That's not the case here. So again I doubt if the government would come down on him.

---

The woman who wants to buy the house also has an apt within the house.
That's why he can't evict. That's two illegal apts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fr_Chuck

Agree with all the others, the only way to evict hm, is legally though the court.

The court does not report this to code enforcement, and it is a totally different court and office that handles these issues. The only way they will really know, is if the renter, decides to cause problems and reports it.

But that of course is the issue and problem of illegal apartments. You risk these problems.

---

That's just it. He really can't trust that he won't cause trouble. He seems to
Be led by his daughter who is very unfriendly and probably doesn't want him
To move in with her. The woman who wants to buy the house also has an
Apt within the house and her own entrance... so he could get into a lot
Of trouble.

What a bunch of bull. The lady can buy the house and evict the old coot herself if that's what she wanted to do. Nobody cared about any of that illegal crap when they were moving in.