[mrdemo]

Yes, as long as he is legal owner of that property, he can do what ever he wants with the money, bet it on the ponies, or party till the cows come home. to make it short and pehaps a bit rude, legally it is none of your business what he does with the money.

I know it can and will effect you, but he does not have to account to you for what he does with that money,
And even after the foreclosure, he can sue you for any unpaid rents for the time he owned the rental that you did not pay.

But now I will even make it worst for you, if you did not have it bad enough, since he is losing the house, most likely has no money, after it is foreclosed and they ask you to move, he is not going to have any money to pay your deposit back, so you will end up having to sue him and hope he does not file bankrutpcy.

What a joke it is that the owner can break contract without consequences,while the renter has so many to face,why is that?Seems to me that the owner is the irresponsible one who can't pay their mortgage,yet they can still collect your money.Why does anyone sign a lease and pay their rent?SO THEY HAVE A PLACE TO LIVE!FOR A SET AMOUNT OF TIME!They don't have to pay their mortgage with your specific money,but they better be paying it with something!Or maybe they shouldn't take responsibility they are too childish to handle.The renter is the one getting ripped off due to some broke chump.Owners should be punished for breaking a lease.of course if you upset the wrong renter they might possibly take it upon themselves to hand out that punishment.There needs to be a law that states when a family is forced to move from their home do to the owner being in foreclosure,the last two months should be rent free to assure they can find,and afford proper housing.

[ScottGem]

Your post wasn't an answer to the thread you posted it in. So I've moved it to its own thread. In the future please don't piggyback such a post on someone else's thread.

You have some valid issues to raise so I thought it worth opening up for discussion. Personally I agree with you that the renter in such a situation deserves more protection then the law gives them. California does have a statue on the books that affords the renter some protection in such a situation, but I believe they are currently alone in this.

The renter's plight is generally in the hands of the courts when a foreclosure of a rental property occurs. And the courts do tend to be lenient towards the renter, especially if they followed the law.

To play devil's advocate here, your rant is very one sided. Not every landlord is sticking it the tenant. I would venture to gues that most just found themselves in financial trouble due to a variety of factors, not all within their control. By allowing a tenant to withhold rent under such circumstances you just make it even harder for the landlord to recover and avoid foreclosure.

And I strongly disagree with your solution. Giving a tenant 2 months free is not a fair alternative. In my opinion, what should happen is that the new owners of the property should be forced to honor the lease just as they would if they had purchased the property. When the property is auctioned, it should be noted that the property is currently leased until x date and that lease must be honored. In this way, the tenant isn't forced to move prematurely. If the new owner wants them out earlier they can offer a buyout. That seems to me to be the fairest way to handle this situation.