Ask Experts Questions for FREE Help !
Ask
    Trotter's Avatar
    Trotter Posts: 2, Reputation: 1
    New Member
    		  
    #1

    Jun 19, 2007, 10:30 AM
    30 Day Eviction in California when property was sold
    I was recently evicted from my California home when the property sold. I was given thirty days to move. The real estate agent and the buyer claim they are going to be owner-occupying the property. I've done some research and found out the buyer owns a number of other properties and rents them out, she also mentioned to someone else in the neighborhood that she is planning to rent my old place out as well. So she will not be an owner-occupier. This has been a very traumatic experience and I feel I was completely misled by both the buyer and the real estate agent. What recourse do I have against them as I believe I should have been given a 60 day notice? Thank you in advance for your assistance with my small problem.
    excon's Avatar
    excon Posts: 21,482, Reputation: 2992
    Uber Member
    		  
    #2

    Jun 20, 2007, 05:31 AM
    Hello t:

    It's an either/or situation. If you have a lease, the new owner is required to honor it. If you don't, you are a month to month tenant and a 30 day notice is legal.

    excon
    Trotter's Avatar
    Trotter Posts: 2, Reputation: 1
    New Member
    		  
    #3

    Jun 20, 2007, 09:25 AM
    According to the California Department of Consumer Affairs the owner must give 60 days written notice since I lived in the house for over a year unless the new owner intends to occupy the house for at least a year after the tenancy ends. My problem is THE OWNER IS NOT GOING TO OCCUPY THE PROPERTY, SHE IS GOING TO RENT IT OUT. THUS BY LAW SHE SHOULD HAVE GIVEN ME A 60 DAY NOTICE, NOT A 30 DAY NOTICE. So my question is basically 'what recourse do I have against the new owner and the realtor for breaking this law?'
    excon's Avatar
    excon Posts: 21,482, Reputation: 2992
    Uber Member
    		  
    #4

    Jun 20, 2007, 09:34 AM
    Hello again, T:

    Well, if you're interpretation is correct, you could have stayed. Since you didn't, you can sue them for any damages the breach cost you. Keep in mind, the costs you incurred to move wouldn't be recoverable since you would have had to move in a month anyway. So, you tell me. Or rather tell the court what it cost you. I can't think of very much that it could have.

    excon
    LadyB's Avatar
    LadyB Posts: 320, Reputation: 42
    Full Member
    		  
    #5

    Jun 20, 2007, 09:41 AM
    You have no proof that the new owner will not occupy it, only rumor. By the time you have the proof, you will already have moved out. You could then take whatever legal action is allowed in your state for not receiving proper notice due to fraud.
Not your question? Ask your question View similar questions
 

Question Tools Search this Question
Search this Question:

Advanced Search

Add your answer here.


Check out some similar questions!

30 day notice law in California [ 3 Answers ]

Hello I have a question does anybody know if it the law that you have to give a 30 day notice in the state of California because we were living at a home and our car was broken into twice in one week and there was a lot of out going activity going on after the first brake in , the people we think...

30 day notice - California [ 5 Answers ]

On Sept 20 I gave my written 30 day notice. I subsequently moved out around October 3. My lease had expired in July. My problem is that the rental co is charging me rent till the last day of the month instead of 30 days after I gave notice, which should have been Oct 20. My question is can they...

Building sold eviction [ 2 Answers ]

Last week my apatment building was sold. The next day I was given a 30 day notice to move. What leverage do I have in getting moving costs or compensation to avoid an unlawful detainer. The building is located in Torrance Ca. thanks for your help

View more questions Search