|
|
|
Hello,
I am still in shock when I saw a letter tacked on my door last week
called "Notice to Occupants to Vacate Premises. The generic notice
mentioned 30 days to vacate if I was a tenant and 3 days if I was the
past owner.
It turns out that my landord defaulted on his mortgage responsibility
and the rental unit I am in was sold in a Trustee's sale.
I was only going month to month after my one year lease expired last
September here in Orange County, California.
Now it is obvious that the law firm who wrote the Notice does not know
my identity at all and *requires* that I call him at the law firm's
number to prove my tenancy with the previous owner within "48
HOURS".
I also recieved a regular posted letter addressed to "Occupant" from
another group that offered my $2,000 if I left in 14 days. Again they
wanted my name but I am ignoring this as it will cost me more than
$2000 to move so suddenly.
In any case I have accepted my faith and I have purchased a home to
move to. The problem is that the new home will not be complete till 6
weeks from now. I will be over by around 2 weeks...
Now what I want to do is STALL the removal process by 2 weeks without
that new owner's law firm starting a "unlawful detainer" against my
good name and possibly placing my name in a *black list*.
What to do...?
I know I can wait safely till 30 days, but after that they can
immediately start the process of eviction with applying for the
unlawful detainer.
Since the law firm simply posted the Notice on my door and I did not
receive another notice by certified mail can I ignore the notice till
I receive a notice that was personally delivered to me or via
certified mail?
Am I legally required to identify myself to the new owner's law firm
within 48 hours as stated on tye Notice that was tacked on my door?
Any of you think it would just be good idea to call he law firm
"identify" myself and explain my situation that I would merely need an
extra 2 weeks with no fuss and no need for his client to spend any
money going through with the eviction process?
I have a wife and 4 elementary school kids that will be abruptly
uprooted and forcibly relocated from their home and school... so this
is very stressfull time for me so I would appreciate any constructive
advise from anyone...
Thanks in advance...
|
| |
| |
On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 01:52:19 -0700 (PDT), Spook <spectre@xtra.co.nz>
wrote:
The problem is that the new home will not be complete till 6
weeks from now. I will be over by around 2 weeks...
I wouldn't worry, you're actually in a very good position.
If you can substantiate the fact that you've purchased a home and you
can vacate in [approximately] 6 weeks, the trustee will almost
certainly agree to let you stay longer, rather than commence a
potentially expensive and time consuming eviction action. Be sure to
approach them is a calm, respectful business manner.
I don't know how long these things take where you are, but here in
NYC, evictions typically take between 3 and 6 months; and if any
tenant is over 65, it could be more than a year.
A_C
|
| |
| |
On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 01:52:19 -0700 (PDT), Spook <spectre@xtra.co.nz>
wrote:
Hello,
I am still in shock when I saw a letter tacked on my door last week
called "Notice to Occupants to Vacate Premises. The generic notice
mentioned 30 days to vacate if I was a tenant and 3 days if I was the
past owner.
It turns out that my landord defaulted on his mortgage responsibility
and the rental unit I am in was sold in a Trustee's sale.
I was only going month to month after my one year lease expired last
September here in Orange County, California.
Now it is obvious that the law firm who wrote the Notice does not know
my identity at all and *requires* that I call him at the law firm's
number to prove my tenancy with the previous owner within "48
HOURS".
I also recieved a regular posted letter addressed to "Occupant" from
another group that offered my $2,000 if I left in 14 days. Again they
wanted my name but I am ignoring this as it will cost me more than
$2000 to move so suddenly.
In any case I have accepted my faith and I have purchased a home to
move to. The problem is that the new home will not be complete till 6
weeks from now. I will be over by around 2 weeks...
Now what I want to do is STALL the removal process by 2 weeks without
that new owner's law firm starting a "unlawful detainer" against my
good name and possibly placing my name in a *black list*.
What to do...?
I know I can wait safely till 30 days, but after that they can
immediately start the process of eviction with applying for the
unlawful detainer.
Since the law firm simply posted the Notice on my door and I did not
receive another notice by certified mail can I ignore the notice till
I receive a notice that was personally delivered to me or via
certified mail?
Am I legally required to identify myself to the new owner's law firm
within 48 hours as stated on tye Notice that was tacked on my door?
Any of you think it would just be good idea to call he law firm
"identify" myself and explain my situation that I would merely need an
extra 2 weeks with no fuss and no need for his client to spend any
money going through with the eviction process?
I have a wife and 4 elementary school kids that will be abruptly
uprooted and forcibly relocated from their home and school... so this
is very stressfull time for me so I would appreciate any constructive
advise from anyone...
Thanks in advance...
You need to contact the attorney immediately. Explain your situation
entirely including the kids being in school and all. Since the school
year is nearly at end, you might be able to work out a deal where you
can stay until then. That would give the new owner a bit of an income
rather than getting nothing until he took full charge. If he's human,
he'll accept the deal rather than going through an expensive court
process.
They don't know who you are? They should have known that the day the
new owner took over. I'd also do a little checking into the court
records and see if such action actually took place. Since the letter
was addressed to "occupant" this makes me think it could be some kind
of scam. As practically no state has a "3 day" eviction notice
anymore.
You might also want to check state laws about foreclosures. California
may be one of the states that requires occupants of foreclosures to be
notified BEFORE such action takes place. As certain proceedings need
to take place it just doesn't happen overnight. That would also
involve the sheriff. So check with that office and see what legal
action they performed in regards to this matter.
As I see it, you should have been notified well before the event took
place.
|
| |
| |
Hello,
I am still in shock when I saw a letter tacked on my door last week
called "Notice to Occupants to Vacate Premises. The generic notice
mentioned 30 days to vacate if I was a tenant and 3 days if I was the
past owner.
It turns out that my landord defaulted on his mortgage responsibility
and the rental unit I am in was sold in a Trustee's sale.
I was only going month to month after my one year lease expired last
September here in Orange County, California.
Now it is obvious that the law firm who wrote the Notice does not know
my identity at all and *requires* that I call him at the law firm's
number to prove my tenancy with the previous owner within "48
HOURS".
I also recieved a regular posted letter addressed to "Occupant" from
another group that offered my $2,000 if I left in 14 days. Again they
wanted my name but I am ignoring this as it will cost me more than
$2000 to move so suddenly.
In any case I have accepted my faith and I have purchased a home to
move to. The problem is that the new home will not be complete till 6
weeks from now. I will be over by around 2 weeks...
Now what I want to do is STALL the removal process by 2 weeks without
that new owner's law firm starting a "unlawful detainer" against my
good name and possibly placing my name in a *black list*.
What to do...?
I know I can wait safely till 30 days, but after that they can
immediately start the process of eviction with applying for the
unlawful detainer.
Since the law firm simply posted the Notice on my door and I did not
receive another notice by certified mail can I ignore the notice till
I receive a notice that was personally delivered to me or via
certified mail?
Am I legally required to identify myself to the new owner's law firm
within 48 hours as stated on tye Notice that was tacked on my door?
Any of you think it would just be good idea to call he law firm
"identify" myself and explain my situation that I would merely need an
extra 2 weeks with no fuss and no need for his client to spend any
money going through with the eviction process?
I have a wife and 4 elementary school kids that will be abruptly
uprooted and forcibly relocated from their home and school... so this
is very stressfull time for me so I would appreciate any constructive
advise from anyone...
Thanks in advance...
|
| |
| |
[...]
I'm not a lawyer. If anyone who is contradicts anything I write, go
with their opinion(s) over mine.
Now it is obvious that the law firm who wrote the Notice does not know
my identity at all and *requires* that I call him at the law firm's
number to prove my tenancy with the previous owner within "48
HOURS".
That surprises me. I would have thought the new owner would know your
name shortly after the sale, and that your name would have been passed on to
the lawyer(s).
[...]
Since the law firm simply posted the Notice on my door and I did not
receive another notice by certified mail can I ignore the notice till
I receive a notice that was personally delivered to me or via
certified mail?
I wouldn't recomend ignoring it.
Am I legally required to identify myself to the new owner's law firm
within 48 hours as stated on tye Notice that was tacked on my door?
I can't speak to the legal requirement of doing so, but it wouldn't
hurt. Especially if you hope to be permited to stay a bit longer.
Any of you think it would just be good idea to call he law firm
"identify" myself and explain my situation that I would merely need an
extra 2 weeks with no fuss and no need for his client to spend any
money going through with the eviction process?
That's what I would do.
I have a wife and 4 elementary school kids that will be abruptly
uprooted and forcibly relocated from their home and school... so this
is very stressfull time for me so I would appreciate any constructive
advise from anyone...
Be polite and point out that you've purchased a home but you won't be
able to move until two weeks after the 30 days is up. Odds are they'll
accept this rather than go through the eviction process, but I doubt they
are required to.
If they accept, great! If not, there probably isn't a great deal you
can do.
--
"Jek rat, jek jakha, jek dji, jek porh, jek baht."
Romani: [We are of the] Same blood, the same eyes,
the same soul, the same belly, and of one happiness.
|
| |
| |
On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 01:52:19 -0700 (PDT), Spook <spectre@xtra.co.nz>
wrote:
I wouldn't worry, you're actually in a very good position.
If you can substantiate the fact that you've purchased a home and you
can vacate in [approximately] 6 weeks, the trustee will almost
certainly agree to let you stay longer, rather than commence a
potentially expensive and time consuming eviction action. Be sure to
approach them is a calm, respectful business manner.
I don't know how long these things take where you are, but here in
NYC, evictions typically take between 3 and 6 months; and if any
tenant is over 65, it could be more than a year.
In CA, tenant has one week to respond after being served. Once a response it
made, a court date is made. Could be one month later.
So OP is looking at over 2 months of time to move.
A_C
|
| |
| |
[...]
I'm not a lawyer. If anyone who is contradicts anything I write, go
with their opinion(s) over mine.
That surprises me. I would have thought the new owner would know your
name shortly after the sale, and that your name would have been passed on
to the lawyer(s).
Do you think someone who's property was repoed is going to cooperate with
the takers?
[...]
I wouldn't recomend ignoring it.
I can't speak to the legal requirement of doing so, but it wouldn't
hurt. Especially if you hope to be permited to stay a bit longer.
That's what I would do.
Be polite and point out that you've purchased a home but you won't be
able to move until two weeks after the 30 days is up. Odds are they'll
accept this rather than go through the eviction process, but I doubt they
are required to.
If they accept, great! If not, there probably isn't a great deal you
can do.
--
"Jek rat, jek jakha, jek dji, jek porh, jek baht."
Romani: [We are of the] Same blood, the same eyes,
the same soul, the same belly, and of one happiness.
|
| |
| |
On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 17:54:32 -0500, "GeekBoy" <geek@geek_five.net>
wrote:
In CA, tenant has one week to respond after being served. Once a response it
made, a court date is made. Could be one month later.
So OP is looking at over 2 months of time to move.
Yes, but as I understand his concern, he doesn't want an eviction
action on his record.
His objective should be to negotiate something along the lines of a
3-month lease, with an understanding that he will vacate
unconditionally at that time.
A_C
|
| |
| |
Hello,
I am still in shock when I saw a letter tacked on my door last week
called "Notice to Occupants to Vacate Premises. The generic notice
mentioned 30 days to vacate if I was a tenant and 3 days if I was the
past owner.
It turns out that my landord defaulted on his mortgage responsibility
and the rental unit I am in was sold in a Trustee's sale.
I was only going month to month after my one year lease expired last
September here in Orange County, California.
Now it is obvious that the law firm who wrote the Notice does not know
my identity at all and *requires* that I call him at the law firm's
number to prove my tenancy with the previous owner within "48
HOURS".
I also recieved a regular posted letter addressed to "Occupant" from
another group that offered my $2,000 if I left in 14 days. Again they
wanted my name but I am ignoring this as it will cost me more than
$2000 to move so suddenly.
In any case I have accepted my faith and I have purchased a home to
move to. The problem is that the new home will not be complete till 6
weeks from now. I will be over by around 2 weeks...
Now what I want to do is STALL the removal process by 2 weeks without
that new owner's law firm starting a "unlawful detainer" against my
good name and possibly placing my name in a *black list*.
What to do...?
I know I can wait safely till 30 days, but after that they can
immediately start the process of eviction with applying for the
unlawful detainer.
You have 1 week to respond after being served. Once you respond, the court
clerk makes a court date for appearance of both parties. Could be up to 30
days.
Since the law firm simply posted the Notice on my door and I did not
receive another notice by certified mail can I ignore the notice till
I receive a notice that was personally delivered to me or via
certified mail?
By California law, if you are not persoanally handed a notice, they are to
post notice in a conspicuous place AND send the same notice in regular
mail.
Am I legally required to identify myself to the new owner's law firm
within 48 hours as stated on tye Notice that was tacked on my door?
No. I would not do it. If they are jerks about the time frame and go ahead
with the eviction process then your name appears on court documents.
If they fail to get your name, they will be forced to put "John Doe" on the
filing.
Any of you think it would just be good idea to call he law firm
"identify" myself and explain my situation that I would merely need an
extra 2 weeks with no fuss and no need for his client to spend any
money going through with the eviction process?
Sure call, but not identify.
I have a wife and 4 elementary school kids that will be abruptly
uprooted and forcibly relocated from their home and school... so this
is very stressfull time for me so I would appreciate any constructive
advise from anyone...
Thanks in advance...
|
| |
| |
On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 17:54:32 -0500, "GeekBoy" <geek@geek_five.net>
wrote:
Yes, but as I understand his concern, he doesn't want an eviction
action on his record.
But it will give him time, and by the time case comes to court it will be a
moot point and case dismissed.
His objective should be to negotiate something along the lines of a
3-month lease, with an understanding that he will vacate
unconditionally at that time.
A_C
|
| |
| |
Thanks for your input...
By California law, if you are not persoanally handed a notice, they are to=
post notice in a conspicuous =A0place AND send the same notice in regular
mail.
I have yet to recieve a similar letter that was tacked on my door in
the regular mail from the same law firm.
The notice on the door was dated on April 9 but the notice was placed
on my door Aprill 11 at night.
So does my 30 day timer start at the date of the letter that was
posted on my door or when i get my notice in the mail and what if I
honestly never receive the letter?
Am I legally =A0required to identify myself to the new owner's law firm
within 48 hours as stated on tye Notice that was tacked on my door?
No. I would not do it. If they are jerks about the time frame and go ahead=
with theevictionprocess then your name appears on court documents.
If they fail to get your name, they will be forced to put "John Doe" on th=
e
filing.
I am ok with but I just don't want their agents to confront my wife
and kids one day while I'm at work demanding that we identify
ourselves.
Sure call, but not identify.
Hmmm ...help me out. Maybe instead of calling I can send them a
letter by certified my detailing the property that is in question and
mention that I will vacate the property by first week of June --
without giving my name?
If I send them a copy of my sales contract as proof they can catch my
name from the document or title search so I'd rather not send that as
proof...
Thanks,
|
| |
| |
On Apr 13, 4:28=A0pm, "GeekBoy" <geek@geek_five.net> wrote:
In CA, tenant has one week to respond after being served. Once a respons=
eit
made, a court date is made. Could be one month later.
So OP is looking at over 2 months of time to move.
But it will give him time, and by the time case comes to court it will be =
a
moot point and case dismissed.
- Show quoted text -
Does the start of the eviction process in California automatically put
my name into the *black list* ...or only if it goes to trial?
Maybe I shouldn't identify myself then and can the lawyer acting for
the bank force me to i.d myself can they if they come knocking on my
door ...say before the end of the 30 day period?
Thanks,
|
| |
| |
In article
<018adc44-372c-4322-83f0-9fc03f259847@r9g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
Spook <spectre@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
Thanks for your input...
I have yet to recieve a similar letter that was tacked on my door in
the regular mail from the same law firm.
The notice on the door was dated on April 9 but the notice was placed
on my door Aprill 11 at night.
You received some information that was attached to your door that was
addressed to "occupant" and not you. It was not clear from your
previous post if the notice identified the property that it was attached
to (i.e. maybe it was meant for someone else - how would you know if it
didn't identify you). I am not sure if "occupant" really fits the
requirement in Section 1162 (below).
So does my 30 day timer start at the date of the letter that was
posted on my door or when i get my notice in the mail and what if I
honestly never receive the letter?
The timer can only start once you have been properly served which has
not happened yet according to Calif. Code (Section 1946.1 (f) " The
notices required by this section shall be given in the manner prescribed
in Section 1162 of the Code of Civil Procedure or by sending a copy by
certified or registered mail."
The part of section 1162 at applies because the notice was posted on the
property is:
"(3). If such place of residence and business can not be ascertained, or
a person of suitable age or discretion there can not be found, then by
affixing a copy in a conspicuous place on the property, and also
delivering a copy to a person there residing, if such person can be
found; and also sending a copy through the mail addressed to the tenant
at the place where the property is situated. Service upon a subtenant
may be made in the same manner."
I think it can be argued that they must know the identity of the tenant
and not just "occupant", otherwise they would not be able to distinguish
between a guest, handyman, gardner, etc., unless they asked an unknown
person who happened to be on the property at the time and may get an
unreliable answer.
Am I legally required to identify myself to the new owner's law firm
within 48 hours as stated on tye Notice that was tacked on my door?
I am ok with but I just don't want their agents to confront my wife
and kids one day while I'm at work demanding that we identify
ourselves.
They could do that per Section 1162:
"The notices required by Sections 1161 and 1161a may be served, either:
1. By delivering a copy to the tenant personally; or,
2. If he or she is absent from his or her place of residence, and
from his or her usual place of business, by leaving a copy with some
person of suitable age and discretion at either place, and sending a
copy through the mail addressed to the tenant at his or her place of
residence; or,..."
You might also want to note that Section 1946 (2) which allows the new
owner of a property to terminate a tenant requires that ALL of the
following be met:
Section 1946 (d)(3) "The purchaser is a natural person or persons."
Meaning that it cannot be a corporation like a bank, etc. (If it IS the
foreclosing bank that wants you out so they can easier sell the
property, they cannot force you out under this provision.)
Section 1946 (d)(4) "The notice is given no more than 120 days after the
escrow has been established." You would not know this now - but if push
comes to shove, you could find out if this requirement has been met.
Section 1946 (d)(6) "The purchaser in good faith intends to reside in
the property for at least one full year after the termination of the
tenancy." This is in the law to prevent a new owner from forcing
existing tenants out in order to renovate and then raise the rent. If
they want to do that, they must themselves live in the property for a
year. (If after the fact you find out that the new owners didn't live
in the property, you could sue them for any damages they caused by the
forced move.)
Section 1946 (g) "This section may not be construed to affect the
authority of a public entity that otherwise exists to regulate or
monitor the basis for eviction." Meaning that there might be local
laws (city or county) where you live that have even stricter
requirements (such as longer notice, rent control) to force a tenant out
when a property has been sold. Some California cities require local
government approval before rental property can be removed from the
marketplace. See if there is a tenant's rights group where you live.
--
-Ernie-
|
| |
| |
Hello,
I am still in shock when I saw a letter tacked on my door last week
called "Notice to Occupants to Vacate Premises. The generic notice
mentioned 30 days to vacate if I was a tenant and 3 days if I was the
past owner.
It turns out that my landord defaulted on his mortgage responsibility
and the rental unit I am in was sold in a Trustee's sale.
Have you contacted the landlord and ratted out this possible scammer
to him? This reads a lot like the scams (I've received a few like
this):
Dear Occupant,
We have taken over payment processing for your property.
From now on, please send your rent and/or mortgage payment to
us at:
.......
It might not be a scam, but I wouldn't give out any information without
verifying it with the (possibly former) landlord YOU know.
|
| |
| |
Your a GOOD man Ernie..
I have yet to =A0recieve a similar letter that was tacked on my door in
the regular mail from the same law firm.
The notice on the door was dated on April 9 but the notice was placed
on my door Aprill 11 at night.
You received some information that was attached to your door that was
addressed to "occupant" and not you. =A0It was not clear from your
previous post if the notice identified the property that it was attached
to (i.e. maybe it was meant for someone else - how would you know if it
didn't identify you). =A0I am not sure if "occupant" really fits the
requirement in Section 1162 (below).
The Notice that was taped to my door has the correct address.
Subsequent communication with my landlord confirms he has relinquised
the property to the lender.
The timer can only start once you have been properly served which has
not happened yet according to Calif. Code (Section 1946.1 (f) " The
notices required by this section shall be given in the manner prescribed
in Section 1162 of the Code of Civil Procedure or by sending a copy by
certified or registered mail."
I was inkling that was the case. This is good news... I can only but
wait for a eviction notice to come by certified mail. Once I receive
that then hopefully the 30 days will be closer to my target leaving
date of May 30.
I am ok with but I just don't want their agents to confront my wife
and kids one day while I'm at work demanding that we identify
ourselves.
Section 1946 (d)(3) "The purchaser is a natural person or persons."
Meaning that it cannot be a corporation like a bank, etc. =A0(If it IS the=
foreclosing bank that wants you out so they can easier sell the
property, they cannot force you out under this provision.)
The information is not yet visible from the results of the Trustee
sale from April 4 from a website I use but looking at the company
website of the lawyer they mostly service large banks as their main
customer... so the chances are that it is bank owned.
If I continue to refuse to identify myself are the lawyers for the new
owners in a bind? I did notice that when they stated I had 48 hours
to contact them with my tenancy details that they did not cite any law
that required me to do so.
I guess my landlord didn't identify me to who ever handled the
foreclosure ...or... if he did my case was handled by some inept
person that was so engulfed in a sea of paper work generated by so
many foreclosures that they misplaced my information...
***
****
My current plan is at this stage is to send a letter to the lawyer
(once I get their final notice by mail ) stating that I have purchased
a new home and escrow will be complete by May 30. I will indicate that
I will vacate the property by June 6 and I will ask for a self
addressed pre-paid courier envelope where I can send the house keys to
them after I secure the property and leave.
I will also indicate that I will not pursue the recovery of the
security deposit for the property if their client agrees. And at the
bottom of that letter I will sign it as ...
" Sincerely Yours,
The Occupant @ xxx address..."
|
| |
| |
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Dear Occupant,
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 We have taken over payment processing for your property.
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 From now on, please send your rent and/or mortgage payment=
to
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 us at:
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 .......
It might not be a scam, but I wouldn't give out any information without
verifying it with the (possibly former) landlord YOU know.
I spoke to the my prevoius landlord and he has inidcated he has tossed
the keys to the lender so I know that this is happening.
I am indeed very very carefull in divulging my information. The first
letter I got was not from the lawyer but from a outfit supposedly
hired by the new owners. The letter offered me $2000 only if I left
in 2 weeks time or less. ( a Super human feat by anyones standards
from a cold start...)
They also asked me to fill in a "W9" tax form and give my name and
social security number.
hahaha .. legitimate or not I won't divulge that information to a
outfit I do not know...
|
| |
| |
On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 10:53:03 -0700 (PDT), Spook <spectre@xtra.co.nz>
wrote:
I will also indicate that I will not pursue the recovery of the
security deposit for the property if their client agrees.
WHY??? You frankly sound like a model tenant. Why should you
relinquish your security deposit? None of this is any of your doing!
In New York the standard practice (not necessarily the legal one) is
to live out the security, as in most cases you'll never get it from
the landlord.
A_C
|
| |
| |
On Apr 14, 12:12=A0pm, Agent_C <Agent-C-hates-s...@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 10:53:03 -0700 (PDT), Spook <spec...@xtra.co.nz>
wrote:
WHY??? You frankly sound like a model tenant. Why should you
relinquish your security deposit? None of this is any of your doing!
In New York the standard practice (not necessarily the legal one) is
to live out the security, as in most cases you'll never get it from
the landlord.
A_C
=2E..Well I sort of think of it as that it is a good deal.
The deposit was below a $1,000 which is not indicative of the actual
rent I was paying ...and for that I get 2 + months of being rent free
and not (in a way) be rushed moving with a weekend but have a full
week to move...
|
| |
| |
In article
<43e8d221-a1b6-4fb7-8005-f8422c2e85cc@l28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
Spook <spectre@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
The timer can only start once you have been properly served which has
not happened yet according to Calif. Code (Section 1946.1 (f) " The
notices required by this section shall be given in the manner prescribed
in Section 1162 of the Code of Civil Procedure or by sending a copy by
certified or registered mail."
I was inkling that was the case. This is good news... I can only but
wait for a eviction notice to come by certified mail. Once I receive
that then hopefully the 30 days will be closer to my target leaving
date of May 30.
The code says "...Section 1162 of the Code of Civil Procedure *OR* by
sending a copy by certified or registered mail."
Read the rest of my post which covers the other ways you can receive
notice other than by mail per section 1162.
I am ok with but I just don't want their agents to confront my wife
and kids one day while I'm at work demanding that we identify
ourselves.
The information is not yet visible from the results of the Trustee
sale from April 4 from a website I use but looking at the company
website of the lawyer they mostly service large banks as their main
customer... so the chances are that it is bank owned.
I should point out that the way I read the code, Section 1946.1 (b) says
"An owner of a residential dwelling giving notice pursuant to this
section shall give notice at least 60 days prior to the proposed date of
termination." and Section 1946.1 (d) allows the new owner to terminate
a tenant with *30* days notice only if all of the conditions are met
unless there are more restrictive local laws.
If my reading is correct and this property sale (if that is what it
actually is) doesn't qualify for a 30 day notice because it doesn't meet
the conditions necessary for 30 days notice, but requires a 60 day
notice, then the notice you received may be defective because it didn't
give you the correct notice.
You might want to consult with a local attorney that is familiar with
local rent laws.
--
-Ernie-
|
| |
| |
In article
<018adc44-372c-4322-83f0-9fc03f259847@r9g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
Spook <spectre@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
You received some information that was attached to your door that was
addressed to "occupant" and not you. It was not clear from your
previous post if the notice identified the property that it was attached
to (i.e. maybe it was meant for someone else - how would you know if it
didn't identify you). I am not sure if "occupant" really fits the
requirement in Section 1162 (below).
The timer can only start once you have been properly served which has
not happened yet according to Calif. Code (Section 1946.1 (f) " The
notices required by this section shall be given in the manner prescribed
in Section 1162 of the Code of Civil Procedure or by sending a copy by
certified or registered mail."
The part of section 1162 at applies because the notice was posted on the
property is:
"(3). If such place of residence and business can not be ascertained, or
a person of suitable age or discretion there can not be found, then by
affixing a copy in a conspicuous place on the property, and also
delivering a copy to a person there residing, if such person can be
found; and also sending a copy through the mail addressed to the tenant
at the place where the property is situated. Service upon a subtenant
may be made in the same manner."
I think it can be argued that they must know the identity of the tenant
and not just "occupant", otherwise they would not be able to distinguish
between a guest, handyman, gardner, etc., unless they asked an unknown
person who happened to be on the property at the time and may get an
unreliable answer.
|
| |
| |
On Apr 15, 1:16=A0pm, "GeekBoy" <geek@geek_five.net> wrote:
Thanks for your input...
By California law, if you are not persoanally handed a notice, they a=
re
to
post notice in a conspicuous place AND send the same notice in regula=
r mail.
I have yet to =A0recieve a similar letter that was tacked on my door in=
the regular mail from the same law firm.
The notice on the door was dated on April 9 but the notice was placed
on my door Aprill 11 at night.
So does my 30 day timer start at the date of the letter that was
posted on my door or when i get my notice in the mail and what if I
honestly never receive the letter?
They can do a "John Doe" as long as that person is properly served.- Hide =
quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
I don't mind being referred to as John Doe as long as they can't use
my real identity for any litigation for whatever reason after I leave
or placed in the renters Black List.
The thing is.... I don't *think* I was properly served yet as all I
have seen from a *laywer* was a notice taped on my door which had the
correect address. I was not personally handed the same notice or have
yet to receive the same notice from the mail.
So though the notice I received was dated August 9 , I don't think my
30 timer has started yet ...right?
|
| |
| |
In article
<d97007d5-e027-4490-a822-3ebed4d1d703@a5g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
Spook <spectre@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
The thing is.... I don't *think* I was properly served yet as all I
have seen from a *laywer* was a notice taped on my door which had the
correect address. I was not personally handed the same notice or have
yet to receive the same notice from the mail.
So though the notice I received was dated August 9 , I don't think my
30 timer has started yet ...right?
I don't think it has either, and per my previous post, I think it should
be a 60 day timer, not 30 and if I am correct, then when the 30 day
notice gets thrown out as invalid (which could take a month or more),
they would have to re-serve you with a proper 60 day notice and start
all over. This is one reason why evictions in California can drag on
for months and months when the "evicted" fights and doesn't just
voluntarily leave.
BTW, in your last post I think you said something about the "unit" you
were in. I had assumed that you were renting a house that was in
foreclosure. Is that correct? -- Or is there more than one "unit" and
other renters are also in the same position as you?
Having been on both sides of tenant - landlord issues, I would think
that the new owner would flip over backwards if they knew that you were
already planning to leave voluntarily in 2-3 months because you
purchased a home. They would avoid the hassle of an eviction
altogether. I cannot imagine a new owner not allowing a preexisting
tenant to stay an additional 2 or 3 months if they knew the facts.
The only thing that bothers me (as I am sure also bothers you) is the
high-handed manner that they suddenly posted a notice to vacate instead
of posting an information letter of intent, explaining the situation and
_asking_ for your cooperation - if you didn't respond or indicated that
you would not cooperate - then they could start eviction procedures, but
then you would be aware of the facts and it would not come as a surprise.
--
-Ernie-
|
| |
| |
I don't think it has either, and per my previous post, I think it should
be a 60 day timer, not 30 and if I am correct, then when the 30 day
notice gets thrown out as invalid (which could take a month or more),
they would have to re-serve you with a proper 60 day notice and start
all over. =A0This is one reason why evictions in California can drag on
for months and months when the "evicted" fights and doesn't just
voluntarily leave.
Hmm..On most of the lawyer websites I have read regarding tenant
eviction due to foreclosure is 30 days. I remember seeing another post
in a newsgroup that a bill was introduced to extend the time from 30
to 60 days for tenants ( and maybe even owners) evicted due to
foreclosure but it was killed by Arnie's ( The termintator) vote...
BTW, in your last post I think you said something about the "unit" you
were in. =A0I had assumed that you were renting a house that was in
foreclosure. =A0Is that correct? =A0-- =A0Or is there more than one "unit"=
and
other renters are also in the same position as you?
It's actually a condo situation. My landlord bought 3 condo's in the
same community and defaulted on 2 -- at this stage. The other is
vacant. The 3rd surviving condo still has a lease he he doesn't want
to have to pay relocate the tenant.
Funny he was a *newby* landlord and purchased the 3 units in Sept.
2006 when there was signs of the bubble bursting .... but he still
bought them all.. so go figure?!?
The only thing that bothers me (as I am sure also bothers you) is the
high-handed manner that they suddenly posted a notice to vacate instead
of posting an information letter of intent, explaining the situation and
_asking_ for your cooperation - if you didn't respond or indicated that
you would not cooperate - then they could start eviction procedures, but
then you would be aware of the facts and it would not come as a surprise.
Well as you know I've never been in this position before and I also
do not personally know of anyone that has experienced of eviction so I
really do not know what to expect.
So at this stage I don't feel particulary bothered but rather accept
that this is the hard *cold* fact of a eviction process.
I am inclined to believe that this unit is now owned by a *faceless*
bank . So the action I am witnessing against me is more a mechanical
process of foreclosure that is happening to many families all over in
California right now.
All I'm doing right now is playing the cards is I am dealt with...
Thanks so much for your input....
|
| |
| |
What I meant by "properly" served is the suit for unlawful detainer.
While you may have not received the mailed version of the eviction notice,
they may have really sent it.
In the court documents, they only need to provide the registered mail
number, not proof you received it.
You can see all the documents for unlawful detainer here:
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/selfhelp/other/landtenudforms.htm
On Apr 15, 1:16 pm, "GeekBoy" <geek@geek_five.net> wrote:
Thanks for your input...
By California law, if you are not persoanally handed a notice, they
are
to
post notice in a conspicuous place AND send the same notice in
regular
mail.
I have yet to recieve a similar letter that was tacked on my door in
the regular mail from the same law firm.
The notice on the door was dated on April 9 but the notice was placed
on my door Aprill 11 at night.
So does my 30 day timer start at the date of the letter that was
posted on my door or when i get my notice in the mail and what if I
honestly never receive the letter?
They can do a "John Doe" as long as that person is properly served.- Hide
quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
I don't mind being referred to as John Doe as long as they can't use
my real identity for any litigation for whatever reason after I leave
or placed in the renters Black List.
The thing is.... I don't *think* I was properly served yet as all I
have seen from a *laywer* was a notice taped on my door which had the
correect address. I was not personally handed the same notice or have
yet to receive the same notice from the mail.
So though the notice I received was dated August 9 , I don't think my
30 timer has started yet ...right?
|
| |
| |
On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 02:33:22 -0500, "GeekBoy" <geek@geek_five.net>
wrote:
In the court documents, they only need to provide the registered mail
number, not proof you received it.
That's not true where I live (NYC), especially in Landlord & Tenant
Court. Proof of service is required.
A_C
|
| |
| |
In article
<56da2e08-d665-4a74-8ee8-fb1649cd9466@i36g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
Spook <spectre@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
I don't think it has either, and per my previous post, I think it should
be a 60 day timer, not 30 and if I am correct, then when the 30 day
notice gets thrown out as invalid (which could take a month or more),
they would have to re-serve you with a proper 60 day notice and start
all over. This is one reason why evictions in California can drag on
for months and months when the "evicted" fights and doesn't just
voluntarily leave.
Hmm..On most of the lawyer websites I have read regarding tenant
eviction due to foreclosure is 30 days. I remember seeing another post
in a newsgroup that a bill was introduced to extend the time from 30
to 60 days for tenants ( and maybe even owners) evicted due to
foreclosure but it was killed by Arnie's ( The termintator) vote...
There was a 60 day requirement that expired Jan 1, 2006 and reverted to
30 days. Assembly Bill #1169 (Torrico) reinstated the 60 days until
Jan. 1, 2010 and became law Jan 1, 2007 (Stats. 2006, ch. 842 (AB 1169,
Torrico).
It is 30 days only if certain conditions apply.
Now, whether or not those conditions apply to your situation, depends on
whether the present owner (the bank I assume) has already contracted to
sell the unit to a real person, (not a corporation), who intends to live
in the unit for at least 1 year, *and* has already established an escrow
account [1946.1(d)(2)]. If they have, the time is probably a 30 days
notice, if not, it is a 60 days notice.
I thought I had already posted the code that controls:
Civil Code Section 1946.1(b), effective January 1, 2007
"(b) An owner of a residential dwelling giving notice pursuant to this
section shall give notice at least 60 days prior to the proposed date of
termination."
Civil Code Section 1946.1(c), effective January 1, 2007
"(c) Notwithstanding subdivision (b), an owner of a residential dwelling
giving notice pursuant to this section shall give notice at least 30
days prior to the proposed date of termination if any tenant or resident
has resided in the dwelling for less than one year.
[ You have lived there over 1 year so that doesn't apply to you ]
Civil Code Section 1946.1(d) effective January 1, 2007
In addition,
(d) An owner of a residential dwelling giving notice pursuant to this
section shall give notice at least 30 days prior to the proposed date of
termination if *all* of the following apply: [emphasis added]
(1) The dwelling or unit is alienable separate from the title to any
other dwelling unit.
1946.1(d)(2) The owner has *contracted to sell* the dwelling or unit to
a bona fide purchaser for value, and has *established an escrow* with a
licensed escrow agent, as defined in Sections 17004 and 17200 of the
Financial Code, or a licensed real estate broker, as defined in Section
10131 of the Business and Professions Code [emphasis added], and
1946.1(d)(3) The purchaser is a natural person or persons.
1946.1(d)(4) The landlord must have given you the 30-day notice no later
than 120 days after opening the escrow, and
1946.1(d)(5) The landlord must not previously have given you a 30-day or
60-day notice, and
1946.1(d)(6) The purchaser in good faith intends to reside in the
property for at least one full year after the termination of the tenancy.
--
-Ernie-
|
| |
| |
In article
<56da2e08-d665-4a74-8ee8-fb1649cd9466@i36g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
Spook <spectre@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
Well as you know I've never been in this position before and I also
do not personally know of anyone that has experienced of eviction so I
really do not know what to expect.
First they tried to buy you out and when you didn't bite they are trying
to scare you out.
After the notice time has passed they can file an "unlawful detainer
lawsuit" in superior court. You usually have only five days to respond
in writing to the landlord's complaint after it has been served. If you
feel that the original service (notice) was defective, or should have
been a 60 day notice rather than 30 days, you can file a demurrer (I
would advise legal help before this point from your own attorney.)
So at this stage I don't feel particulary bothered but rather accept
that this is the hard *cold* fact of a eviction process.
I am inclined to believe that this unit is now owned by a *faceless*
bank . So the action I am witnessing against me is more a mechanical
process of foreclosure that is happening to many families all over in
California right now. < | | |
