Sheriff Sale & Renters

[hooky]

Just got a panic call from someone who is a renter in a house that was sold at Sheriff sale today. The purchaser came by after the sale and basically said if they were allowed to go into the house, their lawyer would "go easy and work with them" on getting out. Otherwise "we'll toss you out in the street and everything in the house will be ours". I'm catching all this from someone who is obviously very emotional right now. The foreclosure process has been going on for almost a year leading up to this.

My understanding is that the purchaser doesn't have the right to enter and would have to file for eviction. Even then, personal property of the renter isn't in play.

What's protocol on this? I need to talk someone down from the ledge. Thanks

 

[Frank_N_Stein]

I'm not a lawyer and by no means an expert in landlord/tenant law, but the way I understand it is the resident has to be evicted according to the established process, no matter who the owner of the property is. Your friend should call the Sheriff's department of the county they live in and try to talk to someone that does the evictions. A call to a lawyer that deals with landlord/tenant issues would also be a smart thing to do.

 

[hooky]

Thanks. I suggested she call the Johnson county Sheriff's Dept. They have since told her the same thing you mention, but she's still unsure about the personal property.

Also found out the purchaser stopped this morning before the sale and asked for entry. She said she didn't feel it was appropriate to let them in, but had a conversation about renting it for a few years and hoped to stay. Purchaser to be stated "hope to keep you as a renter" and asked to be let in again to no avail.

 

[88GT]

Frank's right. All evictions must be voluntary compliance or judicially approved. Furthermore, the new owner is essentially a landlord by default and subject to all obligations and restrictions of landlords as defined by Indiana law.

However, the smart thing would probably be to find new housing ASAP. Just because it's against the law doesn't mean the new owner won't do it. And then your friend would be left with the process of seeking redress, which is a helluva lot worse than simply finding a new home. And far more costly.

Indiana Code TITLE 32, Article 31 Table of Contents

That's the section on Indiana's landlord/tenant laws. Have your friend print out a full copy (or two) and read up on it. Every tenant should know that stuff inside and out. If he/she needs specific info or any more questions, PM me for my cell phone number. I'm a licensed real estate broker and have been doing property management for others and myself for 10 years.

EDIT: just read you latest response. Her personal property is hers unless it's abandoned and the new owner can show sufficient evidence that it was indeed abandoned. On the other hand, as the new owner and de facto landlord, he is entitled to access on some level. IC doesn't require notice per se and only limits restrictions to reasonable time frames (like not in the middle of the night). Your friend might want to allow the new owner in on appointment for a date and time both agree to with the purpose of the entrance explicitly laid out. Good will and grease the wheels for future events. She also better be prepared for rent demands if she doesn't decide what to do soon.

 

[USMC_0311]

Depending on who bought the property your freind may be able to make a little money. When banks buy back they usually hire a company to get it ready for sale. A lot of times those companies will offer current residents money to clean and move. She has plenty of time to find a new place but don't take too long to find one. The sherrif has to come out and serve the eviction notice and put stickers on the windows. Usually a 30 day window from that point until they come out and do an actual eviction. If an individual bought I would be polite but make them do the paper work so you can guarantee how much time you have.

 

[hooky]

Thanks for the info!

 

[ZombieApocolypse]

Not sure on this but ... Does Indiana have "squatters rights?"

 

[pinshooter45]

Fortunatly my brother in law was already in the proccess of moving when the same thing happend to him. I could be wrong, but from the paper work he got concerning the the property he was in. Once the sherrifs sale happened he had to be out right away. The new owner has no lease or agreement with the existing tenant and can force the tenant out immediatly! He was getting notices for months as I'm sure your freind has been. They can't get the contents though that is your own property and the new owner has no right to it. Unless you stay and don't pay rent ect. Then it small claims court ect

 

[jwfuhrman]

The new owner has 0 right to YOUR personal Property as a Renter.

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

88GT is correct. Follow what she's saying. Now - it's probably wise to play along and "work with" the new owner. From what you've said - new owner is likely NOT the bank given that they dropped by and it doesn't sound like they were professional. From my experience as a landlord (and buyer of foreclosed properties), I would suggest the following:
1) Look for a new place - unless the new owners want the renter there.
2) Be reasonable with new owner.
3) Make it CLEAR that your stuff is not to be touched
4) IF (only IF) it gets adversarial - you may want to talk with any attorney/legal aid , etc.

Usually in cases like this however, the renter has KNOWN that it was going to Sheriff's sale. I assume that this was the case. The new owner cannot just throw you out. It has to be a legal eviction. And they CANNOT touch your stuff. They cannot shut off water or power or anything like that. THAT is known as a "self help eviction". If they do stuff like that - you need legal help. Has the renter been paying rent? Usually in cases like this - the answer is "no". That puts you on more slippery legal footing....

Respond with more details and I'm sure that you will get more advice.

 

[Gabriel]

Frank's right. All evictions must be voluntary compliance or judicially approved. Furthermore, the new owner is essentially a landlord by default and subject to all obligations and restrictions of landlords as defined by Indiana law.

However, the smart thing would probably be to find new housing ASAP. Just because it's against the law doesn't mean the new owner won't do it. And then your friend would be left with the process of seeking redress, which is a helluva lot worse than simply finding a new home. And far more costly.
.

This. I deal with landlord/tenant disputes a couple times nealry every shift. Most landlords I know don't care abut the law and will physically throw someone out, destroy their belongings, or worse just to get them out. I had one guy recently that came home to find the front and back doors to his apartment completely missing. The landlord decided he didn't like the guy, so he removed the doors to prompt him to move.

 

[hooky]

I just got off the phone with her. Her neighbors said someone rolled up while she was gone and started walking around the house, taking pics and looking in the windows. They tried the doors, but they were locked so they must not have keys.

She's been there 6 years and hasn't paid rent in the 10-11 months.

There's 2 kids involved. Oe is a severely autistic child that can't handle change, to the point where the child will hurt themselves when overly stressed by major changes.

She was paying an extra $50/month in rent to cover some new appliances and a storage barn that the old landlord bought on her behalf, but it doesn't sound like there is a paper trail for that arrangement.

Goofy original deal, if it matters. The landlord that she had the lease with was buying the property on contract from the actual owner, who defaulted on the mortgage. There was a property manager in the middle of all that. When the owner went into foreclosure, the contract buyer was hosed and the property management company was also caught up in it.

Just a jacked up deal all the way around.

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

Hooky -

A) I have 2 Nephews on the Autistic Spectrum - I get that...
B) If she hasn't paid rent in that long - she's part of the problem.
C) You are correct - this is jacked up all of the way around.
D) This is going to be lawsuit city - And I'll bet the contract buyer is Pissed Almighty.... and may well be out of luck. Rule #1 of buying on contract - KNOW WHO YOU ARE DEALING WITH.

Given this - she is dealing with Slumlords, not landlords... And there IS a difference. She needs to find another place ASAP. This is not sounding fun.

It's a common misconception that the kids factor into the court's decision. Truth is - NOWHERE in that section of landlord tenant law does the kids' needs play into it. The fact that she hasn't paid in 10-11 months isn't going to make a judge have any sympathy. She HAD to know this was coming.....

Not trying to be hard on the folks involved - this is just the straight poop on L/T law - IANAL, etc... nor did I stay at a Holiday Inn last night etc. She needs to prepare to move and do so quickly. Had she been paying - the law would be on her side, and buy her a little time - but with how you describe it... this is going to happen quickly.

 

[hooky]

She's known that it's coming. The bank wouldn't return calls, so she stopped sending rent to the management company on their recommendation and says she's been sticking it in separate account since. Contract buyer has been hosed since September of '10.

She's looking for something now. She actually went to the sale, hoping to talk to the person that bought to let them they had a ready made tenant. Sounds like she has a slum lord instead of a landlord.

Some men, you just can't reach.

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

It sounds to me like a rehabber bought it. A bank would NOT have someone dropping by, looking in windows, etc. Rehabber just wants to fix it up and flip it, in all likelihood. If that's true - they want her out of there ASAFreakingP... Without seeing the place, I've got to assume that the maintenance has not been done for a while. That would be typical of a landlord/contract in distress like you describe.

Sounds like she's on the right track and doing the right things. Again - I suspect that she'll be moving quickly. Good for her for saving up the money. Maybe 88GT can shed some light - I've heard of people escrowing the rent in cases like this... but I'm not sure of all of the legalities involved. And I don't get into these kinds of pickles myself as a landlord - so I can't speak intelligently to that.

 

[Leo]

Indiana has a funny thing about pregnant women. I once was set to buy a house that the previous owner had rented. On closing day, I found out the tenant said she would not move out and was pregnant. When I started asking questions, I was told that the welfare mama was now my problem, and since she was pregnant, I could not evict her. I didn't close and it was a mess getting out of the contract. That pretty well used up my earnest money. I never studied it any further, and never bought another house that had tenants living there.

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

Leo -

I fear you got fed a line... Yes, she was now your problem to evict (if you had closed on the deal). But the pregnant bit is one of the common misconceptions (bad pun???). Look for it in the IC - it's not there. She may well have been a pain to evict - and that may have been enough to get you out of the sale, but the pregnancy bit is a myth. Unless you can show me in the IC, of course...

Landlord / Tenant law is FULL of these kind of misconceptions. It's kind of like all of the things people believe about buying firearms in Indiana. There's a TON of misinformation and confusion floating around out there.

 

[88GT]

She needs to prepare to move and do so quickly. Had she been paying - the law would be on her side, and buy her a little time - but with how you describe it... this is going to happen quickly.

Yep. Waaaay too many people with their fingers in the cookie far for this one. (Lesson learned: do not rent from contract buyers who do not hold title!!!!) Though I'm not sure to whom she was paying rent at this point. The property management company?

She pays PM company rent, PM company pays contract buyer proceeds, contract buyer pays owner of record monthly mortgage payments, owner of record pays mortgage company monthly mortgage payments. That sound about right?

It sounds to me like a rehabber bought it. A bank would NOT have someone dropping by, looking in windows, etc. Rehabber just wants to fix it up and flip it, in all likelihood. If that's true - they want her out of there ASAFreakingP... Without seeing the place, I've got to assume that the maintenance has not been done for a while. That would be typical of a landlord/contract in distress like you describe.

I agree. If the buyer were interested in the occupant as a renter, he would have initiated contact with those terms in the first place. He definitely wouldn't have threatened eviction and theft of property if he were wanting tenants out of it. And this isn't is first rodeo, I'm betting. He's counting on tenant ignorance of the law essentially to browbeat her into submission. He just wants her out. In the long run, her best option is probably to comply as quickly as possible.

Sounds like she's on the right track and doing the right things. Again - I suspect that she'll be moving quickly. Good for her for saving up the money. Maybe 88GT can shed some light - I've heard of people escrowing the rent in cases like this... but I'm not sure of all of the legalities involved. And I don't get into these kinds of pickles myself as a landlord - so I can't speak intelligently to that.

To the bolded: LOL, I don't either.

I think a lot would depend on the nature of who pays whom, and who signed the lease as the actual Lessor. And even the verbiage in the lease with regards to sale of the property, defaults, holdover periods, etc, and so forth.

Probably best to keep the rent money held back for just a little while longer. Hopefully she won't need it. Unfortunately, I think the statute of limitations on these things is seven years.

 

[hooky]

She was paying the management company and had contact with the contract buyers from time to time, so I assume that it was happening the way you describe. She didn't find out about the contract until they tacked a foreclosure notice on the door initially.

Latest is that the buyer from yesterday's sheriff sale is demanding that she take the self standing pool and a trampoline down. I assume it's for insurance purposes, but with no valid lease I'm not sure if she can be forced to do that. There's been no central air in the house since May, so the pool is a big deal with heat we're experiencing.

Hopefully she's seriously looking for another place.

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

1) The pool is the LEAST of her worries... a new place to live is numero uno....
2) I'm SURE that the trampoline and pool are for insurance reasons! That's lawsuit city. My insurance would get cancelled over pools, trampolines, and certain breeds of dogs...

Two things I don't/can't allow on my property - a) illegal activity b) anything that would get my insurance cancelled.


Given what you are saying, hooky, she IS NOT getting the message. She will be moving within a month or so, mark my words. She needs to work on that aspect of things.