Rental Agreement Broken By Landlord?

[namoo]

If I am renting a property until May2010. The owner has sold the condo to someone what happens with the current contract?

The owner and previous owner stated that i can continue to rent as required after May but must honour the original contract. What happens to the security deposit in this case a substantial amount of money. Do we have to honour the contract until May or can leave with return of the deposit because the condo was sold and the original contract is void?

[thaiwanderer]

Assuming your lease is silent on the issue.........

Lessor has sold the property and it seems the new owner is not doing anything to breach the lease you have.

AFAIK the lease is not voided or voidable just because the property has been sold.

It seems its only you that wants a way out?

The buyer seems happy you are a sitting tenant and has merely stepped into the sellers boots.

I suspect you would have great difficulty getting or being entitled to any of the deposit back if you leave early, and rightly so as you are then in breach?

[Bokhoma]

I totally disagree with that answer. The landlord has, in fact, violated the agreement and there is just cause for concern about the deposit. You need assurances that that your deposit has been transferred to the new owner. It seems to me its your decision to continue the agreement with the new owner, not that of either the new or former owner. The notion that a landlord can sign a contract to let a property for a specified length of time then sell that property before that period lapses is not a violation is nonsensical. Protect your interests no one else will.

[dave111223]

Sales of property with existing tenants happens all the time, it's hardly "nonsensical". If purchasing a property as a rental investment it makes sense to have a sitting tenant...

The new owner still has to honor the existing rental agreement, and would need to give you back your deposit at the end of the rental period.

The existing owner has not violated the rental agreement by selling their property. The rental agreement would only be violated if the new owner told you they were not going to honor the lease agreement.

Edited January 30, 2010 by dave111223

[namoo]

The current contract with old owner states:

"THE LANDLORD AGREES AS FOLLOWS:

The Landlord warrants and guarantees that he/she has the unrestricted right to let the premises"

Which is actually not the case now as she has sold the condo and she doesn't have the right therefore in my view the agreement is broken.

I am happy to stay until the original contract date is up but my concern is what will happen to the deposit.

The way I think it should be run is the current contract should be voided old owner returns the deposit to me I start a new contract from that day until original contract date finishes in May2010 signed by me and the new owner and give her the 2 months deposit which will be returned on completion of this new short-term contract. Even then I don't think I need to do this but will as a token of goodwill to the new owner.

I still think the owner has voided the current contract with the above written term in the signed contract.

Edited January 30, 2010 by namoo

[dave111223]

The current contract with old owner states:

"THE LANDLORD AGREES AS FOLLOWS:

The Landlord warrants and guarantees that he/she has the unrestricted right to let the premises"

Which is actually not the case now as she has sold the condo and she doesn't have the right therefore in my view the agreement is broken.

I am happy to stay until the original contract date is up but my concern is what will happen to the deposit.

The way I think it should be run is the current contract should be voided old owner returns the deposit to me I start a new contract from that day until original contract date finishes in May2010 signed by me and the new owner and give her the 2 months deposit which will be returned on completion of this new short-term contract. Even then I don't think I need to do this but will as a token of goodwill to the new owner.

I still think the owner has voided the current contract with the above written term in the signed contract.

Once the owner has sold the condo the new owner is the "Landlord", so yes the *new* owner/landlord still has right to the property...

*edit* misread post

Edited January 30, 2010 by dave111223

[namoo]

Once the owner has sold the condo the new owner is the "Landlord", so yes the *new* owner/landlord still has access to the property...

Also your reasoning seems somewhat reversed. The point of this part of the contract is so that the owner can inspect the property (make sure it hasn't been messed by the tenant).

By your reasoning if the landlord broke their legs and could no longer climb the stairs they would "no longer have access to the property and so are in violation of the contract"...

I think you misunderstand "The Landlord" as referred to in the contract is a named person at a named address which is stated in the contract.

So any reference to LANDLORD throughout the agreement refers to the NAMED person stated in the contract.

So the NEW owner is not on my current contract as the named person.

The point of that part of the contract IS NOT so they have access that is covered in another point. Read it again, the point of that part of the contract is too CLEARLY STATE they have the right to RENT the property out.

* Above was in reply to the text dave111223 edited out *

Edited January 30, 2010 by namoo

[Bokhoma]

For the dense: you cannot lease what you do not own. The lease is not transferable unless annotated as such. In absence of an annotation the leasee would have to agree to and sign a new lease with the new owner.

[dave111223]

For the dense: you cannot lease what you do not own. The lease is not transferable unless annotated as such. In absence of an annotation the leasee would have to agree to and sign a new lease with the new owner.

I have not been able to find any sources backing up this view. When searching google all the sources i found backed up the view that in the event on an ownership change of a rented property; the lease agreement remains unchanged.

http://www.ehow.com/about_5439522_tenant-r...ip-changes.html

Do you have any sources backing up your opinion?

[namoo]

I have not been able to find any sources backing up this view. When searching google all the sources i found backed up the view that in the event on an ownership change of a rented property; the lease agreement remains unchanged.

http://www.ehow.com/about_5439522_tenant-r...ip-changes.html

Not really relevant as that is a general rule for USA and indeed state specific. Thai Law reference would be appreciated.

A New contract MUST be issued with the new owner and confirmation of deposit (Which ALWAYS belongs to me) transfer.

The current contract is invalid because it is between me NAMED on the contract and the original owner NAMED on the contract. The contract is invalid because the NAMED person on the contract we have signed and witnessed is NOT the owner anymore.

The question arises if the contract is invalid the deposit should be returned and I move out of the condo -end of story. I then call the new owner hey wanna make a contract? Black & White to me.

Edited January 30, 2010 by namoo

[dave111223]

*edit* Nevermind, this article referred to a "contract of sale". so not reliant

P.S. are namoo and Bokhoma the same person?

Edited January 30, 2010 by dave111223

[Bokhoma]

*edit* Nevermind, this article referred to a "contract of sale". so not relivant

I assure you, we are not.

[namoo]

*edit* Nevermind, this article referred to a "contract of sale". so not reliant

P.S. are namoo and Bokhoma the same person?

Jeez how many times are you going to post nonsense and re-edit it when you realise what you just posted is crap. Never seen so many "Talking BS" edits in one thread

[Bokhoma]

For the dense: you cannot lease what you do not own. The lease is not transferable unless annotated as such. In absence of an annotation the leasee would have to agree to and sign a new lease with the new owner.

I have not been able to find any sources backing up this view. When searching google all the sources i found backed up the view that in the event on an ownership change of a rented property; the lease agreement remains unchanged.

Do you have any sources backing up your opinion?

Two sources: common sense and logic, that's 2 more than you have.

Edited January 30, 2010 by Bokhoma

[namoo]

Anyway I have setup a meeting this afternoon with the new owner to see what her intentions are.

[Bokhoma]

Anyway I have setup a meeting this afternoon with the new owner to see what her intentions are.

Good Luck and stand your ground, you are right.

[powderpuff]

Ask for your deposit back.

Then make your new rental agreement with the new owner.

Keep in mind what the purpose of a deposit is. a) that if any damage occurs the landlord is not out of pocket

b. In case you can not pay your rent on time the landlord is not out of pocket & c. to meet any unpaid utilitybills.

Have a 3 way meeting if necessary.

[namoo]

I would rather obtain the physical deposit back in my hand. Do a bank transfer to the new owner (So record of transfer) and new contract issued from new owner.

All seems rather messy, Like the other sensible poster said you must protect your interests.

All hassle I could do without.

[thaiwanderer]

Some strange notions here so let's go to source.

Civil and Commercial Code section 569:

A contract of hire of immovable property is not extinguished by the transfer of the property hired.

The transferee is entitled to the rights and is subjected to the duties of the transferor to the hirer.

[CWMcMurray]

Yeah, what he said ...

Here's alink if you want to check for your self ... its on page 16 ( section 569 )

Civil and Commercial Code

[namoo]

Thank you for the relevant links.

Worked out very well new owners are very nice people. They said on monday they will bring a receipt that they have the deposit and the same contract re-written with their names and addresses with the same terms for me to sign until the original date.

[Kf6vci]

in America, the s.d. must be part of escrow and there is an Estoppel form to be used.

I would demand written confirmation by both LLs about the s.d. You got to honor the lease but you better make sure the s.d. is not disappearing with the old owner. (I heard some horror stories about LLs not returning the s.d.).

[hhgz]

So, namoo, 24 hours after your post, the problem was settled. All you had to do was speak with the new landlord. Why didn't you do that initially, rather than getting upset?

[namoo]

Who's upset??

Thanks for your contribution most helpful.

[donx]

So, namoo, 24 hours after your post, the problem was settled. All you had to do was speak with the new landlord. Why didn't you do that initially, rather than getting upset?

Actually, I am very glad that namoo started this topic. It has been confirmed to me that leases are tranferred and enforced even when a sale of the property occurs. It has been my understanding in the past that such is also the case with a 30 year lease.

[stgrhe]

So, namoo, 24 hours after your post, the problem was settled. All you had to do was speak with the new landlord. Why didn't you do that initially, rather than getting upset?

Actually, I am very glad that namoo started this topic. It has been confirmed to me that leases are tranferred and enforced even when a sale of the property occurs. It has been my understanding in the past that such is also the case with a 30 year lease.

That is correct as it is regulated by the same law, Hire of Property under the Civil and Commercial Code. There is thus no specific law for a lease in Thailand.

http://www.samuiforsale.com/Civil_Code_tex...sh_II.html#Hire

[quiksilva]

Nothing extraordinary here it happens all the time, think about what happens when an entire office building or apartment block changes hands.

Upon a sale the landlord's covenants and rights are assigned to the new owner. If that was not possible under Thai law hardly any would be built in the first place.

[thaiwanderer]

So, namoo, 24 hours after your post, the problem was settled. All you had to do was speak with the new landlord. Why didn't you do that initially, rather than getting upset?

Actually, I am very glad that namoo started this topic. It has been confirmed to me that leases are tranferred and enforced even when a sale of the property occurs. It has been my understanding in the past that such is also the case with a 30 year lease.

That is correct as it is regulated by the same law, Hire of Property under the Civil and Commercial Code. There is thus no specific law for a lease in Thailand.

http://www.samuiforsale.com/Civil_Code_tex...sh_II.html#Hire

However please remember the distinction between lease rights and personal rights.

The new owner / lessor is not obliged to honour all the lessor obligations contained in the lease.

The thirty year lease is not extinguished by the lessor selling or otherwise transferring (including dying and others inheriting) BUT for example the obligation to renew that lease is not passed on to the new owner.

The lessee may have a theoretical case against the original lessee but even if successful in establishing that the old lessee doesn't own the subject land and hence no performance of the renewal (for example) can be ordered.

Edited February 1, 2010 by thaiwanderer

[123ace]

I would have highlited the Juristic Person's legal requirement to indicate that there are no outstanding debts on the property before allowing the sale to proceed. The deposit may be construed as a debt / liabilty on the property that should have led to consultation tri-party prior to transfer..perhaps.

[thaiwanderer]

The lease itself is perhaps a greater liability.

However (and i note your 'perhaps') seller should indicate the existence of the lease and deposit but to suggest that the lessee here should be involved in 'tri-party' consultations is laughable imho.

The OP is obviously concerned for the deposit and short remainder of the lease but in relation to the sale is of very small significance.