Subject To, then evict? - Posted by mik

Posted by Brent_IL on September 12, 2003 at 24:12:30:

The motivation for many sellers is that they do not want to deal with tenants. Some are burned out; some never could cope.

Any rental agreement that the owner has with a tenant will survive the transfer of deed. You?re stuck with whatever terms he agreed to. Selling ownership of a property has nothing to do with the lease agreements because a subsequent buyer is bound by the existing contracts.

The sale of the property doesn?t affect the time it takes to evict. You would take over the rights and responsibilities of the seller. Unless the seller is paying you to solve his problem by selling cheaper, why do you want to make his problem yours? Make him kick him out as a condition of sale.

My contract requires the property to be vacant, so anything else is brought to the forefront of negotiations. There is a flip side to this. You have to watch out that the seller didn?t sign a 99-year lease of the property with a relative for $10 a month. I handle this in the purchase contract by requiring a credit in escrow equal to the total sum due under any unrevealed leases or contracts or any agreement after the purchase contract is signed.

Subject To, then evict? - Posted by mik

Posted by mik on September 11, 2003 at 18:37:53:

Has anyone ever bought a house sub2 with a tenant that has been giving the owner hassles, then evict them asap?

How would the logistics work? If the rental agreement is with the seller/owner, is it still valid when you take over?

Are there certain provisions that have to be in place in the rental agreement to allow the transfer of the property?

Does the sale of the property affect the time it may take to evict?