If a tenant buys the house they were renting, does the landlord have to refund the security deposit to them? If a tenant buys the house they were renting, does the landlord have to refund the security deposit to them? Alice is renting a house from Bob on a six-month lease. She then enters an agreement to purchase the house. At closing is Bob responsible to pay back her security deposit? I am in Oregon and could not find the answer easily. I would assume this is a basic, common-sense "yes", but I'd like to know the statutory basis, if possible. Thanks.
There are 2 distinct contracts here - the rental agreement and the sale agreement. They are independent and, absent specific clauses, do not affect each other at all. Consider what would happen if Bob was selling to Charles instead of Alice. The rental agreement ends when the sale agreement takes effect; if this is a normal situation then when the rental agreement ends the security deposit will be refunded subject to any legitimate deductions.
Assuming it's an assured shorthold tenancy (which it will be unless the tenancy agreement says otherwise), the tenancy continues until the tenants give notice, or the landlord gives notice and the tenants leave voluntarily (and failing that, when a court forces them to leave). If no-one gives notice, and the tenants are still present once any fixed term ends, the tenancy continues as a "rolling" tenancy until it's ended as described above. A tenancy agreement stays in force even if the owner of a property changes (whether by purchase or inheritance). So to summarise: by default, nothing changes, and the tenants have the same right to stay that they had before. See, for example, this article, or this one.
No All parties must agree to change a contract. On the face of it, the New Tenant has to be “acceptable to both the Landlord and the remaining individual or individuals comprising the Tenant (the Remaining Tenant)”. It goes on to describe what the landlord may consider in making this assessment; there is no such imposition on the Remaining Tenant. However, there is implicit in a contract a requirement that the parties must act reasonably when using discretion. If Remaining Tenant repeatedly rejects every proposed New Tenant then this raises the question of if they are acting reasonably. Have you clearly articulated why the proposed replacements are unacceptable and are those reasonable reasons?
If you want to get out, and are willing to lose $270, you can not sign the lease and demand a return of your security deposit. You could ask for a return of the other fees as well, but you are less likely to be successful. They would probably have trouble enforcing a security deposit against you if you didn't have a lease with them, and would probably have trouble demanding you sign a lease when they changed the unit. You should probably get it all back, because you applied for it, but it probably isn't worth litigating over. I would also encourage you to turn to social media sites if they have one, or to sites like Yelp, if they do not. Many businesses are sensitive to this and if you are truthful if could provide you with some leverage.
The landlord is entitled to damages Damages under a contract are to restore the innocent party to the position they would have been in had the breach not occurred. This means the landlord is entitled to rental payments of a monthly basis for the balance of the lease. However, the landlord is also obliged to reasonably mitigate the damage, typically by finding a new tenant as soon as possible. Let’s make the example concrete. Let’s assume the rent is $1,000 per month and that there is no pro-rata clause in the contract (as is typical). That means whether the tenant uses 1 day or 31 days of a month, they owe a full month’s rent. When the tenant moves out, they owe $3,000 (plus interest). They also have an ongoing obligation to pay rent each subsequent month. This gives unmitigated damages of $17,000. The landlord spends $500 to clean and get the property ready to rent. $1,000 commission to the agent and $500 on advertising. After 2 months they find a tenant at $800 per month. Damages would be $3,000 for the unpaid rent, $2,000 for the out of pocket, $2,000 for the unoccupied months and 14 x $200 = $2,800 for the lower rent. So, $9,800. Typically, a security deposit can be put against unpaid rent but might not be allowed to be deducted for economic loss from a breach.
At common law, a tenant is entitled to "quiet enjoyment" of the property. This means that the owner can only interact with the tenant as spelled out in the lease or in an emergency situation. First, calmly and quietly write down a list of your grievances. Then check your lease to see what the landlord is entitled to do. Cross off any grievances that are permitted by the lease. Take this and the lease to your solicitor and pay him to write a letter to your agent advising them of your grievances and asking that they stop. Without knowing where you are, we do not know what additional rights and dispute resolution procedures are available in your jurisdiction. Very few jurisdictions still rely entirely on common law as real estate is one of the most highly government regulated areas of life wherever you are. Your solicitor will know and, for less that a week's rent will give you solid advice.
The assurance benefits both parties. The tenant cannot be evicted before the minimum term expires, if they have adhered to the terms of the agreement (with some rare exceptions). The landlord can gain possession under the terms of the agreement (subject to a minimum term). The Housing Act 1988 ended the &quot;sitting tenant&quot; trap for new lettings, where the landlord could not sell the house at market value. In practice, since 1997 most ATs are Assured Shorthold Tenancies with a 6-month fixed period which the agent renews. Though there are some ruthless agents who like to move tenants on so that they don't get too settled (and they can charge the landlord a re-letting fee). OTOH some landlords will want to keep a trouble-free tenant. Before 1988 tenancy laws were heavily skewed towards the tenant. Practically the only way a lawful tenant could be evicted, was if the owner needed to live in the property, and owned no other property (i.e. an owner of multiple lettings could not just shuffle around between them, to evict tenants). So although the new style tenancies were called &quot;Assured&quot;, basically new tenants lost their &quot;security of tenure&quot; and IMO this eventually created a huge inflation in domestic property value between 1995 and 2007, as residential property became a commodity which individuals were encouraged to invest in: the buy-to-let market.
Bizarrely, it depends on where you live in Kentucky. There is a law, the Uniform Residential Landlord and Tenant Act (KRS 383.500 to 383.705) which states limits on residential leases (otherwise, the matter would be governed by the terms of the contract and common law). The state didn't enact those laws as enforceable in the state, it "made them available" for cities, counties and urban-county governments to adopt unmodified (or not). So it depends in part on whether your locale adopted the law. Assuming it did, in the definitions, (13)"Security deposit" means an escrow payment made to the landlord under the rental agreement for the purpose of securing the landlord against financial loss due to damage to the premises occasioned by the tenant's occupancy other than ordinary wear and tear. (emphasis added) That would mean that they can't take the cost of carpet cleaning, painting etc. out of your security deposit. §383.595 (again, if applicable) states the obligations of the landlord, so he must Maintain in good and safe working order and condition all electrical, plumbing, sanitary, heating, ventilating, air-conditioning, and other facilities and appliances, including elevators, supplied or required to be supplied by him So it depends on whether the URLTA was enacted in your jurisdiction. This page indicates where that is the law, and also urges you to read the lease.