Manhattan Beach house buyer sues tenants

[Vic]

Yep wrote:

<quoted text>
Situations are totally different when buying from a bank. The bank has no idea who lives there and if a buyer wants the property, "insisting" it to be vacant will not get their offer accepted. Actually under the new law passed, it is BETTER to have the tenants have a lease, because then you know when you CAN get them out, rather than have an ongoing legal battle with squatters.

Again a bank is just a seller like ANY other! If the bank does not know that someone is living in the house then they have failed their duty to the share holders of the bank. The house is an asset like any other and the bank has a responsibility both to the shareholders and the buyers to know exactly what the condition of the property is. The buyers must have known the property was occupied. Did they never once go through the house? Insisting the house be vacant at the close of Escrrow is ESSENTIAL! Why? Read the article! This is what can happen if you take possession of occupied property! If the seller will not sign the escrow instrutions setting this out, run, do not walk, away from the deal! Plenty of other properties out there!

[Mox]

Vic wrote:

<quoted text>Again a bank is just a seller like ANY other! If the bank does not know that someone is living in the house then they have failed their duty to the share holders of the bank. The house is an asset like any other and the bank has a responsibility both to the shareholders and the buyers to know exactly what the condition of the property is. The buyers must have known the property was occupied. Did they never once go through the house? Insisting the house be vacant at the close of Escrrow is ESSENTIAL! Why? Read the article! This is what can happen if you take possession of occupied property! If the seller will not sign the escrow instrutions setting this out, run, do not walk, away from the deal! Plenty of other properties out there!

Vic, I know you THINK you know what you are talking about, but you just don't my dear.

[Vic]

I held a Real Estate license for 5 years during which time I sold a large number of houses. My mother and father both held brokers licenses for almost 50 years and ran their own agency for most of that time. Saying I don't know what I am talking about and rebutting my arguments seems to be two different things doesn't it, SWEETIE? Again letting escrow close on a piece of occupied property is begging for trouble and the people who bought that property in Manhattan beach are finding this out right now.If you have facts to the contrary, DARLING, I am all ears. My facts are spelled out in print in this very article, HONEY BUNCH. If you think the buyers were right to do what they did you should tell THEM what a great idea this was, I am sure they would love to hear that right about now.

[Vic]

Mox wrote:

<quoted text>
Vic, I know you THINK you know what you are talking about, but you just don't my dear.

By the Mox, I have put forward what I think are qualifications to speak with some authority on this matter. I am sure you will be glad to do the same, sugar bun.

[Mox]

Vic wrote:

<quoted text>By the Mox, I have put forward what I think are qualifications to speak with some authority on this matter. I am sure you will be glad to do the same, sugar bun.

Holding a RE license in the past does not qualify you to speak of the present. I am a Real Estate attorney. CURRENTLY licensed and practicing in the area. You may have known the situation when you sold Real Estate, but you are off base now. Nothing personal dear, just the facts.

[Vic]

Mox wrote:

<quoted text>
Holding a RE license in the past does not qualify you to speak of the present. I am a Real Estate attorney. CURRENTLY licensed and practicing in the area. You may have known the situation when you sold Real Estate, but you are off base now. Nothing personal dear, just the facts.

Ah, "a real estate attorney". And what EXACTLY make you a real estate attorney as versus a plain ole lawyer. If you think lwtting a client close on occupied property is a good idea I would never want you represent me in a real estate transaction. You know what counselor?I know when your say "attorney" of lesser mortals are supposed to fall to the ground in awe of your blinding superior knowledge but I have known too many "attorneys" that couldn't pour water out of a boot with the instructions printed on the sole. I think you are the one with about five cents worth of knowledge and you think it is the great Inca treasure. Again, waiting for some FACTS that show that the buyers in Manhattan beach handled this correctly.

[Noise]

Vic wrote:

<quoted text>Again a bank is just a seller like ANY other! If the bank does not know that someone is living in the house then they have failed their duty to the share holders of the bank. The house is an asset like any other and the bank has a responsibility both to the shareholders and the buyers to know exactly what the condition of the property is. The buyers must have known the property was occupied. Did they never once go through the house? Insisting the house be vacant at the close of Escrrow is ESSENTIAL! Why? Read the article! This is what can happen if you take possession of occupied property! If the seller will not sign the escrow instrutions setting this out, run, do not walk, away from the deal! Plenty of other properties out there!

VIC : I'm pretty sure the bank was aware that there was someone occupying the home since seismic gas shut-off, 1.5 gallon toilets and termite/structural inspections must be checked off along with the many disclosures. Many can be waived . Many home sales have tenants and not required to vacate, the new buyer is obligated to follow any existing rental/lease agreement. I don't agree with the statement that the court would issue a " a three say notice to get out ", My experience is the court would rule and I think within 7 days the Sheriff deputies will come and enforce the courts ruling. I'm perturbed about statement by the attorney who filed the unlawful detainer. " They are the worst segment of the society that most people abhor " This type of language has nothing to do with the existing facts,and perhaps open a can of worms its very unprofessional and no doubt the judge will call the attorney to explain. Many courts have a special dept. to hear only Landlord/Tenant cases and run as fast as a traffic court.

[Ms Smith]

You squabble about what rights someone has to use what is yours, not pay for it, and use laws that should be stripped from the books to protect lames. These people are cloaked in liberal laws that are suppose to protect them. Why would you think you could kick one tenant out when the country can't kick out the millions of illegals it intentionally allows into this country to do the same thing. It's just about time for vigilantism. the laws no longer represent rational thinking people, or the spirit of the constitution. look at the cities being overrun with illegals, and your squabble in MB - Sad

[marie]

What's to prevent Soda Partners from leasing to another family ?

Then the second family moves in with a valid lease. The squatter family would have to show a valid lease or give up the property to the second family with the valid lease ?

Only a locksmith is needed to make keys for the second family.

The first family would be embarrassed out or would have to share with complete strangers.

[Taxpaying American]

Mox wrote:

<quoted text>
Holding a RE license in the past does not qualify you to speak of the present. I am a Real Estate attorney. CURRENTLY licensed and practicing in the area. You may have known the situation when you sold Real Estate, but you are off base now. Nothing personal dear, just the facts.

If you were an real estate attorney, you wouldn't be on here making a fool of yourself and wasting clients money. IMO..you are a liar and a wannabe.

[knowledgable]

This is a foreclosure, not a bank to a buyer sale. There is no escrow, no disclosures given to the buyer, you pay cash at the court house steps and you get the property in its as is condition with all faults including occupants. Some of which are difficult to move and will milk the system, however tenants have a 60 day time frame to move out per current legislation. If you are unsure of the law, you hire a lawyer to make sure you are not taken advantage of, there is nothing indicating they are taking advantage of anything other than the right to find time to find a new place to live.

[lufu longtime]

Typical Gypsy Stuff....then they will burn down the house and try to collect insurance on their million dollar collection of rare antique smurf dolls

[Noise]

knowledgable wrote:

This is a foreclosure, not a bank to a buyer sale. There is no escrow, no disclosures given to the buyer, you pay cash at the court house steps and you get the property in its as is condition with all faults including occupants. Some of which are difficult to move and will milk the system, however tenants have a 60 day time frame to move out per current legislation. If you are unsure of the law, you hire a lawyer to make sure you are not taken advantage of, there is nothing indicating they are taking advantage of anything other than the right to find time to find a new place to live.

Well ! Your first sentence caused me to review Rep. Laura Richardson Sacramento home then googled types of Foreclosures. One the 3-4 types of Foreclosure was a "Public Action Foreclosure" handel by a reconveyance company for the bank ( Wash. Mut.). The news article starts "The buyer of a forclosed M.B. house" . Without further information if it was a "Strict Foreclosure" (bank control) the party is over. The same process/procedure was likely the same as Richardson's since it shared the same senario. I learned a lot.

[Concerned Neighbor]

Am I wrong, or did a new 'For Sale' sign (from a non-local real estate firm) just get posted on this property?

[RB RN]

Seems suspect that these people would not procure proof that they have been paying rent. Only a troll would say he had paid rent and not have proof. sketchy at best......

[MB homeowner]

I've seen the house inside and out and these people are not only taking advantage of the system, they don't appreciate the opportunity they've had (based on lopsided laws)to "squat" without paying rent for quite a while. The rent for this place was suppose to be $7,500/month and they haven't paid for at least a year($90,000 to them). I saw it before they moved in and it was a beautiful show piece in an exclusive neighborhood. Now it's completely thrashed (complete with the obligatory broken down, dirty, rusty hunk of a car sitting on flat tires in the driveway). The lesson - when dead-beats get something for nothing they treat it just like it's worth every penny they've paid for it... Great job Obama, another story of how you're "out there help'n out the less fortunate among us".

[MB homeowner]

Mickey Malone wrote:

An what about the tenanat who paid rent for five years and the owner never paid the bank. Should the bank make the tenant leave in 30 days? What about the tenant who put a down payment of XXK to lease/option the property and the "owner" didnt file any documents and didnt own ther property?
Sometimes 'flippers" are more guilty than pure and honest tenants.

Hey Mickey, why has the owner NOT making payments got anything do with the tenant not paying rent? THIS tenant IS NOT being asked to leave because of the foreclosure sale, they are being asked to leave by the new owner because they have no lease, no rental agreement, and they AREN'T paying rent. Without a lease or agreement they are at best month-to-month (and can be given 30 days notice)and at worst squatters or gypsies who moved in to the property while the while it was vacant and are now taking advantage of system that protects deadbeats. If they are living there legally why can't they produce ANY paperwork ... only lawyers briefs, hmmmm ??

[RB RN]

MB homeowner wrote:

I've seen the house inside and out and these people are not only taking advantage of the system, they don't appreciate the opportunity they've had (based on lopsided laws)to "squat" without paying rent for quite a while. The rent for this place was suppose to be $7,500/month and they haven't paid for at least a year($90,000 to them). I saw it before they moved in and it was a beautiful show piece in an exclusive neighborhood. Now it's completely thrashed (complete with the obligatory broken down, dirty, rusty hunk of a car sitting on flat tires in the driveway). The lesson - when dead-beats get something for nothing they treat it just like it's worth every penny they've paid for it... Great job Obama, another story of how you're "out there help'n out the less fortunate among us".

These people are another fine example of a current mentality that believes they are entitled to all the nice things other people work for but can't achieve on their own because they are big time lowlife losers. It's disgusting that they thrashed the place. Yeah, great going Obama. You're achieving your goal of turning nice areas into your ghetto zone.

[MB homeowner]

RB RN wrote:

<quoted text>These people are another fine example of a current mentality that believes they are entitled to all the nice things other people work for but can't achieve on their own because they are big time lowlife losers. It's disgusting that they thrashed the place. Yeah, great going Obama. You're achieving your goal of turning nice areas into your ghetto zone.

Unfortunately these people also have young children. Imagine what the kids are going through at school while they're parents(rightfully) are being labeled squatters and called deadbeats and gypsies in the local papers ... or worse yet, the lesson they're learning from mom and dad.

[Concerned Neighbor]

Now the out-of-area realtor's sign has been replaced by a local realtor's sign -- complete with flyers defining an asking price of $2.3M, for a cool $800K profit over the foreclosure sale price of $1.5M reported in this article!

Guess those squatters can rest easy, at least as far as any possibility of an immediate sale goes ...