Tag Archives: common law

Are Month-to-Month Rentals Good Deals?

Posted on by

photo by umjanedoan

Zillow.com quoted me in Are Month-to-Month Rentals Good for Landlords? It opens,

Your tenant’s lease is up, and they ask about switching to a month-to-month arrangement. Assuming they’re a good tenant — they pay rent on time, keep the place clean, don’t host loud parties — you might be tempted to accommodate the request. But before you do, be sure to understand the relevant landlord-tenant laws.

The Appeal Of Month-To-Month Renting

From the tenant’’ perspective, the benefit of month-to-month renting — also known as tenancy at will — is its flexibility compared to a standard long-term lease. Whether they’re pursuing out-of-town job opportunities, considering relocation to a different neighborhood or just thinking about moving up to a more spacious abode, the elasticity of month-to-month renting is appealing to a potentially footloose tenant.

From your point of view as a landlord, the appeal centers on cash flow and convenience — of not having the property stand vacant while you hassle with finding a new renter. In addition, a month-to-month rental can give you some added flexibility, too.

The Terms Of The Original Lease Generally Remain In Effect

There is no overarching federal law regarding tenancy at will; the rules are typically state-specific. Or, as Matthew Kreitzer an attorney with Booth and McCarthy in Winchester, Virginia, notes, “Tenancy-at-will is largely a creature of local law.” If and when there is no formal written agreement in place, local case law usually comes into play to fill the gap, he explains.

Michael Vraa, managing attorney at HOME Line, a tenant hotline based in Minnesota, says that in his state, as well as many others, the terms of the initial rental agreement carry forward into the month-to-month rental period.

Assuming rent is paid on a monthly basis, “unless the lease has some provision that describes what would happen if a new lease is not agreed to, the law would default to the notion that the agreement becomes month to month,” says Vraa. “If the lease ends July 31 and the tenant pays the next month’s rent (August), and the landlord accepts it, the agreement probably shifts to a month-to-month agreement.”

Tom Simeone, attorney at Simeone and Miller in Washington, D.C., adds that even a verbal contract or agreement to carry forth on a month-to-month basis is legally enforceable in most states. “If the parties previously had a written lease that expired, those terms will remain in effect in the tenancy at will. If not, the court will enforce what it finds to be the parties’ intentions and fill in any contract terms with what it deems to be reasonable,” Simeone says.

As Vraa noted, landlords sometimes include provisions in the original lease describing what can or will happen if a new lease is not agreed to at the end of the set term. Some management companies, for example, include a statement in the original lease saying the landlord or management company can or will raise the rent if a new lease is not signed. This may be by a certain dollar amount, such as “increased by $50 per month,” or by a specified percentage rate, as in “up to 5 percent per month.”

Rules About Tenant Privacy And Intent To Vacate Still Apply

Vraa and Simeone say that, generally, the rules regarding a tenant’s right to privacy are the same under tenancy at will as under a lease. Thus the amount of notice you have to give a tenant before entering their premises remains the same — typically 24 hours, as dictated by law in many states.

In regard to the notice required for intent to vacate, Simeone says this, too, is determined by the original lease. “If not,” he adds, “a court will likely require the lease to be month to month, especially if rent is paid on a monthly basis, which is typical. If so, thirty days’ notice is required to terminate — by either [the] landlord or tenant.”

However, Vraa says, in a month-to-month rental term, neither the landlord nor tenant are required to provide a specific reason for discontinuing the contract. That means you can give the tenant a notice to vacate the property, regardless of whether you plan to sell the property, rent to someone else, or simply do not wish to continue leasing to that specific tenant. But David Reiss, professor at Brooklyn Law School, notes, “The big risk, for both parties, is that the other party wants to terminate [the tenancy] at a time that is inconvenient for the other party. In that case, the parties can agree to a longer term (a year-to-year lease or one for a specific term of years).”

Reiss also stresses that although most state laws regarding tenancy at will derive from common law, “each jurisdiction may have variations from these common law principles that result from court decisions or statute. For instance, the meaning of one month’s notice to terminate a month-to-month lease can have small, but legally significant variations among jurisdictions.”

REFinBlog has been nominated for the second year in a row for The Expert Institute’s Best Legal Blog Competition in the Education Category.  Please vote here if you like what you read.

Banned from Their Land

Posted on by

photo by MIKI Yoshihito

Realtor.com quoted me in Family Told They Can’t Live on Their Own Land (and You Won’t Believe Why). It opens,

One of the best perks of owning property—in fact, the main perk—is that you get to live on it. Or so we thought until we learned of a homeowner in Colorado who was told flat-out that her family can’t live on their own land. What’s going on?

Here’s the backstory: In June, an electrical fire left the Lafayette house of 70-year-old Marilyn Minor uninhabitable. Minor began repairs to her home so it would pass city inspections. But lacking the cash for a hotel or other accommodations, she and her home’s other residents—her son Wayne, daughter Charity, and Charity’s two kids—had nowhere to live. So they moved into their van, parked on their own land. It sounds reasonable enough, right?

Wrong.

Their living situation didn’t sit well with some neighbors, who alerted Lafayette city officials, who came back to Minor and told her that vacating her home wasn’t enough. Nope, until her place passed all inspections, the Minor family weren’t allowed to live anywhere on her property at all.

Why? That’s a question Minor is dying to get answered.

“Why can’t I live on the property that I pay taxes for and where I pay the mortgage?” she asked during an interview with Denver7. “I’ll go down fighting. This is my home.”

Although Minor anticipates her house will be fixed up in a few weeks, she’ll be dragged back into housing court next week and could face substantial fines if she remains on her property. And while some of her neighbors clearly disapprove, others are sympathetic.

“They shouldn’t have to be anywhere else,” one neighbor told Denver7. “This is their house.”

True, it’s their house, their land, their home. But according to experts we spoke to, that doesn’t mean they can live there however they please.

“Until the modern era, the common law was based on the understanding that, in many ways, every man’s home was his castle,” says David Reiss, a professor of law at Brooklyn Law School and academic program director at the Center for Urban Business Entrepreneurship.

“But for well over 100 years now, courts have acknowledged that governments have many legitimate reasons to restrict how property owners use their property. For instance, local governments regulate fire safety and sanitation issues, among other things, for the benefit of property owners themselves as well as their neighbors and the broader community.”

Hefner’s Life “Estate”

Posted on by

Plan of Playboy Mansion Pool and Grotto 2 by Ron Dirsmith

Fox News quoted me in Playboy Mansion for Sale — With One Tenant for Life. It reads, in part,

We called it: In October, we revealed that the Playboy mansion — home to Hugh Hefner and the site of epic parties back in the day — is in need of major renovations. Now, if a new report from TMZ is to be believed, it looks like Hef is finally ready to throw in the towel: Within a month, the crumbling 6-acre estate will be up for sale.

In spite of the 29-room (six-bedroom) Beverly Hills mansion’s decrepit condition, its owner, Playboy Enterprises, hopes to sell it for north of $200 million. Plus, the buyer will have to grapple with another huge catch: According to TMZ, the buyer will have to grant 89-year-old Hef a “life estate,” which means he can continue living there until death parts him from his beloved bachelor pad.

Ummm … who the heck wants to buy a home with someone living in it? Strange as it may seem, “life estate” arrangements are as old as the hills.

“Life estates go way back to the earliest roots of the common law, and they are great for providing for someone to live in his or her own home until death,” says David Reiss, research director at the Center for Urban Business Entrepreneurship at Brooklyn Law School. “Effectively, a life estate grants the [original owner] many of the indicia [characteristics] of full ownership for the rest of his life. Upon death, complete ownership of the property can pass to another. A common example would be where a husband bequeaths a life estate in the home to his wife, with the remainder to his children upon her death.”

But Hefner’s deal differs in one key way: He’s not bequeathing his home to family members or even a deserving Playboy bunny, but to an as-yet unknown third party who’ll be forking over millions to move in once Hef passes on.

 “This seems like a version of a reverse mortgage, because it frees up equity in the home during the owner’s lifetime without interfering too much with his use and enjoyment of the property,” Reiss continues.

But this privilege will likely drag down the asking price, a lot. While the listing price may be $200 million, most experts say that $80 million to $90 million is more realistic.

“The life estate would likely significantly reduce the fair market of the property, because the purchaser must defer taking possession as well as other aspects of ownership — renovating it, for example — until the death of the life tenant,” Reiss says. “Moreover, the purchaser must deal with the uncertainty of the life estate: Will it end in a year or in 10 years?”

And aside from these uncertainties, there’s the question of liability. Without adequate legal protection, the owner could be responsible for any damage to the property or its inhabitants. Granted, Hef is 89 and probably passes his days playing chess, but if Playboy bunnies continue to hop in and out, anything could happen.

“What if there’s a fire and the place burns down? What if Hefner falls down and breaks his hip?” asks Wendy Flynn, a Realtor in College Station, TX. “After all, it is known as a party house.”

All in all, if you’re salivating for a piece of Playboy history, make sure to man up your legal team to protect you from all that could go wrong before you’re able to take possession. And even though the mansion is a decent candidate for a tear-down, “don’t start spending money on plans for the property,” Reiss adds.

Even though Hef is already past the average U.S. male’s life expectancy of 84.3, “a lot can happen before possession of the property is actually conveyed.”