Cart 0

Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act Expiration

Posted by 15789465 on

The Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act expired on December 31, 2014.  It is my opinion that tenants in foreclosed properties can be evicted beginning on January 1, 2015. I have not found any advice from other experts.  My opinion is based on the wording of the statute itself. It says: "Sunset. This title, and any amendments made by this title are repealed, and the requirements under this title shall terminate, on December 31, 2014." The fact that it is "repealed" means it is legally as if the Act never existed.  My conclusion is that even though a tenant might have enjoyed protections under the Act up until December 31, 2014, on that date there was a time warp, things got "re-set," and the tenant's legal status is the same as if there never were a Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act. Others might disagree. Please jump in there and give me your interpretation.  I'm not at all sure I'm on firm ground on this one.  Time will tell.  If you are a landlord, tread carefully.  If a tenant's lease is due to expire on February 28, 2015 (for example) do you really want to start eviction proceedings on January 8th--today?  You won't be able to get them out until very close to the end of February, anyway. Why risk a possible counterclaim by the tenant and damages against the landlord? On the other hand, if the lease expires later in the year, this might be an important issue. Ask the advice of a licensed attorney, just to protect yourself.  Asking your lawyer friend for advice at the Wednesday night potluck dinner at church doesn't count.  Make an appointment, and get real advice, in writing.

Share this post

← Older Post Newer Post →


  • know even less about california law – in alabama there could be different consixderations for leases for a term of more than a year (i don’t know if a pro rated month plus a year is more than a year) – but in any event i have been told that those leases are treated as deeds and do not create a landlord-tenant relationship that provides unlawful detainer jurisdiction – i also have been led to believe that even if the term is a year or less, having terms for purchasing the title also kills any landlord-tenant relationship and unlawful detainer jurisdiction – in alabama

    howie on
  • As a bona fide tenant with a lease that expires in 8/31/2016, in Riverside County California the Protecting Tenants at For closure Act holds no water. I say this as I now being homeless entered into a rental agreement with my landlord in 9/2013. Terms of lease 36 months with option to purchase. A small amount of our monthly rent would go toward down payment. If at end of 36 months chose to not purchase home then money we put down if forfeited same if we could not come up with financing. The home reverted back to beneficiary at trustee sale 3/24/2014. We supplied realtor for the bank with copy of lease we supplied attorney office representing bank with lease (within 24 hours of notice to vacate being posted). Even in our answer in the unlawful detained we cited we should not be evicted as we are bona fide tenants and protected under the PTFA the judge never looked twice at our paperwork. We the tenants have lost our home, we are now homeless, my children now reside with my ex husband. They are 16 and 10 and have always been in my care. This mortgage company(Pennymac created by countrywide ceo standard kurland) has taken my home and separated my family with the knowledge of having a lease that had not expired, that I am not related to the foreclosed owner, and we paid 50 dollars more a month for a home smaller than the previous place we rented. So as for protecting tenants at for closure act in Riverside County California never existed. My family has lost everything. Even contacting legal aid the answer has been the same we can’t help you but here is a phone number who might be able to help. If I only had a nickel for every number I was given I could have purchased the home out right.
    This is my side of the case I finally get to tell it.

    patelli on
  • Howie, I THINK that if a court does not have jurisdiction, you cannot cure it by amending your pleadings. That is because without jurisdiction, the court can’t even take notice of your amended pleadings. But, I might be wrong. Being super-cautious, if it were me I might file in Circuit Court and plead eviction and ejectment both. Especially if I were confident the occupant had no counter-claims, and I would be able to get a summary judgment fairly quickly. If I did that, I’d probably get a private process server to serve the papers ASAP, because you have to get personal service on ejectment, not just nail and mail service. I’d also keep track of my dates, and file for summary judgment on the first available date, and get it set as quickly as possible. Under the Code, whether it is District Court or Circuit Court, eviction cases take priority over all others.

    Denise L. Evans on
  • a question – if i filed an unlawfuldetainer/eviction against the former owner;s tenant in possession and he answers with lack of jurisdiction, can i move my case to circuit court that has jurisdiction to hear title issues and it then becomes an action in the nature of an ejectment? (i posted the eviction summons on the door without personal notice, and the possessor was only given 7 days to answer)

    howie on
  • Good point, Howie, and I should have clarified this issue. Nobody has ever been sure if the post-foreclosure owner became the landlord, or if they simply owned the property subject to the possessory rights of the (former) tenant. If the law created a landlord tenant relationship, including the requirements of the Alabama Uniform Residential Landlord Tenant Act, then the proper remedy is eviction. If not, then the proper remedy is ejectment. Be careful when choosing your remedy.

    Denise L. Evans on

Leave a comment

Please note, comments must be approved before they are published.