Buying house with existing tenant?

[Anonymous]

DC you can definitely evict, but the tenant has the right to match any offer...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:DC you can definitely evict, but the tenant has the right to match any offer...

Single family homes, including single family units in a condo, are exempt from TOPA as of 2018. Unless the tenant is elderly or disabled.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:DC you can definitely evict, but the tenant has the right to match any offer...

Not anymore.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

In DC, selling the property and taking it over for personal use is a valid reason to evict the tenant, even with a lease in place: https://ota.dc.gov/page/guide-eviction

You're misreading that link. It assumes the initial lease term has expired, and the lease has converted to month-to-month.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

You're misreading that link. It assumes the initial lease term has expired, and the lease has converted to month-to-month.

Yes, that's right. Also the citation to the DC Code is a subsection that makes the same assumption.

(a) Except as provided in this section, no tenant shall be evicted from a rental unit, ***notwithstanding the expiration of the tenant’s lease or rental agreement, so long as the tenant continues to pay the rent to which the housing provider is entitled for the rental unit; provided....

The whole 90 day owner occupier notice is about evicting a tenant who is month-to-month.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You're misreading that link. It assumes the initial lease term has expired, and the lease has converted to month-to-month.

Yes, that's right. Also the citation to the DC Code is a subsection that makes the same assumption.

(a) Except as provided in this section, no tenant shall be evicted from a rental unit, ***notwithstanding the expiration of the tenant’s lease or rental agreement, so long as the tenant continues to pay the rent to which the housing provider is entitled for the rental unit; provided....

The whole 90 day owner occupier notice is about evicting a tenant who is month-to-month.

Huh? Not true at all - you're misreading. "Except as a provided in this section..." language means that section (e) allows for a legal eviction. Section (e) describes what happens when the property is sold and the new buyer intends to reclaim the property for personal use. This is a LEGAL eviction.

"Notwithstanding" means "in spite of" or "nevertheless."

The "notwithstanding" clause of that sentence only modifies the phrase "no tenant shall be evicted from a rental unit..." So, no tenant shall be evicted from their rental IN SPITE of the current status of their lease (i.e., they are in the 12 month lease period or month-to-month). But this has no affect on the phrase "Except as a provided in this section..." and section (e) is one of the statutorily provided reasons for eviction.

The current lease status has no bearing on a new owner reclaiming the property for personal use.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Lots of misinformation here. First of all, MD is not DC. End of story on that one.
I bought a rental property in MD about 18 months ago. Unless something has changed:

- mortgage rate for investment property is 0.5-1.5 percent higher
- you only need 20 percent down (not 30 as mentioned upthread)
- you can only evict tenants if it was written into the lease that way. This is likely not the case since the listing says they are there until next summer. You can, of course, evict them if certain terms of the lease are violated. You can also offer “cash for keys” to entice them to leave earlier.

You bought a rental property as an INVESTOR or for PERSONAL USE? There's a big difference in treatment by your underwriter. And yes, you generally need to keep the existing tenants if you intend to rent it out as an investor. Same thing happens in DC.

But OP is talking about personal use of the home, which is a much different scenario from and underwriting and housing regulations standpoint.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You're misreading that link. It assumes the initial lease term has expired, and the lease has converted to month-to-month.

Yes, that's right. Also the citation to the DC Code is a subsection that makes the same assumption.

(a) Except as provided in this section, no tenant shall be evicted from a rental unit, ***notwithstanding the expiration of the tenant’s lease or rental agreement, so long as the tenant continues to pay the rent to which the housing provider is entitled for the rental unit; provided....

The whole 90 day owner occupier notice is about evicting a tenant who is month-to-month.

Huh? Not true at all - you're misreading. "Except as a provided in this section..." language means that section (e) allows for a legal eviction. Section (e) describes what happens when the property is sold and the new buyer intends to reclaim the property for personal use. This is a LEGAL eviction.

"Notwithstanding" means "in spite of" or "nevertheless."

The "notwithstanding" clause of that sentence only modifies the phrase "no tenant shall be evicted from a rental unit..." So, no tenant shall be evicted from their rental IN SPITE of the current status of their lease (i.e., they are in the 12 month lease period or month-to-month). But this has no affect on the phrase "Except as a provided in this section..." and section (e) is one of the statutorily provided reasons for eviction.

The current lease status has no bearing on a new owner reclaiming the property for personal use.

You're misunderstanding the background property law regime. The procedure in (d) and (e) doesn't extinguish the tenant's leasehold interest, which is enforceable against the grantee if the lease is either recorded or the grantee otherwise has notice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of misinformation here. First of all, MD is not DC. End of story on that one.
I bought a rental property in MD about 18 months ago. Unless something has changed:

- mortgage rate for investment property is 0.5-1.5 percent higher
- you only need 20 percent down (not 30 as mentioned upthread)
- you can only evict tenants if it was written into the lease that way. This is likely not the case since the listing says they are there until next summer. You can, of course, evict them if certain terms of the lease are violated. You can also offer “cash for keys” to entice them to leave earlier.

You bought a rental property as an INVESTOR or for PERSONAL USE? There's a big difference in treatment by your underwriter. And yes, you generally need to keep the existing tenants if you intend to rent it out as an investor. Same thing happens in DC.

But OP is talking about personal use of the home, which is a much different scenario from and underwriting and housing regulations standpoint.

Both. It was meant for personal use, but had to wait for the current lease to end before I could move in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
You bought a rental property as an INVESTOR or for PERSONAL USE? There's a big difference in treatment by your underwriter. And yes, you generally need to keep the existing tenants if you intend to rent it out as an investor. Same thing happens in DC.

But OP is talking about personal use of the home, which is a much different scenario from and underwriting and housing regulations standpoint.

If you buy a rental property with the intended use of personal occupancy, but there's an existing tenant who holds a lease whose term continues beyond the closing date, the mortgage underwriter won't approve the loan as a principal residence. That's because the title report will turn up an obvious encumbrance inconsistent with the intended use: the existing lease. You'll be able to obtain financing only as an investment property, which has a lower LTV requirement and substantial loan level price adjustments.

[Anonymous]

A lot of poor, or at least mis-targeted and not jurisdictional specific, advice from wanna-be lawyers and real estate speculators here. OP's listing is a pure investment play given tenant through 2020.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
You bought a rental property as an INVESTOR or for PERSONAL USE? There's a big difference in treatment by your underwriter. And yes, you generally need to keep the existing tenants if you intend to rent it out as an investor. Same thing happens in DC.

But OP is talking about personal use of the home, which is a much different scenario from and underwriting and housing regulations standpoint.

If you buy a rental property with the intended use of personal occupancy, but there's an existing tenant who holds a lease whose term continues beyond the closing date, the mortgage underwriter won't approve the loan as a principal residence. That's because the title report will turn up an obvious encumbrance inconsistent with the intended use: the existing lease. You'll be able to obtain financing only as an investment property, which has a lower LTV requirement and substantial loan level price adjustments.

I'm the PP that the PP you quoted was replying to (my post was cut off in the reply). I am the one who was in the same situation as the OP. In MD. I addressed these things. I said the loan would be 0.5 - 1.5 % higher. And 20% down is required.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You're misreading that link. It assumes the initial lease term has expired, and the lease has converted to month-to-month.

Yes, that's right. Also the citation to the DC Code is a subsection that makes the same assumption.

(a) Except as provided in this section, no tenant shall be evicted from a rental unit, ***notwithstanding the expiration of the tenant’s lease or rental agreement, so long as the tenant continues to pay the rent to which the housing provider is entitled for the rental unit; provided....

The whole 90 day owner occupier notice is about evicting a tenant who is month-to-month.

Huh? Not true at all - you're misreading. "Except as a provided in this section..." language means that section (e) allows for a legal eviction. Section (e) describes what happens when the property is sold and the new buyer intends to reclaim the property for personal use. This is a LEGAL eviction.

"Notwithstanding" means "in spite of" or "nevertheless."

The "notwithstanding" clause of that sentence only modifies the phrase "no tenant shall be evicted from a rental unit..." So, no tenant shall be evicted from their rental IN SPITE of the current status of their lease (i.e., they are in the 12 month lease period or month-to-month). But this has no affect on the phrase "Except as a provided in this section..." and section (e) is one of the statutorily provided reasons for eviction.

The current lease status has no bearing on a new owner reclaiming the property for personal use.

You're misunderstanding the background property law regime. The procedure in (d) and (e) doesn't extinguish the tenant's leasehold interest, which is enforceable against the grantee if the lease is either recorded or the grantee otherwise has notice.

Leases never end in DC; after the initial 12 month period they automatically go month-to-month with the same terms. The landlord is allowed to raise the rent once in any 12 month period. According to your interpretation of case law, they tenant would never need to move out since in DC the lease is always in effect so long as the tenant pays rent. Month-to-month means the tenant only has to give 30 days' notice. Month-to-month has no benefit for the landlord in DC.

That's why I'm not agreeing with you - you're not recognizing that residential leases are perpetual in DC. So the paragraph (e) MUST be as I stated, otherwise there's no way to buy a tenanted property in DC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You're misreading that link. It assumes the initial lease term has expired, and the lease has converted to month-to-month.

Yes, that's right. Also the citation to the DC Code is a subsection that makes the same assumption.

(a) Except as provided in this section, no tenant shall be evicted from a rental unit, ***notwithstanding the expiration of the tenant’s lease or rental agreement, so long as the tenant continues to pay the rent to which the housing provider is entitled for the rental unit; provided....

The whole 90 day owner occupier notice is about evicting a tenant who is month-to-month.

Huh? Not true at all - you're misreading. "Except as a provided in this section..." language means that section (e) allows for a legal eviction. Section (e) describes what happens when the property is sold and the new buyer intends to reclaim the property for personal use. This is a LEGAL eviction.

"Notwithstanding" means "in spite of" or "nevertheless."

The "notwithstanding" clause of that sentence only modifies the phrase "no tenant shall be evicted from a rental unit..." So, no tenant shall be evicted from their rental IN SPITE of the current status of their lease (i.e., they are in the 12 month lease period or month-to-month). But this has no affect on the phrase "Except as a provided in this section..." and section (e) is one of the statutorily provided reasons for eviction.

The current lease status has no bearing on a new owner reclaiming the property for personal use.

You're misunderstanding the background property law regime. The procedure in (d) and (e) doesn't extinguish the tenant's leasehold interest, which is enforceable against the grantee if the lease is either recorded or the grantee otherwise has notice.

Leases never end in DC; after the initial 12 month period they automatically go month-to-month with the same terms. The landlord is allowed to raise the rent once in any 12 month period. According to your interpretation of case law, they tenant would never need to move out since in DC the lease is always in effect so long as the tenant pays rent. Month-to-month means the tenant only has to give 30 days' notice. Month-to-month has no benefit for the landlord in DC.

That's why I'm not agreeing with you - you're not recognizing that residential leases are perpetual in DC. So the paragraph (e) MUST be as I stated, otherwise there's no way to buy a tenanted property in DC.

That is why they are called "tenant for life".