Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Landlord sold house

Options
  • 10-07-2013 5:51pm
    #1
    antocann
    Registered Users Posts: 1,348 ✭✭✭


    basically , my dad re signed a 1 year lease , and landlord sold up and wants him out in 42 days , is this legal ?


Comments

  • Options
    #2
    ABajaninCork
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,411 ✭✭✭ABajaninCork


    Yes. One of the grounds for early termination, is the fact the landlord wants to sell. I'm pretty sure the notice period is legal too, if he's been there more than three months. I'm sure someone else will be along shortly, either to confirm what I've told you or correct me. Can't find the actual page ATM...


  • Options
    #3
    Marcusm
    Registered Users Posts: 10,327 ✭✭✭✭Marcusm


    A part 4 lease can be broken to sell a house but in this case the terms of the written lease will be paramount; what does it say about early termination at the landlord's option.


  • Options
    #4
    Richard Dower
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 21,634 ✭✭✭✭Richard Dower


    antocann wrote: »
    basically , my dad re signed a 1 year lease , and landlord sold up and wants him out in 42 days , is this legal ?

    Sadly....it is, but at least he has given the legal requirement of 42 days notice. Horrible situ, home ripped from under you....:( , the hassle and worry of finding a new place.....hope your dad gets a new place, keep us updated.


  • Options
    #5
    antocann
    Registered Users Posts: 1,348 ✭✭✭antocann


    this confirmed what i was thinking , ah all should be ok , estate agent has another house lined up for him ,

    thanks for all the reply's


  • Options
    #6
    Bluegrass1
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 97 ✭✭Bluegrass1


    Richard Dower wrote: »
    Sadly....it is, but at least he has given the legal requirement of 42 days notice. Horrible situ, home ripped from under you....:( , the hassle and worry of finding a new place.....hope your dad gets a new place, keep us updated.

    His lease cannot be terminated early. Also, the length of notice depends on how long he has already been in residence. 42 days is the minimum for a tenant who has been there for 1 to 2 years. If he has been there longer he will have greater notice.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    accensi0n
    Registered Users Posts: 2,779 ✭✭✭accensi0n


    antocann wrote: »
    basically , my dad re signed a 1 year lease , and landlord sold up and wants him out in 42 days , is this legal ?

    Depends what's in the lease.

    When was the lease re-signed? When does it end?
    Is there a specific section in the lease detailing what happens if the landlord decides to sell?

    It sounds like the lease was re-signed recently. If that's the case, and it's a standard lease, then no, your dad does not have to leave and can stay in the property until the contract ends.


  • Options
    #8
    djimi
    Registered Users Posts: 13,237 ✭✭✭✭djimi


    ABajaninCork wrote: »
    Yes. One of the grounds for early termination, is the fact the landlord wants to sell. I'm pretty sure the notice period is legal too, if he's been there more than three months. I'm sure someone else will be along shortly, either to confirm what I've told you or correct me. Can't find the actual page ATM...
    Marcusm wrote: »
    A part 4 lease can be broken to sell a house but in this case the terms of the written lease will be paramount; what does it say about early termination at the landlord's option.
    Richard Dower wrote: »
    Sadly....it is, but at least he has given the legal requirement of 42 days notice. Horrible situ, home ripped from under you....:( , the hassle and worry of finding a new place.....hope your dad gets a new place, keep us updated.

    I dont agree with any of this. The termination terms of a part 4 tenancy do not apply when a fixed term lease is in effect, and as such the landlord has no right to issue termination notice on the basis of wanting to sell the property.

    Even if the clauses are written into the lease they are not legally binding; I have confirmed this with Threshold in the past.


  • Options
    #9
    antocann
    Registered Users Posts: 1,348 ✭✭✭antocann


    the lease was in my ma's name but changed to my dad's and resigned for another year a month or so ago ,

    and the house as far as we where told is now sold , and he has 42 days to vacate


  • Options
    #10
    djimi
    Registered Users Posts: 13,237 ✭✭✭✭djimi


    What kind of moron is the landlord for signing a new lease when they knew the house could be sold? Your dad is entitled to dig his heals in, and if he wishes ask for compensation (the norm is the tune of perhaps three months rent) to break the lease early.


  • Options
    #11
    gaius c
    Registered Users Posts: 3,528 ✭✭✭gaius c


    I'd be inclined to take your dad's side here. If he has a fixed term lease, he is entitled to see out the rest of the lease.

    Likewise, if a tenant stiffs a landlord over a fixed term lease, then they shouldn't expect to automatically receive their deposit back.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    Bluegrass1
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 97 ✭✭Bluegrass1


    gaius c wrote: »
    I'd be inclined to take your dad's side here. If he has a fixed term lease, he is entitled to see out the rest of the lease.

    Likewise, if a tenant stiffs a landlord over a fixed term lease, then they shouldn't expect to automatically receive their deposit back.

    They shouldn't receive their deposit back at all. sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander.


  • Options
    #13
    gaius c
    Registered Users Posts: 3,528 ✭✭✭gaius c


    Bluegrass1 wrote: »
    They shouldn't receive their deposit back at all. sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander.

    Landlord can only deduct for loss of income. If the house is re-let within a week of the tenant leaving, they are only allowed to deduct one week's worth of rent (over and above any damages that need to be covered).


  • Options
    #14
    Chris_5339762
    Registered Users Posts: 5,902 ✭✭✭Chris_5339762


    Yes, he is on a Part 4 and 42 days notice is correct for a Part 4 having lived there for a certain number of months/years, but A NEW FIXED TERM LEASE HAS BEEN SIGNED AND IS NOW VALID. That over-rides the notice periods of the Part 4.

    The landlord, in my understanding, cannot just issue xx days notice.. and that is because the new fixed term has been signed. He must come to a mutual agreement, or he must sell the property with your dad as a sitting tenant. The new owners will become the new landlords but he can't just be kicked out.

    If he was just on a part 4, then selling the house is a legitimate reason for the landlord issuing notice.
    But since he is on a part 4 and a new fixed term, then he cannot issue notice and must sell the house with a sitting tenant.


  • Options
    #15
    Marcusm
    Registered Users Posts: 10,327 ✭✭✭✭Marcusm


    djimi wrote: »
    I dont agree with any of this. The termination terms of a part 4 tenancy do not apply when a fixed term lease is in effect, and as such the landlord has no right to issue termination notice on the basis of wanting to sell the property.

    Even if the clauses are written into the lease they are not legally binding; I have confirmed this with Threshold in the past.

    Would you care to read my post again and explain which part you disagree with; I have made the point that the terms of the written lease are paramount (ie supersede that of the part 4 where they grant additional rights). How are you disagreeing with that?


  • Options
    #16
    Marcusm
    Registered Users Posts: 10,327 ✭✭✭✭Marcusm


    antocann wrote: »
    the lease was in my ma's name but changed to my dad's and resigned for another year a month or so ago ,

    and the house as far as we where told is now sold , and he has 42 days to vacate

    You need to read the written lease and establish whether it has an option for the ladlord to terminate the lease within the 12 month period. It sounds as if the landlord meets the part 4 test for termination but if the 12 month lease does not have a similar clause then the landlord has contracted out of his part 4 rights. He either sells with your father as a sitting tenant or he agrees a sum of cash in compensation with your father. 6 months rent would not be excessive.


  • Options
    #17
    djimi
    Registered Users Posts: 13,237 ✭✭✭✭djimi


    Marcusm wrote: »
    Would you care to read my post again and explain which part you disagree with; I have made the point that the terms of the written lease are paramount (ie supersede that of the part 4 where they grant additional rights). How are you disagreeing with that?

    Im disagreeing with you on the terms of the lease; it doesnt matter what the lease says about giving the landlord the option of teminating early, it would not be valid either way. A landlord cannot write anything into the lease that gives them the option of terminating the tenancy early.


  • Options
    #18
    Marcusm
    Registered Users Posts: 10,327 ✭✭✭✭Marcusm


    Chris_5339762 wrote: »
    Yes, he is on a Part 4 and 42 days notice is correct for a Part 4 having lived there for a certain number of months/years, but A NEW FIXED TERM LEASE HAS BEEN SIGNED AND IS NOW VALID. That over-rides the notice periods of the Part 4.

    The landlord, in my understanding, cannot just issue xx days notice.. and that is because the new fixed term has been signed. He must come to a mutual agreement, or he must sell the property with your dad as a sitting tenant. The new owners will become the new landlords but he can't just be kicked out.

    If he was just on a part 4, then selling the house is a legitimate reason for the landlord issuing notice.
    But since he is on a part 4 and a new fixed term, then he cannot issue notice and must sell the house with a sitting tenant.

    A fixed term lease is generally a misnomer, the OP needs to read the lease and establish whether it contains any option for early termination. If it does, he may be out of luck. The fixed lease cannot override the part 4 but equally there is no law precluding the existence of a termination option which may mirror the part 4 terms.


  • Options
    #19
    djimi
    Registered Users Posts: 13,237 ✭✭✭✭djimi


    Marcusm wrote: »
    A fixed term lease is generally a misnomer, the OP needs to read the lease and establish whether it contains any option for early termination. If it does, he may be out of luck. The fixed lease cannot override the part 4 but equally there is no law precluding the existence of a termination option which may mirror the part 4 terms.

    Please stop posting this. The landlord cannot write anything into lease that allows them to break the tenancy early.


  • Options
    #20
    Marcusm
    Registered Users Posts: 10,327 ✭✭✭✭Marcusm


    djimi wrote: »
    Im disagreeing with you on the terms of the lease; it doesnt matter what the lease says about giving the landlord the option of teminating early, it would not be valid either way. A landlord cannot write anything into the lease that gives them the option of terminating the tenancy early.


    This is simply wrong; where a part 4 tenancy is in place, any written agreement cannot overrule the terms of the part 4 tenancy. In this case, part 4 seems to permit a termination and it is perfectly possible for the written lease to have identical termination provisions. What the written lease cannot do is overrule the part 4 terms; ie the landlord can't have a freely exercisable termination provision but he may have any termination provision which accords with the part 4 rights.

    Many people seem to assume that part 4 means that a written lease is an empty letter, this is simply not the case.


  • Options
    #21
    Marcusm
    Registered Users Posts: 10,327 ✭✭✭✭Marcusm


    djimi wrote: »
    Please stop posting this. The landlord cannot write anything into lease that allows them to break the tenancy early.

    Yes they can; they can mirror the part 4 termination provisions.

    Also, please do not instruct me not to post. You are not a moderator. I have not (yet) reported your post. You may disagree with me but that does not confer any additional rights on you either!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #22
    djimi
    Registered Users Posts: 13,237 ✭✭✭✭djimi


    Marcusm wrote: »
    This is simply wrong; where a part 4 tenancy is in place, any written agreement cannot overrule the terms of the part 4 tenancy. In this case, part 4 seems to permit a termination and it is perfectly possible for the written lease to have identical termination provisions. What the written lease cannot do is overrule the part 4 terms; ie the landlord can't have a freely exercisable termination provision but he may have any termination provision which accords with the part 4 rights.

    Many people seem to assume that part 4 means that a written lease is an empty letter, this is simply not the case.

    In the case of the clauses for termination outlined in the part 4 tenancy the fixed term lease does overrule them, and written into the lease or not they are not valid while the fixed term lease is still in effect. The clue is in the name "fixed term"; once the terms of the lease have not been broken by the tenant then the tenancy cannot be ended by the landlord until the term has expired.


  • Options
    #23
    djimi
    Registered Users Posts: 13,237 ✭✭✭✭djimi


    Marcusm wrote: »
    Yes they can; they can mirror the part 4 termination provisions.

    Also, please do not instruct me not to post. You are not a moderator. I have not (yet) reported your post. You may disagree with me but that does not confer any additional rights on you either!

    Im not instructing you not to post; Im simply asking you to stop repeatedly posting incorrect information.


  • Options
    #24
    Marcusm
    Registered Users Posts: 10,327 ✭✭✭✭Marcusm


    djimi wrote: »
    In the case of the clauses for termination outlined in the part 4 tenancy the fixed term lease does overrule them, and written into the lease or not they are not valid while the fixed term lease is still in effect. The clue is in the name "fixed term"; once the terms of the lease have not been broken by the tenant then the tenancy cannot be ended by the landlord until the term has expired.

    This is precisely my point about it being a misnomer; many so called fixed term leases include a clause purporting to be an early termiantion clause. As you and I know, these may be unenforceable after 6 momths as the part 4 rules kick in. However, part 4 does not state that the terms of a written lease are unenforceable, it simply states that a lease's provision can't be in conflict with part 4. Hence, if the written lease which the OP's father has signed contains a clause providing for termination in the event of a sale of he property such clause will likely be enforceable as it is compliant with the rules of part 4.


  • Options
    #25
    Marcusm
    Registered Users Posts: 10,327 ✭✭✭✭Marcusm


    djimi wrote: »
    Im not instructing you not to post; Im simply asking you to stop repeatedly posting incorrect information.

    Read my posts again and explain to me clearly where I am wrong. I think you'll find I'm right.

    And by the way "Please stop posting this." is clearly a (polite) instruction, it's not a request.


  • Options
    #26
    djimi
    Registered Users Posts: 13,237 ✭✭✭✭djimi


    Marcusm wrote: »
    This is precisely my point about it being a misnomer; many so called fixed term leases include a clause purporting to be an early termiantion clause. As you and I know, these may be unenforceable after 6 momths as the part 4 rules kick in. However, part 4 does not state that the terms of a written lease are unenforceable, it simply states that a lease's provision can't be in conflict with part 4. Hence, if the written lease which the OP's father has signed contains a clause providing for termination in the event of a sale of he property such clause will likely be enforceable as it is compliant with the rules of part 4.

    To be honest, I am going on advice that I was given by Threshold when I asked them this very question some time ago. I put it to them that if the termination clauses from a part 4 are written into a fixed term lease are they enforceable during the term of the lease, and they were quite clear in telling me that they are not legally enforceable during the term of the lease. If this is not the case and I have been given incorrect information from Threshold then I apologize, and I know that Threshold are not always to be trusted, but in this case they were quite adament that the clauses are not enforceable.


  • Options
    #27
    djimi
    Registered Users Posts: 13,237 ✭✭✭✭djimi


    Marcusm wrote: »
    Read my posts again and explain to me clearly where I am wrong. I think you'll find I'm right.

    And by the way "Please stop posting this." is clearly a (polite) instruction, it's not a request.

    I apologize for how I came across.


  • Options
    #28
    Marcusm
    Registered Users Posts: 10,327 ✭✭✭✭Marcusm


    djimi wrote: »
    To be honest, I am going on advice that I was given by Threshold when I asked them this very question some time ago. I put it to them that if the termination clauses from a part 4 are written into a fixed term lease are they enforceable during the term of the lease, and they were quite clear in telling me that they are not legally enforceable during the term of the lease. If this is not the case and I have been given incorrect information from Threshold then I apologize, and I know that Threshold are not always to be trusted, but in this case they were quite adament that the clauses are not enforceable.

    I think they've misled you or perhaps the circumstances were not the same. The tenant has rights under a part 4 tenancy AND rights/obligations under the written lease. Irish law is generally permissive such that individuals are free to negotiate contracts between themselves so long as not in conflict with the law. The landlord in this case is permitted to terminate the part 4 tenancy by giving notice so the part 4 tenancy irrespective of the written lease agreement.

    Such rights as the tenant has under the written lease survive in accordance with its terms. If its terms are such that written notice may be given in these circumstances then there is nothing in the law to preclude the landlord from giving notice in accordance with those terms (the part 4 tenancy is now finished).

    Any sensible landlord in contemplating the sale should not have entered into a further lease running alongside the part 4 tenancy unless he mirrored the termination terms of the part 4. If he did not do so then as I have said before, if the landlord really wants him out, he is going to have to compensate the tenant IF the tenant AGREES to leave; he could not be forced out if the lease does not have a termination provision. He would not be on a part 4 as that has already been lawfully terminated.

    As I stated above, I think 6 months rent would be fair compensation.


Advertisement