>>>>http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/03/23/landlord.foreclosure/index.html
>>>>
>>>>My father in law said to me when we bought our house, "...assume nothing when dealing when agents/brokers/landloads. Get it in writing".
>>>>
>>>>I feel for her. I wish her well in small-claims court. I hope she get at least some of her money back.
>>>
>>>We agree. You'd think that someone taking over a house would have to live with any contracts that are already in force. And the former owner should be jailed.
>>
>>The person taking over the house had no say in any contract that came before the time the house was 'assumed'. Therefore, any existing contract - unless they state otherwise - have no binding quality on subsequent parties.
>
>I know that, I'm just saying that's bad law. Try not taking over the property taxes or the mortgage when you take over a house. The only reason the law is the way it is, is because the tenant has no clout and can be pushed around without much effort.

I agree. Personally, I think the tenant got royally rogered in this case - but that doesn't mean that I don't see the contract law logic of the situation. I also think it's ridiculous that there has to be a law to protect the tenant in cases like this. I imagine that, back in the day, the assumption was that the person taking over the mortgage on the house would show the tenant a wee bit of human decency and either 1) given reasonable notice to vacate, or 2) continue the existing contract with the tenant - especially if the tenant has taken reasonable care with the property.

But that's just me.