>>>>>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.

Imho, 'human decency' idea implies that more cases should be tried in criminal courts and less in civil ones. As human reality unfortunately shows, jail term is the best stimulator to increase amount of decency in too many individuals. On the contrary, pleasant perspective to get away, suffering at worst a small slap on wrist in the small claim court, has the opposite result.