>
Interesting point John. So renters have perhaps “more rights” than the owner of the property. I just hope the owner of the house we rent pays his taxes or we will find ourselves on the street, just like many .COM’ers in Silicon Valley.
>


A renter does not have more rights, just different rights. Renters have the right to possession, even if the owner sells (conveys title) the property to somebody else. The new owner takes title subject to any leases in effect. The law is much more strict with regard to residential as opposed to commercial leases. The rules are different.

In your case, I don't think you would be out on the street. Again, if there is a new owner, that owner takes title subject to your lease. Your lease may not get renewed. Regardless of whether a new owner is in place, that is always a possibility. If you did have to vacate, you would be entitled to damages against your landlord. Landlard liability arises under privity of contract and privity of estate and your lawyer would make claims under both thoeries. Contract law principles colliding with property law is very important because without contract, you don't get to make claims for breach of implied warranty of habitablilty and the like. Under property law and old American common law, believe it or not, if you were a renter and you paid rent, the landlord had no obligation to deliver the premises. i.e., if there was an occupant, perhaps a holdover tenant, it was up to you, not the landlord to get the person out. All the while, you were on the hook for rent. Even if the place burned down, under old common law, you were still required to pay rent because it was deemed that your rent ran to the soil. Fortunately, a lot of the BS :) is long gone.