Lease is am agreement with an end date. If it is not renewed and a notice of required length has been given, and tenant (protected or otherwise) refuses to move, it becomes an eviction for cause.
Granted less of this happens so no stats on this. Most of the time, owners would put the house for sale at and that moves the tenant. I am getting a lot of apps where reason for moving is owner selling house
Most leases automatically renew, either by virtue of laws or the lease language itself. Ironically, this was a benefit to landlords (and still is in most states) when it came about, but not in a landlord benefit in California anymore.
explain please? I think the standard CAR form goes month-to-month (by default) after the initial term. Why is automatic renewal not a benefit?
I though most convert to month to month.
I still remember this one time as a renter, I totally lost track of when my lease is up and never got any notification from the landlord in this large apartment complex. All the sudden I got this call from the apt manager asking me when I’m moving out and I was like what?!
She said basically I didn’t renew my lease so someone else is due to move in a week! I think my mind just went blank at that point. Mind you, this is before the FW day and I wasn’t educated about my right as a tenant. Anyway, after some heated conversation, she called back and said never mind.
Sorry, I wasn’t clear, but was referring to cities like SF that have rent control, and potentially the entire state very soon. Yes, it becomes month to month, but it’s automatically renewed. In other words, if there was no automatic renewal the tenancy would end, and the landlords would immediately take control. The tenants who stay would be in unlawful possession.
Automatic renewal is not a benefit in these rent controlled areas because landlords must evict, not just provide notice of termination. It’s essentially, generally speaking, the tenant’s decision on whether to continue the lease or not. In rent controlled areas, landlords generally can’t terminate a lease without cause, but if the lease automatically terminated at the end of the period, it would be a benefit to the landlord (sometimes).
But the month-to-month lease does end – every month:
It actually specifies that longer-term lease in 2B might not be terminated if mandated by local rent control law. It says nothing of the sort for month-to-month lease in 2A.
I’ll be honest I’m not very familiar with rent control laws as my properties aren’t subject to them, but I remember that ballot initiative (I think that’s what you’re referring to when you say the entire state may very soon have rent control, even though IIRC it was defeated with pretty big margins), so it’s good to be prepared.
Oh, it looks like there isn’t an automatic renewal, which is different than what I’ve seen.
For the rent control law, it’s a bill from the assembly, which I think is with the state senate now.
“would make it illegal for property owners to raise rents more than 7 percent, plus the Consumer Price Index, in one year”. Not as bad as city-specific rent control, I think some of those limit increases to 4% regardless of CPI. AFAIK, rents only rise that much more than CPI in areas that are being gentrified.
Also, I didn’t read the text but some news mention that AB 1482 would not apply when a landlord owns 10 or fewer single-family detached homes, so most small-time landlords would not be impacted. And depending on how the law is written I can already see ways to get around the limit.
End of a lease is not a legal ‘cause’ for eviction.
The only causes for eviction are violation of the lease terms or failure to pay rent.
OR law : ORS 90.392 – Termination of tenancy for cause
The end of a lease is not a violation of its terms. But when the lease is done you are then able to do a ‘no cause’ eviction.
This is the law and definition of ‘no cause’ here in OR and any state I’ve seen. But IANAL and maybe your state differs.
This is from the OP:
Consider that was posted here nearly three years ago! Housing costs remain high and prices are ballooning.
I heard an interesting take on this last evening on Canadian radio. They were pointing specifically to the BC and Toronto markets, and certainly, if the same phenomenon is present here in the USA, it will be market specific:
Apparently foreign money is coming in, driving up housing prices markedly, and forcing many locals right out of the housing market. This has been happening for a while and there is no indication of the trend slowing.
Anyone, any local person that is, seeking to buy into one of the inflated markets is in a world of hurt already and is only being driven further underwater by so many foreign buyers. So will the foreign money flows abate any time soon? I dunno. Stay tuned.
Yeah, there are a lot of Wall St. backed investors putting a lot of money into SFHs to rent out. Lots of homes in my (ATL suburbs blue collar) area get multiple cash offers at offer price or higher right after listing, and our realtor says it’s all investors now.
It’s no longer the old buy cheap and flip investor market, in other words. It’s gone corporate.
We actually debated that in the thread earlier. Its something that realtors and the press seem to make a big deal out of but when I look for specifics there is little to no data on it. Here in Oregon we like to blame it all on Californians. When that gets boring we can also blame foreginers. but still most people buying are local.
I was in Canada in the 90’s (and other years). The influx of Honk Kong money (pre-1996), for investment in general, but specifically real estate, was unbelievable. Relatives, friends, and acquaintances - some of whom sold property - described buyers with suitcases of cash. (The banks probably made a ton in exchange fees.) That influx of money drove real estate prices very quickly, even though the economy was not booming.
I saw none of it, personally, but did see real estate skyrocket in (then far) northern suburbs.
Is anyone else seeing/hearing news/opinion/advertisement stories about how it’s better to rent than own. There seems to have been a wave of them recently.
Yup. I think mention of Hong Kong/China might have been made in the report I heard. They have so much money over there. I HAS to go somewhere!
My $0.02… That might be the average price, but the thing is that in desirable locations --regions with plenty of good jobs–, the actual price is much, much higher.
Just last week I looked at home prices in the greater Cleveland Ohio area, where I lived as a grad student. For a moment I felt like I wanted to move there. Then I remembered the socio-economic reality in Cleveland, and realized why homes are cheap there.
“At least we’re not Detroit!”
That’s always been the case. Hot markets moved higher than average and undesirable locations moved below that average.
Even across town, I check now and then the value of our old home on zillow. In last 10 years, it had appreciated a bit less than 50%. Our current home value doubled in that same time span. Obviously one has become much less affordable than the other. But there are still affordable homes available.
Maybe the increased demand - from foreign investors - boost selectively prices in desirable locations but on the other hand I don’t have empirical evidence of this happening in my market. All the recent home sales I’ve followed locally have been families purchasing a home, not landlords purchasing for rental.
I haven’t noticed. Rents are going up as fast as housing prices. Not sure how that’s possible, given that income isn’t going up that fast and renters are already spending a significant % of income on housing.
Renting instead of owning is like sitting on cash instead of stocks – only good while in a bubble 
