I've been renting my house for 4 years now. My lease ends October 1st. I was informed on May 15 that my landlord was selling the property and June 1st I was notified the house was sold and i had 30 days to vacate property. I have always paid rent on time and never had any issues with the landlord.

Question: since the house was sold and i have been pushed out before the end of my lease, will i get my deposit back?

  • 5
    Hi, welcome to Law.SE. People from all round the world read this, so before we can help we need to know which jurisdiction are you in (i.e. which country and maybe which region if the laws in your country vary, like in the USA). – Paul Johnson Jun 28 '19 at 7:17
  • 4
    In many places you do not have to vacate the house if the owner sells it; the new owner must respect your rights. Maybe you should see if there is any local association that provides guidance to consumers/renters. – SJuan76 Jun 28 '19 at 9:46
  • 1
    Were you told to vacate by the new owner, or by the landlord you've never had any issues with? – abelenky Jun 28 '19 at 14:01
  • 1
    Determine in advance an amount that this disruption is worth to you, and ask what the new owner will give you in consideration for ending your lease on their timeline versus you researching what they are required to do under local ordinances. If they offer over your minimum, take it; if they're close but under tell them what you need. Basically, you'd sign a new contract and get paid to end the old contract. In landlord parlance, this is called "cash for keys". You get money and they don't get any trouble or delays for the irregular way they went about this. – user662852 Jun 28 '19 at 15:20
  • No response????? – Muze the good Troll. Jun 29 '19 at 18:44

In most common-law jurisdiction, a purchaser buys a house subject to any existing lease. If that is true in your jurisdiction, the notice to vacate was illegal, and you are entitled to remain until the end of the current lease.

The return of the deposit will depend on the condition of the property when you move out, and will be governed by the specific law of your jurisdiction.

Residential leases are highly regulated in many places, and the laws vary widely. Often they vary even by individual cities or towns within a country. Without the specific locality in which the hosue is, no specific answer is possible.

|improve this answer|||||
  • Although entitled to stay until the end of the lease, it is more likely that the more effective and profitable course would be to pursue damages against either the Landlord or the Buyer for breaking the lease. – abelenky Jun 28 '19 at 14:07
  • @abelenky Suing is almost never more efficient and profitable than maintaining a status quo. – ohwilleke Jun 28 '19 at 17:14
  • @owilleke: The "status quo" is that the lease is up in 3 months anyway, and will certainly be terminated then. In a case as clear-cut as presented here, even the threat of a suit should lead to a settlement for more than actual damages (3 months loss of lease) – abelenky Jun 28 '19 at 19:21
  • Not so clear-cut. Many jurisdictions also allow an owner of a rented home to break the lease early (with appropriate notice given to the tenant, as it appears to have been done here), if the owner wishes to retake possession in order to live in it himself. – A.fm. Jul 6 '19 at 5:55
  • @A.fm. Most jurisdictions do not allow that, I believe. Without knowing the jurisdiction involved, there is no way to give a definitive answer on that point. – David Siegel Jul 6 '19 at 13:00

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.