Archive

Posts Tagged ‘distressed property’

Real Estate Law Update: Real Estate Investors Be Careful When Interacting with Occupants of Foreclosed Property.

October 23, 2017 Leave a comment

It is a rainy Monday afternoon. It has beenIMG_1873 dark all day long.  I took this picture earlier today and the rain isn’t letting up.

As a way to distract from the gloomy weather I thought it might be a good opportunity to share some of my thoughts about a court case that came out a few days ago involving a real estate investor, property manager, and a hold over occupant of property.

This case illustrates ways that real estate investors and property managers can go wrong when dealing with occupants of foreclosed property.

 

The Case:

Anderson v Great Lakes Property and Investment, Inc.

Facts: 

“This case arises from defendants’ actions in removing plaintiff and his personal belongings from the rental property, on two occasions, without resort to summary  proceedings in the court.” Id. page 1.

  • In 2008 Plaintiff entered into a month-to-month lease with the property owner.
  • Owner lost the property to a tax foreclosure in 2015.
  • Real Estate Investor purchased the property at tax sale in the fall of 2015, and hired defendant Great Lakes to manage the property.
  • After the purchase, Investor and Property Manager, sent a letter of ownership to all occupants of the property, including plaintiff, which gave plaintiff 10 days to vacate the property.
  • Thereafter, defendant Great Lakes’s sole shareholder, defendant McMorris, came to plaintiff’s unit and demanded that he vacate within 3 days.
  • When plaintiff did not vacate the premises, defendants came to the property on January 15, 2016, and removed plaintiff’s personal belongings from his unit.
  • After defendants left, plaintiff returned to the property, purchased and installed a new lock on his door, repaired the door, and placed his personal belongings back into his unit.
  • The next day, defendants returned and once again, removed plaintiff’s possession from the property.
  • Plaintiff filed a six-count complaint against defendants for a violation of the anti-lockout statute. Id. Page 2.

 

Law:

Anti-Lockout Statute – MCL 600.2918 

Any landlord who has gone through the process of evicting a tenant knows that, in the residential leasing context, there are heightened duties of landlords, and heightened rights of tenants.  Tenants have the right not to have their possessory interest in the property interfered with, without the proper court procedure being complied with (Summary Proceeding Action in District Court)

The Anti-Lockout statute provides damages for forcible ejectment from property or unlawful interference with a possessory interest in property.

 

Subsection (1) (forcible ejection) applies to any person. 

Subsection (2) (unlawful interference) applies to any tenant in possession.

Violating the statute can cause a property owner/landlord to be liable for statutory damages (3 times the amount of actual damages or $200.00 whichever is greater.)

 

Here, the District Court sided with the new Owner – basically holding that the Plaintiff was simply “a squatter”, entitling him to no rights or protections.  Id. page 2.

The Court of Appeals REVERSED!

 

As the Court of Appeals noted, “[t]he Michigan anti-lockout statute, MCL 600.2918, “virtually eliminates the self-help remedy in Michigan in favor of judicial process to remove a tenant wrongfully in possession.” Id. Page 3 citing Deroshia v Union Terminal Piers, 151 Mich App 715, 719; 391 NW2d 458 (1986).

The Court also held that “There is no statutory or caselaw definition of squatter.” Id. Page 4.

The Court also questioned whether the Investor or its Manager gave proper notice to terminate. It was questionable whether the “Notice” mailed to each tenant satisfied the requirements to recover possession of property under Michigan law. MCL 554.134(1) – (holding that “[a] tenant is entitled to one month’s notice to quit in order to terminate a month-to month tenancy at will” Id. Page 4.

 

 

In short – if you purchase property that is occupied, you need to properly use the court systems to remove tenants.

 

Lesson:

 

To avoid any unfounded claims by holdovers, it always makes sense after purchasing property at foreclosure, when there are any occupants present, to go through the lawful channels for a court proceeding to extinguish any possessory rights and to make sure any personal belongings are handled appropriately.

You don’t want to expose yourself to undue liability.

 

Questions? Comments?

E-mail: Jeshua@dwlawpc.com

http://www.dwlawpc.com

Twitter: @JeshuaTLauka

Advertisements

Warning for Real Estate Investors: Three Northern California Real Estate Investors Convicted of Rigging Bids at Public Foreclosure Auctions

 

There are many pitfalls for real estate investors who purchase dIMG_1513istressed property.

In today’s market, good deals are getting harder to come by. With distressed property becoming a scarce resource and competition ever increasing, some real estate investors have resorted to illegal acts to boost their profit.

Investors should know that the Department of Justice as well as State Agencies are cracking down on fraudulent real estate practices.

Today, the Department of Justice announced that a federal jury convicted three real estate investors for their roles in a conspiracy to rig bids at public real estate foreclosure auctions held in Northern California.

This after a 3-week trial.

You can see the press release here.

Based upon the DOJ’s investigation – this was a large conspiracy “to rig bids to obtain hundreds of properties sold at foreclosure auctions. The conspirators designated the winning bidders to obtain selected properties at the public auctions, and negotiated payoffs among themselves in return for not competing. They then held second, private auctions at or near the courthouse steps where the public auctions were held, awarding the properties to conspirators who submitted the highest bids.”

 

What is particularly striking to me is that including today’s convictions the DOJ report that:

68 individuals have pleaded guilty or been convicted after trial as a result of the department’s ongoing antitrust investigations into bid rigging at public foreclosure auctions in Northern California.

 

Question for Real Estate Investors:

What type of unfair practices, including bid rigging, do you believe is going on in your state? What are you seeing foreclosure sales?

In Michigan the record numbers of foreclosed properties since 2008 has provided a market (albeit one that is slowing down) for flipping and rehabbing residential real estate.

This has also created opportunities for abuse and fraud.  The real estate legal landscape is complex enough, do yourselves a favor – follow the rules.

You don’t want to expose yourself to undue liability.

 

Questions? Comments?

E-mail: Jeshua@dwlawpc.com

http://www.dwlawpc.com

Twitter: @JeshuaTLauka

 

Real Estate Law Update: Investors Purchasing at Foreclosure – Take Care in Handling Personal Property Left at the Property.

May 11, 2017 2 comments

Today I am posting about a Court of Appeals case decided on April 25, 2017  – Suzor v Kamlay 2016-07-22 13.10.20

Foreclosed Property = high risk/high reward.

Real estate investors are always wary of the many pitfalls when purchasing property at foreclosure.

I’ve previously posted on problems when someone is still occupying the Property after foreclosure.

The latest case talks about what happens if the holdover is no longer in the property – but has left personal belongings.

Should you take matters into your own hands and remove the stuff?

What liability does a purchaser have after foreclosure and the expiration of redemption if they remove any personal belongings?

FACTS:

  • Plaintiffs’ home was foreclosed on.
  • The property was sold at a sheriff’s sale.
  • Plaintiffs did not redeem the property.
  • Purchaser sued  and was given a judgment of possession and an order of eviction.
  • Purchaser hired defendant to secure and clean the property and remove any remaining personal property—a process commonly referred to as a “trash out.
  • Plaintiffs brought a claim for conversion, arguing that their attempts to get defendant to return the items of personal property he removed from the foreclosed property were to no avail
  • Defendant argued – I have immunity under the Anti-Lockout Statute, since I was operating pursuant to a Court Order.
  • Trial Court agreed.

 

Anti-Lockout Statute – MCL 600.2918 

Any landlord who has gone through the process of evicting a tenant knows that, in the residential leasing context, there are heightened duties of landlords, and heightened rights of tenants.  Tenants have the right not to have their possessory interest in the property interfered with, without the proper court procedure being complied with (Summary Proceeding Action in District Court).

 

Here, Defendant claimed he was shielded from liability under MCl 600.2918(3)(a) which provides

that “[a]n owner’s actions do not unlawfully interfere with a possessory interest if . . . [t]he owner acts pursuant to court order.” Id. page 2.

The Court of Appeals held though that such immunity only shields from liability if the parties have a landlord-tenant relationship.

“However, the parties to this case did not have a landlord-tenant relationship.”

Also, The Court noted that

“While an owner has the right to lawfully enter the premises and remove belongings left therein pursuant to court order, the owner does not have title over the property removed.” Id. page 4.

 

The Court of Appeals would have presumably reversed on this point, but held that the trial court essentially “got it right, but for the wrong reasons.”   The Plaintiffs failed to provide any evidence to prove their case – that the defendant when he removed the personal property converted them by failing to allow the Plaintiffs to recover the property, or otherwise “that a bailment existed”. Id.  page 4.

 

Conclusion:

A purchaser at foreclosure should be careful in handling the personal property leftover.

 

As the Court of Appeals noted – the purchaser is not shielded from liability under the Anti-Lockout Statute, since there is no landlord-tenant relationship.

Also, the owner may have purchased title to the real estate, but not to the personal property.

 

To avoid any unfounded claims by holdovers, it always makes sense after purchasing property at foreclosure, when there are any occupants present, to go through the lawful channels for a court proceeding to extinguish any possessory rights and to make sure any personal belongings are handled appropriately.

You don’t want to expose yourself to undue liability.

 

Questions? Comments?

E-mail: Jeshua@dwlawpc.com

http://www.dwlawpc.com

Twitter: @JeshuaTLauka