Retaliatory Eviction illegal lease

[shortylvta]

Hi, I rented a house that went into foreclosure. The new owner came in and wanted me to sign a new lease. My lease was protected under Federal Tenant Protection Act of 2009 and AB 2610 in California. I signed the lease with the promise he would fix the severe plumbing problems right away and added that to the lease that he would fix the plumbing. I paid him rent and waited 45 days and finally exercised my statutory right to withhold rent. He immediately filed a 3 day notice. I had called the code enforcement as well. In court the judge said that the house was obviously uninhabitable at the signing of the lease so it was illegal and void. He said that no rent was due because the lease was void. He asked me what I wanted and I said I want to stay in the house with my kids and have the issues fixed. He said what do you want to be a squatter? I replied no your honor im not a squatter I have an existing lease with the prior owner. He said you cant stay. I said don't I get protection under the federal law that gives you a bona fide 90 notice? he said well you were there June, July, and Aug there is your 90 days and he evicted me on the street. My question is with the lease with the new owner void would I not still have legal rights under the other lease. If not would I still not be considered a tenant at sufferance. Both would of given me possession because if the lease was void and no money was owed the new owner had no rights to possession. I am filing the brief to the appellate court on my own and no money for an attorney so here I am needing help.
Thank you,
Terri

 

[army judge]

My question is with the lease with the new owner void would I not still have legal rights under the other lease?

The prior lease was superseded (or EXTINGUISHED by your new lease) when you VOLUNTARILY signed said lease.

If not would I still not be considered a tenant at sufferance?
Both would of given me possession because if the lease was void and no money was owed the new owner had no rights to possession.

Okay, I'm feeling helpful this evening in this great new year!

You become a tenant at sufferance when you continue to occupy the premises without the landlord's consent after the original lease or rental agreement between the landlord and the tenant has expired.

Now, in your case, your lease didn't expire, is was declared VOID by a court of law.

A tenant is also called a holdover tenant.

The tenant is responsible for payment of the monthly rental at the existing rate and terms, which the landlord may accept without admitting the legality of the occupancy.

However, in your case, since you disputed the habitability of the premises, you destroyed your own legal position.

You might have been able to revert to the existing lease, "BUT FOR" your new lease.

If a tenant at sufferance does not leave after a notice to quit (LEAVE or VACATE the premises), he/she is subject to a lawsuit for unlawful detainer.

That is why you were evicted.

That is why your appeal will not fly, and the original decision upheld.

I am filing the brief to the appellate court on my own and no money for an attorney so here I am needing help.
Thank you,
Terri

Good luck, but you are where you are because of limited legal knowledge.

Anyway, happy New Year, and I pray things work out well for you, soon!