Couple buys Riverside dream home, but seller refuses to move out in eviction moratorium loophole

The need for immediate cash and the tax lien should have been red flags.

Two things that do not belong in the same sentence: Riverside and "dream home".

Okay, but the buyers surely had to have realized something sketchy was up from the very beginning.

[quote]Chris Taylor is the Real Estate Agent who sold the house to the Alberts from a man who wanted to sell immediately.

[quote]"He needed $560,000 from the sale of his house in two weeks and he called me on a Sunday, so in traditional real estate there's no way of doing that unless the buyer’s a cash buyer," says Taylor.

[quote]Since the house was free and clear and worth more than $560,000 the Alberts felt it was a great deal.

[quote]"It took us scrambling to get everything we had, our life savings put together and a hard money loan on top of it to make that happen," Myles stated.

Is that an art stock photo or their actual home? Inquiring minds want to know who's so tasteless.

It doesn't matter, R3. The parties have a relationship, but it's not Landlord-Tenant. And it never was. If you sell your house, you don't magically become the buyer's tenant.

The seller relinquished all rights with the sale. Or should have. Any judge should be able to address this, unless this covid emergency regulation is so poorly drafted as to permit this. But how? The seller was never a tenant. You become a tenant when you and the property owner agree you are a tenant and memorialize that agreement in writing.

If the man will not relinquish possession, then move in court to vacate the sale and demand return of the money. Of course, the money is long gone, but this still needs to be done, if only to collect from the Title Insurance Company, as closings in California are done by the Title Insurance Company.

This is a story from Fox News. There is no reason to trust that it is accurate, even if it the story is unfolding in California. There are too many holes in this stupid story.

CA seems so fucked up.

The buyers’ lawyer would have (or should have) anticipated this possibility. A buyer’s agent might have pointed it out as well. I’m guessing they thought they didn’t need to pay a professional to guide them through the process.

Sucks to be them.

Oh, and that house for over half a mil!!!???

"Riverside Dream Home" seems like the equivalent of "Amazon Warehouse Dream Job."

[quote]CA seems so fucked up.

It's in Riverside, that's where all the low rent Deplorables live. Solid Trump territory.

Can't the new owners have the utilities put in their name and have them disconnected?

It's odd the the original owner had the house paid for but couldn't pay the taxes. Even if he had lost his job, I am sure he could have got a loan based off the equity of the house. Or maybe take on a couple renters. I wonder what's really going on.

[quote] “Going to prison for life for killing the "seller" would be worth it to get to see the look in his eyes when he realized he was going to die.”

I can’t believe that you can’t see how fucked up that sounds. How many murderers have justified their actions this way? In prison, you’ll be able to find out first-hand!

I think we're headed for another housing crisis recession. People buying half-million dollar 'dream' homes and they work in a cubical at ABC Insurance Co.

You can’t get a loan based on the equity in the house if you have no income to make payments.

That house is fugly.

Why would the seller let the house go to rack and ruin? Why wouldn't he let the new owners water the lawn? The details in this story are very odd.

If this is true, their best recourse would be to wait until he leaves the house--he'll have to leave eventually for a few hours at least--have a locksmith change the locks, and take possession of the house. Since he isn't a tenant with a lease, there is nothing he could do to get back in. If he tried to come back on the property, they could file a restraining order against him and have him arrested.

r7 We don't use lawyers in California for real estate transactions. Everything is handled by escrow companies.

Sue the former owner for full refund plus and sue the real estate agent for fraud.

R18, oh I didn’t know that. The escrow company is completely neutral? No one represents the buyers’ and sellers’ interests?

I agree with r6; CA is fucked up.