Repurchase / repossession - advice needed

See article 29 below:

https://www.eyeonspain.com/blogs/costaluz/11328/Legal-tip-1029-NEW-Spain-Rental-Act.aspx

Marias Title 2 Articles 7 and 8 seem explicit in what I was saying.

If a bank chooses to sell at auction with a sitting tenant Windtalker, they would have to provide a tenancy agreement.

The only tenancy agreement the person in this dicussion seems to have, is one thats provided from the person who no longer owns the property (after the legal dissolution of ownership through not paying the mortgage).

If you buy a car and the person gives you a signed contract saying they will guarantee a warranty for 12 months, a court will say that contract is valid.  If the person providing the warranty has died, the contract will still be valid, but will be worthless.   Just like the tenancy.

If the mortgage isnt being paid, that contract will be enforeceable to repossess.   Do the maths and see who owns the house and what tenats rights are left!

Perhaps its a case of Is this a case of not wanting to understand?. 

Brian, are you trying to say that in these circumstance, in law the owner has defaulted on the mortgage, therefore the rental contract is null and void and the bank is entitled to evict the tenant and his family onto the street.

Or is it how you would like it to be.

Yes I’m saying the first part.  

The second part doesn’t apply 

OK Brian, is that definitely the law in Spain, no if’s and buts’, and the way it is applied by the courts and justice system?.

There is a litle  'light reading' here:-

http://www.spanishpropertyinsight.com/2016/05/13/urban-rental-law-spain-tenancy-agreements-ley-de-arrendamientos-urbanos-lau/

Interesting John

Lodging a Long Term Rental at the Land Registry – Advantages

Long term tenants are advised to lodge their long term tenancy agreements at the Land Registry for their own protection against third parties i.e. landlord defaults his mortgage and falls into arrears. His lender executes the contract and attempts to repossess the property. A tenant´s position is stronger if his tenancy agreement was already lodged at the Land Registry. He can in fact negotiate with the lender to leave ahead of the rental´s expiry date in exchange of a suitable compensation for his aggravation.

Duplicate post

OK Brian, is that definitely the law in Spain, no if’s and buts’, and the way it is applied by the courts and justice system?.

I think to answer that correctly the tenant would need to instruct a lawyer to comb through the Spanish laws and layers of changes made.   I feel the lawyer would find some nuances to exploit and take a lot of money while they fight a case on their behalf.   They may be successful in keeping the tenancy for a little while longer, while making the tenant much poorer and more stressed.

The facts of the matter would be that the bank has to repossess a property and they are not in the business of home ownership.   The tenant has a tenancy agreement that was not made by the bank and they will be insecure (imho) going forward.  

Best advice at a calculated guess by me, with some experience of these matters......

Find another place to move to and make arrangements to get out, use any spare money to sue the owner (the one you have an agreement with) if you are substantially out of pocket.   Put it down to one of life’s unfair events and move on.

https://advocateabroad.com/legal-answers-spain/property-law-spain-answers/selling-a-property-with-a-sitting-tenant-2/

Although this refers to a sale of a property,    I would think the same must apply if the new owner is a bank.

I still have a case on my Community Brian, where a Bank has repossessed a property, with a sitting tenant who is apparently no longer paying rent to either the old owner or the Bank, the new owner, but the bank appear to be unable or unwilling to evict the tenant, who is still in situ.

As someone stated, having a sitting tenant paying no rent, devalues the property even more, so I’m sure they would love to evict an actual squatter.

Im afraid I think the Law is currently protecting tenants, rather than allowing them to be be thrown out into the street.

It’s surprising on two counts Hugh.   

When the landlord has defaulted in that way the tenancy becomes a bare licence, or month to month tenancy because the property hasn’t actually been sold with a sitting tenant.  That’s the same principle all over without a full civil court judgement otherwise   

Also the non payment of rent has broken the contract anyway and a notice seeking possession proceedings can begin

Maybe other examples will come along to the thread.   Has the bank fully repossessed the property Hugh, or is it ongoing?

Only someone with the brain the size of a peanut... Would give a 5 year rental contract on a rental property ..especially if they had a mortgage on the it... in the UK it is possible to obtain a buy to let mortgage ...but no bank or lender will lend on a property that you intended to let out for more than a 6 months ...buy to let type of mortgages are normally charge a 1% or more above a normal mortgage rate...and it clearly state's in the mortgage contract a maximum of 6 month's contract know as a ( short hold tenancies agreement ).

Just if the rental contract was registered in the Land Registry before the mortgage was charged on the property, the tenant has rights to stay. This is after a reform made in 2013.Before then, the tenant had the right to stay for 5 years, which was the obligatory term for protecting housing rental.

In many cases, Banks are respecting current rentals

We are not in the UK, we are in Spain.

In some cases you would need to know the motive of a property owner granting a long term tenancy and then defaulting on the mortgage in Spain. If you continue to have your UK head on and keep quoting the rights and wrongs of the UK you will never work it out.

Brian

in our case Bank has finally fully repossessed and re registered ownership and paying Community fees.

Tenant has effectively been squatting for some time and I’ve no idea what deal he made with previous owner but it woukd appear the Bank are struggling to remove him.

Windtalker

I can assure you a company who owned a number of apartments offered 5 year, cash upfront deals to tenants so received their money up front.

They paid NO Community fees and No mortgage, presumably developers mortgages, which is why eventually the bank repossessed all the properties but the tenants with their 5 year contracts remained.

Temember in 2006 banks were falling over themselves offering all sorts of deals, not caring if property was rental or not.

Some even offered 10year interest only mortgages which are now coming home to roost.

The previous corporate owner walked away with 5 years cash rentals from 8-10 owners and stuck it, in a separate company to the owner of the property no doubt.

Never could get any Community fees from them.

Kavanaugh I am aware as you are that we are not talking about the UK..I was just giving you a comparison ..between that Spanish banking industry that seems to have the brains of a peanut ..as a posed a professional UK banking industry ..** EDITED - Against forum rules **

Windtalker

If you think the UK Banking industry is professional, I think you must be on a different planet.

Granted the Spanish banking industry is even less efficient but it was NOT a Bank who granted a 5 year rental agreement.

Mortgages taken out in 2006 and prior to Crisis took no account of whether an apartment was lived in or rented for a start, so forget B2L, they did not exist.

The properties I be described were bought as speculation and the buyer, a corporate from Madrid got its fingers burnt as it knew not what to as it cohkd not afford 10 mortgages.

Eventualky they found a slightly dodgy agent to rent out the propoerties on long let, cash up front.

Nice for all concerned, except of course for the slow moving inefficient Spanish Bank who realised they were not receiving any mortgage payments.

By the time they repossessed as no other assets available, many of the long term tenants were happily in place and the bank could do little about them.

Even more strange is that the bank then apparently renewed some of the rentals at similar low rents, just to get some income and offered discounted buying prices to the in situ tenants.

Should such tenants now decide to stay on and not pay the new owners and landlord rent, what can the bank do, not a lot, it appears.

Clearly windtalker you are immuned from being banned, that’s why you continue to post your insults and abuse.

Ok back to basics!  

We are not in the UK, we are in Spain.

In some cases you would need to know the motive of a property owner granting a long term tenancy and then defaulting on the mortgage in Spain. If you continue to have your UK head on and keep quoting the rights and wrongs of the UK you will never work it out.  

it’s not too hard to work out, it’s capitalism at a raw example.   One person uses their capital or borrowing ability to buy property and then rents out to a second person at a maximum return.  When that first person has gained maximum revenue, they turn their back on what’s fair or equitable.  

As a social landlord or a lawful tenancy the rights of the tenant are protected.   It doesn’t really matter which country is the point of the discussion, the first person has broken the law and abdicated responsibility.  

The tenant is no longer then secure and a lengthy legal wrangle may ensue, wasting both time and money an awaiting the inevitable outcome, they will have to leave sooner or a little later.  

Have we a meeting of minds on that so far perhaps?