RECORDING OF AGREEMENT - Is this legal??
Posted 09 January 2013 - 11:41 AM
"Tenant shall not record this Agreement on the Public Records of any public office. In the event that Tenant shall record this Agreement, this Agreement shall, at Landlord's option, terminate immediately and Landlord shall be entitled to all rights and remendies that it has at law or in equity."
Is this legal? Property was leased under the promoted representation by owner/landlord as a temporary agreement pending down payment and eventual purchase by tenant.
Recent, undisclosed developments involving code compliance and zoning, suspicious business/selling practices by owner and surrounding owners is uncovering a myriad of problems. Owner is trying to deem the property abandoned and has attempted to regain possession of property. No unlawful detainer served to date.
Any assistance is greatly appreciated. Thank you.
Posted 09 January 2013 - 11:53 AM
Is this legal?
I can't imagine why it wouldn't be, but determining whether anything is or isn't legal obviously requires knowledge of the applicable law. Since you didn't identify the relevant state, we have no way of knowing what law applies. I also don't really see the point of the provision since it's a month-to-month lease.
Posted 09 January 2013 - 12:11 PM
Posted 09 January 2013 - 12:45 PM
the agreements may be different.
Original deal was to purchase the property. Not fully developed, no formal structure yet built. Year spent living at property while working on general improvements. Code Enforcement showed up around Sept 2012 where learned that property is not zoned as residential (originally stated by owner at time of possession) but as agricultural.
In my opinion, this alone invalidates any kind of lease/rental agreement for the property is not legally deemed habitable. Becoming a very
complicated case. This is only the beginning I'm afraid.
Posted 09 January 2013 - 01:33 PM
So...let's clarify what your question is. You asked, "Is this legal?" My assumption was that you were asking whether the landlord could, in fact, legally terminate the lease if the tenant records the lease. I can tell you for sure that there's no express statutory prohibition against that. I doubt there's any case law on the issue, but I obviously am not going to conduct legal research for you. But I think the bigger point is that the provision is superfluous. Since it's a month-to-month lease, the landlord (or the tenant) can, by definition, terminate the lease at any time and for any reason that is not expressly illegal by giving 30 or 60 days' notice (depending on whether the tenant has lived in the premises more or less than a year). The provision at issue gives the landlord the right to terminate the tenancy upon the occurrence of the stated condition. But, as mentioned, the landlord already has the right to terminate the tenancy. Therefore, I don't see the legality of the provision to be of any particular importance.
Just noticed also that the property address is not even listed on the agreement?
This sentence isn't a question despite your use of a question mark. If it was your intent to ask a question, it's not clear what you were intending to ask.
In my opinion, this alone invalidates any kind of lease/rental agreement for the property is not legally deemed habitable.
I'm not sure what "this" refers to in this sentence, but there's nothing illegal about leasing property that can't be legally used for residential purposes. If both parties were mistaken about the zoning, that may allow for rescission on the ground of mutual mistake, but zoning is a matter of public record, so if either party bothered to look, correct information should have been readily available.
And, in any event, whether because of rescission or termination, the bottom line is that your friend will have to vacate the premises.
Posted 09 January 2013 - 04:09 PM
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users