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

[Dashinka 24,941]

Only in CA.

 

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

 

RIVERSIDE, Calif. - When Tracie and Myles Albert purchased a beautiful four bedroom house in Riverside, California they never realized that at the end of escrow the seller would suddenly refuse to give up the keys and leave.  

"It’s just draining, emotionally and financially," says Tracie.  On January 31, 2020, the couple purchased the home. More than a year later, they still haven’t been able get inside their property. Chris Taylor is the Real Estate Agent who sold the house to the Alberts from a man who wanted to sell immediately. 

 

Eviction Attorney Dennis Block says, "This year alone, we’ve handled at least 7 maybe 8 cases of this exact type of situation." 

He says people purchasing homes need to be extremely cautious, especially if they notice any red flags during the process. Block says what’s happening to the Alberts could happen to anyone. 
 
"This person is not a tenant, it’s a previous owner who is enjoying the benefits of the money that was transferred to his account but of course doesn’t want to move out of the premises that he no longer owns," Block stated.

 

https://www.foxla.com/news/couple-buys-riverside-dream-home-but-seller-refuses-to-move-out-in-eviction-moratorium-loophole

[TBoneTX 46,353]

Read that on Townhall.com or elsewhere.  Sickening.  Will try to find.

 

Edit:  Ah, American Thinker:

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2021/03/california_homebuyers_discover_that_the_government_is_their_enemy.html

Edited March 23, 2021 by TBoneTX

[Dashinka 24,941]

7 hours ago, TBoneTX said:

Read that on Townhall.com or elsewhere.  Sickening.  Will try to find.

 

Edit:  Ah, American Thinker:

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2021/03/california_homebuyers_discover_that_the_government_is_their_enemy.html

Apparently CA is behind the squatters in these cases.  Kind of sad, I heard with the way CA is defending things like this, property owners are reluctant to rent vacant apartments right now.

[TBoneTX 46,353]

I sure wouldn't.

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

There's something very wrong here, and I think there's likely a large portion of the story missing. I don't say this to victim blame the true owners. I dug into this myself as I have been dealing with some COVID-related unlawful detainer issues myself at work recently, though on the commercial rather than residential end. First, there's no doubt these people own the house -- it wasn't hard for me to dig up their deed, and to identify the seller. The seller has been convicted on more than one occasion of fraud, however, and one wonders: where was the due diligence here? It took me a grand total of eight minutes last night to find the transaction, identify the parties, identify the investment vehicles that were used to buy and sell the property, note that the seller had been involved in past fraud, and appeared to use a variety of aliases. This is not rocket science even if it involves the use of proprietary databases that the real estate agent should have access to.

 

My guess is that the problem lies with the backlog with the county court at the moment, and that these people are not represented in their unlawful detainer action, or weren't at the beginning. (I doubt Dennis Block is representing them, even though he appeared in that clip -- if he were, you'd know about it. The UD world is small and he's A Name.) This isn't a UD action, as they point out, but they have filed it as such. I get the rationale -- he's remaining on the property after the transaction was complete. But as far as I can tell, no tenancy has been created here. But filing as a UD means that they have to work within UD rules, and right now they're slowed down because of the eviction moratorium. Are UD cases getting heard right now? In LA County, they are; it stands to reason they are in Riverside County too.

 

Let's loop back though to the existing problem -- this is not an unlawful detainer action. The guy is trespassing and should be kicked out, and the sheriff or cops are hiding behind the UD because tossing people out on the street sucks. In my opinion, the owners should have filed an action for declaratory relief. Essentially, this is a case that says, hey judge, this guy over here and I have a dispute over who has a right to be here. Who owns this place and has the right to live here, him or me? The great thing about this is that it's a general civil case and it's entitled to preference in terms of trial setting. Theoretically, the owners get a declaratory judgment saying "you own this place and he has no rights in it." You take that to the cops and say this guy isn't a tenant, he's a trespasser. Remove him.

 

I'm keeping tabs on this case. It's not really an "only in California" case so much as it is someone (or someones) getting rather confused about how to kick this guy out. The eviction moratorium has kept roofs over people's heads in a time of national emergency. Have some people milked it? Sure. We're dealing with one now, and the client is furious. But we don't punish the many for the bad behavior of a few.  

[TBoneTX 46,353]

Maven is one of the few members whom I wish would keep typing after she has stopped.

[Ban Hammer 13,695]

7 hours ago, elmcitymaven said:

 You take that to the cops and say this guy isn't a tenant, he's a trespasser. Remove him.

 

or save lots of time and money and hire a biker gang to stay there for an hour.  i bet they'll get him to leave.