WHERE is law that says lease follows property? I know it does - at least EVERYONE says so - but where is the wording of the law? I've searched and searched.

I think your looking in the wrong place. Your rental contract, whether a term or month to month, controls what the LL can do.

The property owner entered a valid agreement to allow tenant the exclusive rights to occupy the dwelling for a specified period of time.

I don't know if it's specified in statutes, but it is strongly implied. As others have said, the lease is a contract for X-months or X-years. Contacts cannot be unilaterally changed unless one party defaults, and then a judge must change or terminate it. So you SELLING the property has no effect on your lease contract. The new BUYER is simply stepping into your shoes and fulfilling the contract on your behalf.

Common law, if nothing else, would dictate the principle.

What's the concern here? Is something at play more than "just curious?"

Sisco then who has legal standing to ENFORCE the lease? The agreement is between Old Owner and Tenant. When Old Owner sells the property, New Owner must honor all the terms and conditions. But if TENANT does not abide, New Owner can enforce Old Owner's terms?

But we have an issue where, in the lease in place right now, the rent must be "hand-delivered" to the Owner, which we would never want (All our rents are paid online.) They also screwed up the term of the lease: text says two years, written dates make it three years (lease should end 12/31/24 but they screwed up and wrote 12/31/25, which make it a full three years, not two.) Some other minor issues.

WMH,

To be clear, I doubt there is any specific language that implies it, but the fact is you have a contract with the tenant, and that contract must be fulfilled. It is the conditions under which the contract exist that imply that the lease terms must be fulfilled.

I look at it this way: in spite of our Govt going on overdrive passing millions of laws, they still don't pass a law that regulates every single behavior in every single situation. That would be impossible because every situation is slightly different. Therefore, they rely on legal principles.

The first principle here is that you and the tenant have a contract that must be fulfilled, unless a judge invalidates/terminates it.

The second principle is that, unless all landlords want to be forbidden from selling their property unless it is vacant, then by default the new landlord agrees to accept the terms and fulfill that role.

That's all I've got. I'm not a legal expert. If you want to spend the money to have a lawyer tell you why this is so from a formal viewpoint, be my guest. Otherwise, accept it under the final principle, "That's just how we do things around here."

Sid *we* don't have a contract with the Tenant, the Seller does. But although most terms are acceptable, about three are just not and I just can't make an offer as a result.

Plus this has come up just in general conversation so much over the years - I just want to actually read the law and not take someone's word for it - especially as NO ONE knows where the idea come from.

You as property owner has standing to enforce the lease, as does tenant.

If the tenant is not abiding by the lease terms, then take action to end this lease that was in effect assigned to you when you purchased the property.

Sisco, I understand what you are saying. But WHERE DOES IT SAY THE LEASE CONTRACT WILL BE UPHELD since it is "by and between" another named party - not a generic "owner of the property" which would make more sense overall - but specifically between two named parties.

I just can't stand taking someone else's word for something they can't prove anywhere in the written law. I'm stubborn that way.

I found this. Doesn't help, but:

"The buyer must honor all existing lease agreements that will end within 180 days after the transfer, defined as the recording of the deed to the buyer."

I think most of you are missing WMH's point here. You are all referring to things related to when we SELL a property. WMH is referring to BUYING a property with a lease in place. They know that the tenant can stay. They are looking for something that makes it clear that they are considered to be in the same legal position as the SELLER was in the agreement.

It's actually an interesting question.

The contract binds.

I like the go to tenant and get new contract. Lower the rent 25.00 and put in the dates you want. Have seller make up the difference. If they want to sell they'll do it.

The Seller can sell only the rights that he has. Because there is a pre-existing lease between the Seller and the Tenant, there are certain rights that the Seller no long has -- such as the right to possession of the property -- that belongs to the Tenant.

The Seller cannot transfer to the Buyer rights that the Seller does not have. The Seller's right of possession is a future right, contingent on the Tenant surrendering possession or the Tenant being evicted or ....

Bottom line, the answer to the OP's question is in looking at ownership as a bundle of rights, some of which the Seller has separated out from the entire bundle. In other words, the lease runs with the land and binds the Buyer.

I hope this clarifies things.

WMH, I asked your question to AI, here is the answer from AI:

"The law that states “lease follows property” is a common law principle that is recognized in many states in the United States. This principle means that when a property is sold, the new owner must honor the existing lease agreement with the tenant1.

However, it’s important to note that landlord-tenant laws vary by state, and some states may have different rules regarding this principle. For example, in Pennsylvania, if a written or oral rental agreement exists, or if payment is accepted as rent, landlords and tenants have automatic rights and responsibilities under the Landlord and Tenant Act2.

If you have any further questions about landlord-tenant laws in your state, I recommend consulting with a local attorney who specializes in this area of law."

Googled this: What does the North Carolina law say about lease follows property? and got this:

"If you are a tenant in possession of the property, the law presumes that the purchaser is aware of your tenancy, and requires that purchaser to honor your lease until it expires. However, you could be evicted if you agreed in your lease that you would vacate the premises upon the sale of the property.

6x6 I found those quotes but none of them are the LAW. I simply want to read the actual d*mn law.

For instance, I was told forever that NC has a 30 day notice rule. By everyone I ever talked to. I accepted that as common knowledge. HOWEVER one reading of Chapter 42, the actual NC LL/Tenant law, says that Notice is defined by the written lease (so we require SIXTY days because we can) but if it's oral, at least 30 days is required on a year's term, only SEVEN days on a monthly term and 2 days on a weekly.

NO ONE in NC seemed to know this, from Realtors to Joe Schmoe.

I was also the one who discovered the hidden ADU ordinance - it wasn't published I found it PDF minutes of a county meeting. When I called the County to confirm, I had to go through a couple of people before they admitted it.

Realtors didn't know it, lots of County people didn't know it.

I forgot another one: I was told by the County Clerk that I had to issue a written demand for rent and wait 10 days before filing for eviction. That's only true if you don't have a properly written lease. Which was discovered by reading the actual statute.

I don't have the answer to your question, but.....

If you want to buy this property in the meantime - while you are still looking for the law - make the seller straighten it out as a requirement for the sale.

I am not going to pay the full price for this property no way. They paid $150k 6 months before putting back on the market at $340k (they did do a lot of work, but not *that* much.) No offers. They have dropped to $299k and no offers. I won't pay more than $200k maybe $225 but with the terrible leases, I won't pay anything.

Seller is related to one tenant and could work with them to adjust the lease, but they JUST signed a new one with a new tenant. She has applied to us before and we turned her down for income but she does have a good steady responsible job.

Found this in an NC sales contract (!)

RENTAL/INCOME/INVESTMENT PROPERTY: The Property shall be conveyed subject to existing leases and/or rights of tenants. Seller shall deliver to Buyer on or before ________________________________________, true and complete copies of all existing leases, rental agreements, outstanding tenant notices, written statements of all oral tenant agreements, statement of all tenant’s deposits, uncured defaults by Seller or tenants, and claims made by or to tenants, if any.

Make the offer as DJ suggested with the caveat that the tenants all sign new leases. When I did that with ten units I had zero pushback. They all signed my lease.

If it comes down to the end and one says no then you walk.