Raising Rent In Lakewood

[avromie7]

That’s assuming his tenants can actually afford higher rent without any issues to them.

I don’t think you have the right to assume that.

Halacha says this is what it is then it’s closed, they don’t need to go beyond what Halacha tells them because he did to them.

Especially if maybe they can’t afford more.

PS a married couple living in a basement for 10 years assuming they have a family is a pretty big sign one way.

I don't think OP is talking about a basement.

[Sammyonetwo]

I don't believe this is part of the halacha

It’s not we’re talking being a כפוי טובה

[imayid2]

In the sefer "Landlord-Tenant in Halacha" by Rabbi Baruch Meir Levin, dayan in Lakewood.

First he writes that you cannot evict a tenant, then he adds:
"Notwithstanding, in an event where the landlord stands to endure a substantial loss by the tenant remaining in the apartment, he may be halachically allowed to terminate the lease prematurely."

If he can terminate the lease, he will be able to change more than the annualized 5%? My understanding is the 5% cap is even when renewing a lease. So if he can’t evict it won’t help him to terminate it.

[jye]

Here we have an example of why someone would raise the rent even if it is not needed at the time. The buyer will have a mortgage based on current house prices and the rent will be the rate from 10 years ago. I understand why he does want that disparity.

Yep. Some duplexes are now going for 1.3 million. That number is based on the basement paying a hefty rent to cover a chunk of the mortgage. A tenant paying half price rent drastically shrinks the pool of potential buyers.

[Sammyonetwo]

I don't think OP is talking about a basement.

True that…

[Sammyonetwo]

Yep. Some duplexes are now going for 1.3 million. That number is based on the basement paying a hefty rent to cover a chunk of the mortgage. A tenant paying half price rent drastically shrinks the pool of potential buyers.

Tenants paying a lot less mean the mortgage is a lot less because they didn’t sign for 1.3 and agree to that rental agreement.

Agreed their still losing money by not being able to refi their value and selling.

[AsherO]

That’s assuming his tenants can actually afford higher rent without any issues to them.

I don’t think you have the right to assume that.

Halacha says this is what it is then it’s closed, they don’t need to go beyond what Halacha tells them because he did to them.

Especially if maybe they can’t afford more.

PS a married couple living in a basement for 10 years assuming they have a family is a pretty big sign one way.

I don’t see how this makes sense, the landlord wants to terminate their status by selling the property, that’s there’s no larger way to end the relationship and the landlords role (other than perhaps surrendering the property to the tenant or being mafkir it).

Since when does accepting a tenant in Halacha mean a commitment to providing affordable housing for them for life regardless of the landlord’s circumstances?

[AsherO]

In the sefer "Landlord-Tenant in Halacha" by Rabbi Baruch Meir Levin, dayan in Lakewood.

First he writes that you cannot evict a tenant, then he adds:
"Notwithstanding, in an event where the landlord stands to endure a substantial loss by the tenant remaining in the apartment, he may be halachically allowed to terminate the lease prematurely."

FWIU the OPs tenants don’t even have a real lease, other than perhaps a (de facto?) auto-renewal of the original lease.

[Sammyonetwo]

I don’t see how this makes sense, the landlord wants to terminate their status by selling the property, that’s there’s no larger way to end the relationship and the landlords role (other than perhaps surrendering the property to the tenant or being mafkir it).

Since when does accepting a tenant in Halacha mean a commitment to providing affordable housing for them for life regardless of the landlord’s circumstances?

There two aspects here one is Halacha raising rent and second is eviction which the courts decide.

[aygart]

I don’t see how this makes sense, the landlord wants to terminate their status by selling the property, that’s there’s no larger way to end the relationship and the landlords role (other than perhaps surrendering the property to the tenant or being mafkir it).

Since when does accepting a tenant in Halacha mean a commitment to providing affordable housing for them for life regardless of the landlord’s circumstances?

It’s not we’re talking being a כפוי טובה

[gozalim]

That is sick. They paid below market rent for 10 years and held the owner hostage, now they deserve a prize for playing (and in a sense winning) that game? הרצחת וגם ירשת? The standards for ועשית הטוב והישר should go both ways and the landlord has certainly held up his part of that.

It's not neccesarily fair, but it sometimes is the easiest/quickest way to make the 'problem' go away, instead of having to go through the courts.
it also allows the issue to be resolved in goodwill rather than recrimination.

If the sale is worhtwhile enough to the landlord, a small 'buyout' may be worthwhile

[AsherO]

It's not neccesarily fair, but it sometimes is the easiest/quickest way to make the 'problem' go away, instead of having to go through the courts.
it also allows the issue to be resolved in goodwill rather than recrimination.

If the sale is worhtwhile enough to the landlord, a small 'buyout' may be worthwhile

I don’t disagree. But if we’re talking Halacha and fairness then a tenant who expects this should have some sense beaten into them.

[AsherO]

There two aspects here one is Halacha raising rent and second is eviction which the courts decide.

Sorry, but I don’t see it that way.

[YitzyS]

FWIU the OPs tenants don’t even have a real lease, other than perhaps a (de facto?) auto-renewal of the original lease.

From earlier:

"When a tenant-occupied property is sold, the buyer remains bound to any lease agreement the seller enacted with the tenant, along with all its terms and conditions. Consequently, the buyer may not terminate the lease (or raise the rent) until the end of the term of the lease agreement. This applies to renewal options, as well (as explained on page 42); meaning, if the seller granted the tenant a renewal option, the new buyer must allow the tenant to exercise this option."

[AsherO]

From earlier:

"When a tenant-occupied property is sold, the buyer remains bound to any lease agreement the seller enacted with the tenant, along with all its terms and conditions. Consequently, the buyer may not terminate the lease (or raise the rent) until the end of the term of the lease agreement. This applies to renewal options, as well (as explained on page 42); meaning, if the seller granted the tenant a renewal option, the new buyer must allow the tenant to exercise this option."

That doesn’t really address my point, and is a legal statement regarding the tenant’s rights vis-a-vis the new landlord. FWIU we’re discussing the relationship between the current (wants-to-be-previous) landlord and the tenant, and from a Halachic perspective.

[Sammyonetwo]

Sorry, but I don’t see it that way.

Those are the facts he has to deal with.

[yelped]

From earlier:

"When a tenant-occupied property is sold, the buyer remains bound to any lease agreement the seller enacted with the tenant, along with all its terms and conditions. Consequently, the buyer may not terminate the lease (or raise the rent) until the end of the term of the lease agreement. This applies to renewal options, as well (as explained on page 42); meaning, if the seller granted the tenant a renewal option, the new buyer must allow the tenant to exercise this option."

Highly doubt that the the seller gave the tenant a lease contract with an auto renew option. If the landlord even gave him a contract, it was most likely a standard NJ contract which states that the lease will continue month to month after the 2 year contract term.

[AsherO]

Those are the facts he has to deal with.

Not really. It’s unfair for the tenant to hold him to the halachic standard for rent raises and the legal standard for eviction.

[Sammyonetwo]

Not really. It’s unfair for the tenant to hold him to the halachic standard for rent raises and the legal standard for eviction.

We agree it’s not fair for the landlord, disagree the tenant should comply and can’t use the system provided.

[AsherO]

We agree it’s not fair for the landlord, disagree the tenant should comply and can’t use the system provided.

Claiming bad faith on the tenants part might not fly in court, but should work against them in beis din.