Vacant Possession

[TSP1]

Hello. I was wondering if anyone had any information or personal experience in regards to obtaining vacant possession for a tax sale property.  1. What are the legal procedures involved in removing individuals from a purchased property? (ie. paperwork, use of sherriff or police) 2. What are the general numbers in terms of time and cost?  3. Can this be done without the use of a lawyer? Any information or comments would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.

[Rob]

A simple police call can be used for someone who illegally lives on a property or a housing unit.  But the situation changes if the person is renting the place, has a signed contract at the venue, etc.  At this point you generally would need a property lawyer.

The grey area would be if the person who has lost their home, refuses to leave.  My understanding is you would need to go through the same process as evicting someone who is renting the place.  Once a judge rules for your side then you can call the police to remove the person with the court order in hand.

[candi839]

This is my biggest concern of purchasing a property at a tax sale.  What do most people do in regards to the former owners.  Do they throw them out on the street, or try to rent the house to that person?  If I was to throw them out, do they normally trash the place before they leave (as I would have to estimate a repair cost before I bid on the property).  A lot of the properties I have been interested in bidding on, appear to be occupied.  Any comments on this concern would be appreciated.

[Rob]

Well it might be hard to rent out to that person seeing how that person owned the property previously and lost it because they could not pay or did not pay taxes which would normally be much lower than rent.

But I believe you have to go through the same process as someone trying to kick someone out of an apartment for failing to pay rent for previous months.  Which involves a notice, and at times court.

But you are mostly likely to experience this in larger cities.

[nimai]

I have a few more questions on this topic.

1. If you are evicting the person, what happens to that person's personal possessions?  If they are evicted and don't take them do you have to deal with those items?
2. What rights do you have in regards to vandalism, damage to property by that person? Legally can you go after that person to make repairs?
3. How can you prove the property was damaged after you took ownership or whether the property was already in a state of disrepair?
4. If you need a court order to remove the person, what is the process? How much does it cost? How long does it take?
5. How do you prevent the person from coming back on the property?

Nimai

[Rob]

Good questions,

Several of them can answered in respect to the Ontario Rental House Tribunal.  If you inherit a tenant with a valid lease you must follow the rules set out in the Ontario Rental House Tribunal. 

http://www.orht.gov.on.ca/userfiles/HTML/nts_3_5230_1.html

I believe it can take 14 days to 2 months depending on the situation.  Costs would be court costs, my guess is $700+ but I have no experience in this regard. If the court orders a removal of a person a police escorts you to the property and that person has a reasonable amount of time to remove the property.

If someone damages your property you can take them to court.  But you will need photos of the property when you took ownership (and if I understand the spirit of your question how can one take photos if one is not allowed inside the property).  It would be hard to prove and in such a case and you have the burden of proof.

How do you prevent the person from coming back?  Well the same way you would prevent someone coming on to your property now (if you own property).  Call the police and they will remove the person.

[b610]

Hi all,

Has anyone ever had to remove an occupied residential property?  It seems like all the ones in the Toronto sale is occupied, is there any way to check whether they are owners or tenants?  Please let me know, thanks.

[stanbee]

Check this out.

Ontario’s new Residential Tenancies Act takes effect January 31, 2007

Procedural Changes Adversely Impact Multi- Residential Landlords
The RTA also introduces procedural changes which will significantly increase the costs for landlords applying for eviction orders. Right now landlords can obtain “default” orders for both eviction and nonpayment of rent but the RTA scraps default orders and every landlord application must now go to a hearing, whether the tenant disputes it or not.
At the eviction hearing, the tenant will be permitted, without any notice to the landlord, to raise “any issue” the tenant wants to and the Board must hear the evidence and give relief to the tenant. Thus, “Trial by Ambush”, unheard of in any other legal process in Canada, is authorized by legislation. “Professional Tenants” will easily capitalize on this new process. Landlords may go into a hearing thinking they will get an eviction order and a judgment for arrears of rent and walk out of the hearing with a rent abatement order against them as well as a rent freeze. In addition, by sending everything to a hearing, delays in obtaining evictions are virtually guaranteed:
another windfall for professional tenants. Landlords will now have to carefully prepare in defending against any allegations that may be raised by a tenant at an eviction hearing. This means more preparation work and the landlord will have to ask for an adjournment if new issues are raised on the day of hearing and the landlord does not have evidence on hand to respond to them. All of this means more cost, more lost time and, in the case of adjournments, more lost rents.
New “Tenant-Friendly” Rules
1. The definition of “tenant” has been expanded to include a person claiming to be a “spouse” of the tenant. Landlords are forced into contractual relationships with strangers. This new right is only triggered at the end of a tenancy thereby depriving the landlord of the right to increase rent to “market” on turnover.
2. Where an evicted tenant has abandoned property in the rental unit, the tenant can apply to the Board claiming that the landlord improperly disposed of the property. Most such applications will greatly inflate the value and nature of items disposed of so it is imperative that landlords carefully document the disposition of tenants’ property.
3. Landlords must issue rent receipts to former tenants for up to a year after the former tenant has vacated the rented premises and a failure to comply with this rule exposes the landlord to $25,000 and $100,000 fines.
4. Landlords who apply for above guideline rent increases based on capital work are also exposed to liability for “any issue” the tenant wants to raise in response. If the Board believes the landlord has seriously breached maintenance obligations, a rent freeze will be imposed until such time as the landlord applies for and receives clearance that the maintenance issues have been corrected. Another example of legalized “trial by ambush.
Some Positive Changes
1. Afew crumbs were tossed to the landlord by the Government: for example, landlords will no longer have to pay 6% interest on last months rent (LMR) deposits. The interest rate, effective February 1, 2007, will be equal to rent increase guideline: 2.6%.
2. Landlords will now be able to get possession of a rental unit for a person who provides or will provide “care services” to the landlord or a member of the landlord’s immediate family.
3. An expedited eviction process is available in situations where it can be shown that the tenant is causing willful damage and/or using the premises in a manner inconsistent with that of a rental unit (ie. a marijuana grow-op). Such eviction orders can also contain a direction to the Sheriff to enforce the eviction in priority to all other eviction orders.