Question about Tenant estoppel - first time investor/landlord

[Ian McNairy]

Hi All,

Happy to say I just closed on my first investment property. Its not been an easy process. As part of the deal we received an estoppel for the back house tenant. After closing we gave 30-day notice to this tenant per California law as the signed estoppel had a move-in date within the last year(and we are moving in). The agent contacted us more than 10 days after closing and said the tenant sent her our notice to her and that it was not legal. Turns out they are claiming she has lived there for over 2 years and the original estoppel had the wrong date of tenant move-in (btw, this estoppel was signed by both agent and tenant). This might be true although we did not receive any other documents (leases, bills, etc) with the sale (even though requested). Now the agent is saying we need to give 2 months notice and pay tenant for the last months rent (per cal code). The issue is we made arrangements to take the house over after the 30 days and to change our plans now would cause us financial harm. We are waiting to talk with a lawyer but I thought I'd pose the question here - can an estoppel be revised or superseded by other evidence (utility bills, etc) after the fact? Or can we kindly tell the tenant, "sorry but you signed the document and we made plans based on this so now you must move out?"

[Ian McNairy]

Quote from @Kevin Sobilo:

@Ian McNairy, I'm not going to comment on California law specifically but this is how I would see this playing out in general.

I'm sure the estoppel will not override the state law UNLESS the law says the tenant can sign off on their rights. For example, would California allow you to have a lease that waived those notice requirements. If so, then the estoppel COULD be scene as the tenant doing so. That is likely not the case and you likely need to provide the legal notice requirements assuming they can provide proof of their length of tenancy.

However! That estoppel document is a disclosure and creates a "warranty" that BOTH the tenant and seller are providing you. I would believe that they WOULD BOTH be liable for any loss you incur because of this warranty. So, I would discuss that with them both and see if they want to work something out otherwise I see them both on the losing end of a judgement. Collecting is sometimes difficult, but hopefully the seller has other properties which would be at risk if the judgement is not paid.

You bring up some good points and some things to ponder. Thanks for your comment!