[quote author="JLegend" date=1225435908][quote author="IrvineRenter" date=1225361926]There is one important point about rent skimming not discussed above:
"Rent skimming" means using revenue received from the
rental of a parcel of residential real property at any time<strong> during
the first year period after acquiring that property</strong> without first
applying the revenue or an equivalent amount to the payments due on
all mortgages and deeds of trust encumbering that property.
The "first year" provision in the law makes in almost not applicable. When the law was written, the framers probably did not anticipate 100% financing on refis or they probably would have written it differently. If your landlord is skimming your rent, and if they have owned the place for more than one year, there isn't anything you can do about it. It is not illegal. You can sue them for your security deposit after the fact, but if they had the money, they probably would not have let the property go into foreclosure. It is just a bad situation all around.</blockquote>
Right. I'm not aware of any other similar laws above, and assuming there aren't any, there ins't really any recourse a tenant would have against a LL who doesn't pay the mortgage. That is between the LL and his lender. If the tenant is getting the benefit of the bargain (i.e. a home) in exchange for the rent, what can the tenant realistically expect? Now if the tenant's tenancy is at risk in the middle of a leasehold, there may be recourse there.</blockquote>
There is some recourse. You can sue for any rent paid for which you could not occupy the premises. However, since most people only pay 30 days in advance, and since it takes 30 days to evict someone, there is usually not any damages here. The only real recourse the tenant has is for the security deposit. The deadbeat landlord is usually insolvent, so even if you win the case, you can't get blood from a turnip.