If there's a lease in place, that lease continues unabated.

If the new owner wants the tenants out, the tenants have to agree to break the lease. Otherwise the tenants can continue to live there until their lease runs out.

It doesn't matter whether these are the best options for the owner(s). They're the only options.

Yes - I understand how leasing works (although you can absolutely build a termination clause in for either/all sides).

That's why I say make it the current owners responsibility if you don't want tenants there: They must either invoke their termination clause (and usually pay a fee), or offer to buy the tenants out, or pay you some penalty fee for every day the house remains occupied after sale.

Alternatively - if you plan on gutting the place anyways, and their lease is due to expire in less than 6 months: Leave them in place and keep the property bringing in some income while you schedule contractors and line up work.

> I say make it the current owners responsibility if you don't want tenants there:

I can't say there has never been a home seller that would agree to that. I can say I never ran into it at our office, nor have I heard of it. Commercial real estate does all kinds of build-to-suit but residential property is generally sold as-is, with any improvements done before listing.

In this market tho, sellers don't listen to buyer conditions. They just go to the next all-cash buyer who's probably offering over list price.

> if you don't want tenants there: They must either invoke their termination clause (and usually pay a fee)

Again here, I've never heard of a residential lease with a fee-based termination clause, nor prepared one or had one as a tenant. One possibility is that it's not legal in areas I've lived but I don't know. I'm visiting the attorney (now ret) this week so I'll ask.

> if you plan on gutting the place anyways, and their lease is due to expire in less than 6 months: Leave them in place and keep the property bringing in some income while you schedule contractors and line up work.

This is generally how it goes. That and the keys for cash thing you alluded to earlier. However tenants are less likely to take the latter because moving costs are typically equal to 2mos-6mos rent - and because renters have nowhere to go. Rent cost skyrocketed (15-120% here) and what few rentals there are have 40-400 applicants each.

notes: I was offered a cash-for-keys recently when our previous rental was sold. Unsurprisingly, that seller stiffed us so it's small claims.

My ex and her bf have been squatting in a foreclosure for the past few years. They generally kept it up. The buyer is letting them stay for another month until the remodel begins.

> Again here, I've never heard of a residential lease with a fee-based termination clause, nor prepared one or had one as a tenant. One possibility is that it's not legal in areas I've lived but I don't know. I'm visiting the attorney (now ret) this week so I'll ask.

I've literally never had a residential lease that hasn't included a termination clause. Generally speaking, both parties agree up front that the other party may request termination in exchange for compensation (in my experience, 3 months rent is typical, although I've seen fixed payments as well).

Commercial is a different beast, since generally subletting is approved, and space customization is expected (the business will adjust the space as needed for commercial use, like changing walls, installing shelves/chairs/tables, adding or removing kitchen space, etc.)