When the couple asked their tenants to move after five months, hoping for understanding, they were met with anger and tears instead. The tenants, who had cherished the home and the special bond it symbolized, felt betrayed and desperate. What was meant to be a practical, hopeful step for one family became a storm of raw emotions and conflict, revealing how deeply intertwined lives can be shattered by change.
My husband and I have 2 children. I own our apartment outright and inherited a a 5 bedroom 3 bathroom house. I had no use for it and rented it out to a family with 3 children.
The house comes with a beautiful pool so I asked for only half the market rent with the agreement that we could use the pool if we give 24 hour notice. This worked beautifully for both parties.
My tenants were happy because they could live in what is basically a mansion for very little money and I was happy because my tenants took good care of it.
My husband and I are now expecting babies number 3 and 4(yes twins). I have entered the second trimester and we have come to the conclusion that our 2 bedroom apartment will be too small for us.
The logical next step for us is to move into the big house.
We broke the news to our tenants and gave them 5 months to move out. We didn’t expect them to be thrilled but we thought that they’d accept our decision. Unfortunately they didn’t. There was yellin, tears and threats of legal action.
Now legally we’re in the clear but we are wondering if morally we are the arseholes for wanting to move into the big house.
Conclusion
The original poster (OP) is facing a moral conflict after informing tenants, who enjoyed below-market rent in exchange for pool access, that they need to move out so the OP’s growing family can move into the inherited house. While legally entitled to reclaim their property with five months’ notice, the OP is distressed by the tenants’ extreme negative reaction, which included yelling and threats, leading them to question the morality of their necessary decision.
Given that the OP has a legal right to the property and a genuine need to house their expanding family, is the OP morally wrong for asserting ownership rights, even if it causes significant disruption and emotional distress to long-term, subsidized tenants?
Here’s how people reacted:
Depending on how they are reacting going forward.
I imagine that your tenants thought they would be able to live there for years and years and years, which isn’t unexpected. I would be devasted if I had to move out of my current rented apartment. I really like it, and more importantly, I can afford it. I have raised my family here. But if the owner had to sell it (or live hear themselves), well, that’s what happen sometimes. It would be tiring to find a new place to live, but I know there are options out there in my city.
At the same time, you are giving them 5 months to move out. Depending on your area, that might be just enough time to find a place big enough for them in their income bracket, it might be more than enough time. I don’t know where yall are.
Did you tell them that you never had any plans to use this house yourselves? If you did, than definitely you are TA. But if not, then no. It is a bad situation for them, but they are being given 5 whole months to move themselves.
1) Cram six people in a two bedroom apartment, or
2) Buy/rent another place for your growing family, or
3) Move into the suitable house that you already own.
Anyone on here saying they would choose options 1 or 2 are liars.
What were the terms of the lease? Did they sign a lease for a set amount of time that you’re now breaking because of your desire to take the property over?
Everyone is saying 5 months is “plenty of time” to find a new place, but that is irrespective of housing options in that area, what their mobility is, what their income is, and aside from all that, just puts two people in a pinch.
Seems like it would’ve been more considerable to let the lease term play out, and inform them that they can’t renew at the end.
Why didn’t you just live in the 5bd house in the first place?
You said you “had no use for it” yet apparently you valued access to its pool strongly enough to cheat yourself out of half its rental value. Forgoing what sounds like tens of thousands of dollars a year for occasional pool access would seem to disprove that claim.
It’s big, sure, but you were talking about a family with 2 kids versus 3 — not a huge difference in terms of needs.
Why would you not just enjoy the nicer property in the first place?
As long as you’re not breaking a lease. You gave them a lot of notice to find a new place and just because they also have kids doesn’t give them the right to lay claim to your house. You gave them an amazing deal, it’s over now. They’ve got plenty of notice. So as long as you’re not breaking a lease or a verbal agreement that they could stay longer than when you want them out NTA.
The nature of renting is that you can’t expect to live in the rental forever. This was always a possibility for them. And you aren’t moving on a whim, you are moving because you’re about to have 4 kids in a 2 bedroom apartment. It is a very good reason to want to move into your house.
You gave them a lot of notice, and they reacted very poorly.
(and you’re definitely NTA for needing more than a 2 bedroom place for 4 kids).
5 months is more than enough notice. It’s your house.
Make sure all connection with them from now on is in writing and prepare to hire a lawyer.