An undisclosed long-term tenant with a handwritten lease surfaces after a probate duplex purchase
Take a probate duplex purchase, a 1920s side by side, both units 2 bed, market rent around 1,250 each in a working class part of town where the numbers still make sense. Purchase price 148k, maybe 30k in deferred work, taxes and insurance around 4,900 a year combined, sourced off a probate filing where the personal representative was an out of state heir who had never seen the building. Unit A vacant as disclosed is the easy half of a deal like this. Unit B is where the real question sits when a long-term occupant nobody knew about turns up. A tenant of eleven years, paying 600 a month in cash directly to the decedent, with a receipt book going back four years, and a handwritten lease with no term stated, is a genuinely hard fact pattern. The estate inventory can list the building as owner occupied with a vacant second unit in complete good faith, since the PR never knew the tenant existed, and standard title work won't turn up an undisclosed occupant either. A case like this usually turns on three questions. First, whether the occupant is a month to month tenant, a holdover, or something else, which is a state law question for an attorney, not a forum thread. Second, what happens to rent: pushing to market rent likely means the tenant leaves and the unit gets rehabbed and re-rented at full value, while a partial increase likely keeps the tenant in place indefinitely at a below-market rate, with the deal's cash on cash return dropping meaningfully, sometimes from around 11 down to around 6.5. Third, whether there's any recourse against the estate for the disclosure gap, which is usually a dead end given a good-faith PR and an as-is purchase from an estate. The harder tension in cases like this is that the humane answer and the financially correct answer are not always the same answer, and that's worth sitting with rather than rushing past.