Do we have to change our rental agreement

We have six months left on our one-year lease with a property manager. The owner, who lives NOB, has decided to put the house on the market for sale starting as soon as we change the lease. The current lease does not address the selling of the property in any manner.

Our preference is to not do anything and let the lease remain as written. Do we have that right / option?

What to you mean by "change the lease?"

I don't know Mexican law but if it ends in sox months, it ends unless there is a provision that says if you hold over it either converts to a month-to-month deal or automatically renews for the original term.

This is really a question for Lic. Spencer.

If you have a 1 year lease the lease remains in effect despite a sale. Your landlord has the right to show the house with advance notice (usually 24 hours). The new buyer is obligated to honor any lease in effect until it expires.

Thanks for the info.

those pesky tenants

Too bad for the owner that the one-year lease he was so happy to get six months ago is now in the way of his plans. He needs to realize it is unlikely his house will sell in just six months. It is even more unlikely that it will sell in less than six months to a person unable to wait until your lease expires.

You have no obligation to diminish your rights for the landlords comfort by signing a new contract with more restrictive terms

Is it true that a house must be vacant at closing, and that there be no employees, tenants, etc.;  CFE and other utilities are paid off and transferred to the new owner?

Obviously not, since the sale of a house does not invalidate an existing lease which often includes utilities in the tenant's name.

RVGRINGO wrote:Is it true that a house must be vacant at closing, and that there be no employees, tenants, etc.;  CFE and other utilities are paid off and transferred to the new owner?

It should be, but certainly not a legal requirement. This all needs to be written into any deal.

I have sold two homes in Chapala and Ajijic. In both cases the closing documents required that the home be vacant and that employees be paid off and terminated.
I wonder if that can be obviated by agreement between buyer, seller and tenant, and written into a sales contract by the notario.

As has been said, it can be written into the contract but it is not a legal requirement. The lease IS a legal document and has precedent. If the tenant does not give up the rights in the lease, it stands as signed. The seller and buyer can not circumvent the rights of the tenant as stated in the lease.

I understand that, and the fact that such a lease might preclude the sale of the house while occupied by a tenant.
The question is: Can a house even be sold with a tenant in residence? I have my doubts. I know that all employees must be terminated and the sale of my last two homes required that it be vacant.

I am basing my responses on what Spencer said and a friend who has rented and sold multiple houses down here over the last 15 years.

Spencer has not addressed the question of whether a house can be sold with a tenant. He did address the fact that a tenant does not have to diminish his rights under the terms of the lease.
The question remains: Can a tenant occupied house be sold and closed by a notario?

House can be sold but the new owners buy the property subject to the possessor rights and contract the tenant has.

The tricky part could be when the seller leaves the country with his money and then 6 months later the tenant will not move and the new owner needs to evict and the seller cant be found in order to indemnify the buyer or pay the eviction expenses. Also one needs to analyze the contract to make sure the seller didnt buy a papeleria contract that will be difficult to enforce.

Of course, a house can be sold with a tenant under contract, but just be aware of Spencer's caveats.  Why, some people sell their property and continue in residence by renting it back from the new owner. There is a poster on this board who is trying to sell their house under those conditions right now.
Why should the seller be responsible for problems with a tenant six months from the time of closing anymore than he would be responsible for a leaky roof six months down the road, especially if the buyer is collecting the rent for those six months.
The buyer can either accept the situation or not.