USA Foreclosure Wiki

Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act — 12 U.S.C. § 5220 note (Pub. L. 111-22, tit. VII)

16 min read

Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act — 12 U.S.C. § 5220 note

Federal-authority reference page. Legal information, not legal advice. Last verified: 2026-06-02.

Overview

The Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act of 2009 (PTFA) is the federal floor of protection for bona fide tenants living in residential property that changes hands through foreclosure. Enacted as Title VII of the Helping Families Save Their Homes Act of 2009 (Pub. L. 111-22, May 20, 2009, 123 Stat. 1660), its operative provision — § 702 — is codified as a statutory note to 12 U.S.C. § 5220 (the parallel Section 8 amendment, § 703, is codified as a note to 42 U.S.C. § 1437f). The Act originally carried a sunset; it lapsed on December 31, 2014, and was restored, revived, and made permanent by § 304 of the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act (Pub. L. 115-174, May 24, 2018), effective 30 days after enactment (June 23, 2018). (Source: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=%28title%3A12+section%3A5220+edition%3Aprelim%29 , retrieved 2026-06-02.)

The PTFA does two things for a tenant whose landlord loses the property at a foreclosure sale: (1) it entitles the tenant to at least 90 days’ written notice to vacate, and (2) it lets a bona fide tenant remain through the end of the existing lease term, except where the buyer will occupy the unit as a primary residence (in which case the 90-day floor still applies). The “immediate successor in interest” — the foreclosing lender, a third-party purchaser, an REO holder, or an assignee such as Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac — takes title subject to these rights.

Where this federal layer sits relative to state foreclosure law is the key structural point. The PTFA is a floor, not a ceiling: it expressly does not displace “any State or local law that provides longer time periods or other additional protections for tenants.” So in a jurisdiction with stronger just-cause or notice rules (e.g., california, new-jersey, the district-of-columbia), the stronger rule governs; in a state with weaker tenant protection, the PTFA 90-day floor controls. It also preempts state law that is less protective of tenants. (Source: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=%28title%3A12+section%3A5220+edition%3Aprelim%29 , retrieved 2026-06-02; Mik v. Fed. Home Loan Mortg. Corp., 743 F.3d 149, 165 (6th Cir. 2014), http://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/14a0030p-06.pdf , retrieved 2026-06-02.)

Although the PTFA arose from the mortgage-foreclosure crisis and its trigger is “any foreclosure on a federally-related mortgage loan or on any dwelling or residential real property,” its operative text reaches any foreclosure, including a tax foreclosure that extinguishes the prior owner’s title and transfers it to a purchaser — see How it interacts with tax sales below. The phrase “federally-related mortgage loan” borrows the broad RESPA definition (12 U.S.C. § 2602), and the residual “or on any dwelling or residential real property” clause is not limited to mortgage debt.

Statutory / regulatory framework

§ 702 — Effect of foreclosure on preexisting tenancy (12 U.S.C. § 5220 note)

The operative text, as restored and in force, provides:

“(a) In General.—In the case of any foreclosure on a federally-related mortgage loan or on any dwelling or residential real property after the date of enactment of this title [May 20, 2009], any immediate successor in interest in such property pursuant to the foreclosure shall assume such interest subject to— (1) the provision, by such successor in interest of a notice to vacate to any bona fide tenant at least 90 days before the effective date of such notice; and (2) the rights of any bona fide tenant— (A) under any bona fide lease entered into before the notice of foreclosure to occupy the premises until the end of the remaining term of the lease, except that a successor in interest may terminate a lease effective on the date of sale of the unit to a purchaser who will occupy the unit as a primary residence, subject to the receipt by the tenant of the 90 day notice under paragraph (1); or (B) without a lease or with a lease terminable at will under State law, subject to the receipt by the tenant of the 90 day notice under [paragraph] (1), except that nothing under this section shall affect the requirements for termination of any Federal- or State-subsidized tenancy or of any State or local law that provides longer time periods or other additional protections for tenants.”

(Source: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=%28title%3A12+section%3A5220+edition%3Aprelim%29 , retrieved 2026-06-02. Quoted verbatim. § 702 as amended by Pub. L. 111-203, § 1484(1), July 21, 2010.)

The closing savings clause is the federal-versus-state pivot: the PTFA never reduces a stronger state/local protection and never shortens a federally- or State-subsidized tenancy’s own termination requirements.

§ 702(b) — “Bona fide” lease or tenancy (three-part test)

Only a bona fide tenancy receives PTFA protection. The statute defines it exhaustively:

“(b) Bona Fide Lease or Tenancy.—For purposes of this section, a lease or tenancy shall be considered bona fide only if— (1) the mortgagor or the child, spouse, or parent of the mortgagor under the contract is not the tenant; (2) the lease or tenancy was the result of an arms-length transaction; and (3) the lease or tenancy requires the receipt of rent that is not substantially less than fair market rent for the property or the unit’s rent is reduced or subsidized due to a Federal, State, or local subsidy.”

(Source: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=%28title%3A12+section%3A5220+edition%3Aprelim%29 , retrieved 2026-06-02. Quoted verbatim.)

The test screens out sham and insider tenancies (the defaulting owner, or the owner’s immediate family, cannot claim PTFA protection) and below-market arrangements that are not subsidy-based. All three prongs must be satisfied.

§ 702(c) — “federally-related mortgage loan” and “notice of foreclosure”

“(c) Definition.—For purposes of this section, the term ‘federally-related mortgage loan’ has the same meaning as in section 3 of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act of 1974 (12 U.S.C. 2602). For purposes of this section, the date of a notice of foreclosure shall be deemed to be the date on which complete title to a property is transferred to a successor entity or person as a result of an order of a court or pursuant to provisions in a mortgage, deed of trust, or security deed.”

(Source: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=%28title%3A12+section%3A5220+edition%3Aprelim%29 , retrieved 2026-06-02. Quoted verbatim.)

The “date of a notice of foreclosure” is fixed at complete-title transfer. This matters for § 702(2)(A): a lease is protected if it was “entered into before the notice of foreclosure,” i.e., before title transferred to the successor.

§ 703 — Effect of foreclosure on Section 8 tenancies (42 U.S.C. § 1437f note / amendment)

Section 703 of Pub. L. 111-22 amended the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program so that a successor in interest at foreclosure of a unit occupied by a voucher tenant assumes the lease and the housing assistance payments (HAP) contract:

“In the case of any foreclosure on any federally-related mortgage loan … or on any residential real property in which a recipient of assistance under this subsection resides, the immediate successor in interest in such property pursuant to the foreclosure shall assume such interest subject to the lease between the prior owner and the tenant and to the housing assistance payments contract between the prior owner and the public housing agency for the occupied unit, except that this provision … shall not … affect any State or local law that provides longer time periods or other additional protections for tenants.”

(Source: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=%28title%3A42+section%3A1437f+edition%3Aprelim%29 , 12 U.S.C. § 1437f(o)(7) HAP-contract clause, retrieved 2026-06-02. Quoted verbatim; the duplicated “shall not shall not” is a known scrivener artifact noted in the official codification.)

Sunset, restoration, and permanence

  • Original sunset: § 704 of Pub. L. 111-22 (as amended) terminated Title VII and its amendments effective December 31, 2014.
  • Restoration / repeal of sunset: Pub. L. 115-174, tit. III, § 304(a), (c), May 24, 2018, 132 Stat. 1339, repealed § 704, effective 30 days after May 24, 2018.
  • Revival, permanent: § 304(b) provided that “Sections 701 through 703 of the Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act of 2009 … as were in effect on December 30, 2014, are restored and revived.” The revived Act carries no expiration date.

(Source: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=%28title%3A42+section%3A1437f+edition%3Aprelim%29 , § 304(b) revival note, retrieved 2026-06-02; structure (§§ 701–704) confirmed at https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-111publ22/html/PLAW-111publ22.htm , retrieved 2026-06-02.)

No federal enforcement apparatus / no private right of action

There is no implementing regulation and no agency interpretive authority for § 702; the provision is self-executing, and federal courts of appeals have uniformly held that it creates no private right of action (see Leading cases). A note: a CFR section was searched for but the PTFA’s residential-tenancy core is statute-only — there is no PTFA-specific Code of Federal Regulations rule conferring a private remedy. HUD published one occupied-conveyance guidance item (75 Fed. Reg. 66385, Oct. 28, 2010) addressed to FHA conveyance practice, not a tenant remedy. needs_verification — exact present-day operative status of the 2010 HUD occupied- conveyance guidance (whether superseded) was not re-confirmed against a current primary source for this page.

How it interacts with tax sales and foreclosure

The operational reality:

  1. Mortgage foreclosure (the core case). After a sheriff-sale or non-judicial trustee sale, the buyer/REO holder takes title subject to a bona fide tenant’s 90-day floor and unexpired lease. The buyer cannot treat the tenant as a holdover and cannot use a post-sale eviction faster than 90 days, regardless of contrary state summary-process timelines that are shorter.

  2. Tax foreclosure / tax-deed sale. The PTFA’s text reaches “any … foreclosure … on any dwelling or residential real property” and fixes the “notice of foreclosure” date at complete-title transfer (§ 702(c)). A purchaser at a treasurer-sale / tax-deed sale who acquires complete title to an occupied residential parcel is an “immediate successor in interest” and — on the face of the statute — owes the bona-fide tenant the same 90-day notice and lease-through-term. The Act is not limited to mortgage debt: the mortgage-loan clause and the residual residential-real- property clause are disjunctive (“or”). needs_verification — a controlling appellate decision squarely applying § 702 to a tax-deed purchaser (as opposed to a mortgage foreclosure successor) was not located in a retrieved primary source; the conclusion here rests on the statutory text, not on a tax-specific holding.

  3. Redemption-period overlap. Where a tax sale carries a post-sale right-of-redemption, “complete title” may not pass to the purchaser until the redemption period expires and a deed issues; the PTFA’s 90-day clock keys to that complete-title transfer, so the tenant’s federal protection typically attaches when the purchaser perfects title — not at the auction strike.

  4. No surplus connection. The PTFA governs occupancy, not money. It does not create or affect any surplus-funds claim; a displaced tenant is generally not a surplus claimant (the surplus waterfall runs to lienholders and the former owner). The two federal layers are independent.

  5. Self-help is barred in practice. The Act targets successors who “simply lock the doors” without judicial process. Because the PTFA functions defensively, a successor who pursues a lawful eviction gives the tenant a forum to raise it; a successor who uses self-help exposes itself to state-law wrongful-eviction liability that incorporates the PTFA standard (see Mik, below).

▸ For Investors / Operators. If you acquire occupied residential property at foreclosure — mortgage or tax — assume the PTFA rides with title. Before you model an eviction timeline: (a) screen the occupant against the § 702(b) bona-fide test (insider/family, arms-length, fair-or-subsidized rent); a sham tenant gets nothing, a bona-fide tenant gets 90 days minimum and possibly the full unexpired lease unless you will owner-occupy; (b) check whether the state/local rule is stronger (just-cause, longer notice) — that, not the 90-day floor, then controls; (c) if a Section 8 HAP contract exists, you inherit it, not just the lease; (d) never use self-help — a violation can become a state wrongful-eviction tort even though the PTFA itself gives the tenant no damages claim. Diligence-cost this into acquisition, not post-close.

▸ For Former Owners. The PTFA protects tenants, not the foreclosed owner, and a mortgagor’s own family living in the home is excluded by § 702(b)(1). If you were a genuine arms-length renter (not the prior owner), you are entitled to at least 90 days’ notice and, if you signed a real lease before title transferred, the right to stay through your lease term — unless the buyer will live there. Your separate money rights after a sale (any surplus-funds you may be owed as a former owner) are a different process entirely.

Leading cases

  • Logan v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 722 F.3d 1163 (9th Cir. 2013) (filed July 16, 2013). On an issue of first impression, the Ninth Circuit held that the PTFA “neither explicitly nor impliedly creates a private right of action allowing Logan to enforce the PTFA.” The court read § 702 as focusing on the regulated party (the successor in interest) rather than conferring a privately enforceable right, and quoted the district consensus that “the PTFA only provides tenants with federal defenses to eviction but does not create a federal ejectment claim or any private right of action.” Good law; followed by the Sixth Circuit in Mik. (Source: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2013/07/16/10-55671.pdf , retrieved 2026-06-02.)

  • Mik v. Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp., 743 F.3d 149 (6th Cir. 2014) (filed Feb. 7, 2014; panel Gibbons, Stranch, Hood, D.J.). Holding: “the PTFA does not provide an express or implied private right of action.” But the court reversed dismissal of the tenants’ state-law claims, holding that the absence of a federal private right “does not disable” a state wrongful-eviction claim that incorporates the PTFA standard, and that the “PTFA preempts state law that is less protective of tenants.” The court expressly recognized that “tenants can invoke the PTFA as a defense to an unlawful detainer action,” and that where a successor uses self-help instead of judicial process, tenants “must be permitted to use available state law causes of action, such as wrongful eviction, to enforce the PTFA’s protections.” Cited ~97 times; good law. (Source: http://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/14a0030p-06.pdf , retrieved 2026-06-02; citation/citation-count confirmed via CourtListener https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2652618/paul-mik-jr-v-fed-home-loan-mortg-corp/ , retrieved 2026-06-02.)

Doctrinal takeaway: the PTFA is a shield, not a sword. It is raised defensively in state eviction/unlawful-detainer proceedings and can supply the standard of conduct for a state wrongful-eviction tort, but it does not, by itself, support a federal damages suit. It also preempts weaker state law while preserving stronger state/local law.

State interaction notes

Because the PTFA is a federal floor with an express “longer time periods or other additional protections” savings clause, its real-world effect is uneven across the 56 jurisdictions:

  • States that already exceed the floor — the PTFA is largely subsumed. Jurisdictions with just-cause eviction, longer post-foreclosure notice, or statutory lease survival give tenants more than 90 days, so the stronger state rule controls. Examples to reconcile on their pages: california (90-day+ post-foreclosure notice and just-cause regime), new-jersey (Anti-Eviction Act good-cause protection), and the district-of-columbia (strong tenant-retention rules). needs_verification — the precise current notice/just-cause figures for each were not re-pulled from primary statutes for this federal page; confirm on the jurisdiction page.

  • States at or below the floor — the PTFA’s 90-day minimum and lease-through-term become the operative protection, overriding shorter state summary-process timelines for bona-fide tenants. This is where the federal layer does the most work.

  • Tax-sale states specifically. In states where a tax-deed or tax-foreclosure purchaser receives complete title to occupied residential property (e.g., florida, texas, georgia, arizona), the PTFA text reaches the acquiring purchaser, but many state tax-sale statutes are silent on tenant occupancy and instead route the purchaser to ordinary ejectment/forcible-entry remedies — into which the PTFA 90-day defense then imports. needs_verification — jurisdiction-specific confirmation that a tax-deed purchaser is treated as a PTFA “successor in interest” under each state’s case law was not retrieved; treat as text-based until a jurisdiction page verifies.

  • Procedural reality everywhere. Because Logan and Mik foreclose a federal damages remedy, the tenant’s leverage is (1) raising the 90-day/lease-term defense inside the state possessory action and (2) a state wrongful-eviction tort if the successor used self-help. The strength of remedy (2) is itself state-law-dependent.

Cross-reference each jurisdiction page’s tenancy/eviction and Module 6 (due process / notice) entries for the controlling state figure.

tyler-v-hennepin-county, surplus-funds, due-process-notice, sheriff-sale, treasurer-sale, right-of-redemption, scra-foreclosure-protection, bankruptcy-automatic-stay-federal, california, new-jersey, district-of-columbia, florida, texas, georgia, arizona

Sources

  • {statute, https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=%28title%3A12+section%3A5220+edition%3Aprelim%29, retrieved 2026-06-02} — 12 U.S.C. § 5220 statutory note “Effect of Foreclosure on Preexisting Tenancy”: full § 702(a) (90-day notice, lease-through-term, primary-residence carve-out, savings clause), § 702(b) bona-fide three-part test, § 702(c) definitions; editorial notes on Pub. L. 111-22, Pub. L. 111-203 § 1484(1), the Dec. 31, 2014 § 704 sunset, and the Pub. L. 115-174 § 304 repeal/restoration effective 30 days after May 24, 2018. Quoted verbatim.
  • {statute, https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=%28title%3A42+section%3A1437f+edition%3Aprelim%29, retrieved 2026-06-02} — 42 U.S.C. § 1437f(o)(7): § 703 Section 8 HAP-contract assumption on foreclosure + savings clause; § 304(b) revival note (“Sections 701 through 703 … restored and revived”).
  • {statute, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-111publ22/html/PLAW-111publ22.htm, retrieved 2026-06-02} — Pub. L. 111-22 official text; confirms Title VII section structure: § 701 short title, § 702 preexisting tenancy, § 703 Section 8 tenancies, § 704 sunset.
  • {case, http://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/14a0030p-06.pdf, retrieved 2026-06-02} — Mik v. Fed. Home Loan Mortg. Corp., 743 F.3d 149 (6th Cir. 2014): no express/implied private right of action; PTFA usable as eviction defense and to support state wrongful-eviction claim; preempts less-protective state law. Official Sixth Circuit slip opinion (PDF extracted via pdftotext).
  • {case, https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2652618/paul-mik-jr-v-fed-home-loan-mortg-corp/, retrieved 2026-06-02} — CourtListener metadata corroborating Mik citation 743 F.3d 149, docket 12-6051, filed 2014-02-07, panel Gibbons/Stranch/Hood, cite count 97 (good-law check).
  • {case, https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2013/07/16/10-55671.pdf, retrieved 2026-06-02} — Logan v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 722 F.3d 1163 (9th Cir. 2013): PTFA creates no private right of action; “provides tenants with federal defenses to eviction.” Official Ninth Circuit slip opinion (PDF extracted via pdftotext).
  • {agency, https://www.federalreserve.gov/supervisionreg/caletters/caltr1804.htm, retrieved 2026-06-02} — Fed CA 18-4: corroborates Dec. 31, 2014 lapse and Pub. L. 115-174 § 304 restoration effective June 23, 2018 (secondary/agency corroboration only).
  • {needs_verification} — present-day operative status of HUD 2010 occupied-conveyance guidance (75 Fed. Reg. 66385); a controlling appellate decision applying § 702 specifically to a tax-deed purchaser; jurisdiction-specific current notice/just-cause figures for CA/NJ/DC and tax-sale-state successor-in-interest treatment. Flagged in body; not asserted as established law.

Disclaimer. This page is legal information, not legal advice. It is a general, federal-authority summary that may be incomplete or out of date; law varies by jurisdiction and changes frequently. Nothing here creates an attorney-client relationship. Verify every deadline and statute against the current primary source and consult a licensed attorney in the relevant jurisdiction before acting.

Graph View

Backlinks