
I have a house in Italy that is rented to a tenant, but I want to sell it in order to create liquidity for a new investment. Can I do this? This is a common concern, and it is not unusual for property owners, particularly foreign owners of property in Italy, to be unsure about the rules, and best practices in this situation. We are here to break it down for you.
The buyers perspective: pros and cons of buying a house with a tenant
First things first: selling a house that has already been rented by a tenant is possible without any restrictions, and could even add value to the property, since the buyer - assuming that they do not intend to live in the house themselves - would also be securing a pre-existing source of income along with the four walls the are purchasing. For many potential buyers, this is what a property that already has a tenant represents, as provided that he or she is an honest tenant, they will receive regular rental payments.
The value of a house with a tenant could therefore potentially exceed the market value of the property itself. However, it is somewhat more likely that the presence of a tenant will actually depreciate its value. One has to consider that the buyer does not have the slightest guarantee that even the most honest tenant will not, one day, simply stop making regular payments for whatever reason. In addition, one has to consider the type and duration of his or her lease, which could be such that it delays the new owner's enjoyment of the house too much if they are obliged to maintain it. Finally, buying a house that has already been rented could lead to the loss of the first home bonus.
How the first home bonus is at risk if the house is already rented
From the buyer's point of view, in fact, if the tenant does not vacate the house within 18 months, the buyer may lose the right to benefit from the tax breaks linked to the first home. This is not the case with all buyers, but it could significantly reduce the number of parties interested in buying your property. In order for a house to be considered a "principal residence", it is necessary for the buyer to make it his residence within 18 months of receiving the deed. If at the conclusion of those 18 months the residence is instead in the possession of the existing tenant, the first home bonus for the new owner is likely to lapse. This fact is certainly not to your advantage if you are the owner of the rented property and you wish to sell it. As such, the best advice is to wait to sell your property until the expiry of the lease is less than 18 months away, in order to facilitate the search for new buyers.
It must be said that, despite the seller's assurance that the tenant will vacate the flat within the fateful 18 months, if this does not happen the loss of the first home bonus occurs anyway. The Court of Appeals has in fact ruled (Cass. ord. no. 4591/18 of 28.02.2018) that the only reason why the transfer of residence by the buyer can be delayed without losing the first home benefits is "force majeure", i.e. an inevitable and unforeseeable event. According to the Court of Appeals, buying a house that has already been rented creates a risk that is, to a certain extent, foreseeable and requires caution, and therefore does not qualify.
If you add the hassle of having to manage a possible eviction procedure in the future, which is certainly not an incentive to any potential buyer, the simple conclusion is that if you intend to sell a house with a tenant living there, you should avoid aiming to sell it to buyers who may need it immediately to live in (such as a young couple). Instead, it is better to sell a property in this situation to someone who wants tenants in the property, generally someone looking to buy a house for investment purposes.
Buying a house with a tenant inside: what are potential safeguards?
If a buyer would like to buy the house that is already rented despite this, but also wants to protect themselves from the potential risks, they could, however have a termination clause included in the contract in case the tenant does not move on in time, or at least within a clearly established date, despite the seller's promises. The Court of Naples (judgment in the case registered under RG 340/2008) has ruled that such a clause is entirely legitimate and is to the advantage of both the buyer, who is protected in this way, and the seller, who is assured of another chance to sell his flat should this sale fall through as a result of the tenancy.