The plaintiffs resided at a residential property located at 29 Spring Street, West Warwick, Rhode Island (Property). Plaintiffs Gregoire and Traynor entered into a residential lease agreement with Due North Investments, LLC (Due North). 

Baird Properties, LLC (Baird, or landlord) held a mortgage on the Property. As a result of default by Due North, Baird foreclosed on the Property and acquired title to the Property by way of a foreclosure deed recorded on December 5, 2012. By letter dated September 7, 2012, Baird notified tenants, including those residing at the Property, that it was acting on behalf of Southbridge Savings Bank (Southbridge) and that as of that date all rental payments should be made to Southbridge and delivered to Baird. The letter also stated that rental payments should no longer be paid to either Due North or its principals, Robert and Linda Carye. The following day, Due North sent a letter to the tenants advising that, until an actual foreclosure deed is recorded, rent must be paid to Due North, and that the letter sent the previous day from Baird should be ignored. Furthermore, the letter stated that Michael Baird and any employee or agent of Baird were forbidden from entry on the Property. Finally, Due North represented itself as owner and landlord of the Property and stated that the tenants remained tenants of Due North and that rent was timely due to Due North, with the consequence of eviction if the rent was not timely paid to Due North. As a result of this confusion and upon advice of counsel, the tenants did not pay the November 2012 rent to either Due North or Baird. The tenants were current with Due North for all rent due through October 2012. Defendant Michael Baird is the principal of the landlord, Baird, and, at all times pertinent to this action, acted as an agent of the landlord, and not individually.

Mr. Traynor and Ms. Gregoire testified credibly that, amidst this ownership confusion, Mr. Baird showed up at the Property, unannounced, on December 9, 2012. He commenced a conversation with Mr. Traynor and Ms. Gregoire on the sidewalk outside the Property. He stated that if they wished to continue their tenancy at the Property, they had to appear at his office before noon the next day to sign a new lease, pay back rent, and pay an additional security deposit. Mr. Baird stated that failure to appear at his office the following day would result in his turning off the water and electricity. Ms. Gregoire corroborated Mr. Traynor’s description of what Mr. Baird had told them that morning. She characterized Mr. Baird’s statement as a threat. Ms. Gregoire and Mr. Traynor testified that they had paid the September and October 2012 rent and the security deposit to Due North, but that, due to the conflicting letters received in September 2012, and upon advice of counsel, they did not pay the November 2012 rent either to Due North or Baird.

Do you think that the plaintiffs can be required to pay rent to Baird? Does the new owner of the property have the right to threaten the plaintiffs if they do not sign a new lease?