Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Very improbable that an IRS issue exists and if it did it would be more likely on the estate rather than the caregiver.
How do you know it's "very improbable," since the OP hasn't ever said how she was paid and what the conditions of her employment were (and I think she's been asked a few times)? If the OP was paid under the table, then of course she WOULD owe taxes on said payments (and yes, the estate would be in trouble as well, but that wouldn't excuse the employee).
It's odd that she hasn't contacted the Department of Labor -- or at least she hasn't said she did, which it seems like would have been the first step, months ago.
I understand your frustration. There is nothing you can do about the relatives not caring, you can't force anyone to care. We had a squatter (or two) in my old MIL's house in the city, yes we turned off the water and the electricity.
You keep saying you were a tenant, were you paying rent? Or was it part of your salary?
Take out all the emotions--none of that matters. Facts--stick with the facts. In the court of law it will not matter who cared about their father more.
I am still unsure whether or not you were paid legally or not. Were you paying taxes on your income? Were you filing your income tax returns? Did you claim your income from that you received from being a caregiver?
If you were not paying taxes on your income you might want to quietly move on.
More than 'was taxes paid' is the issue.
Was Marie a household employee based on the federal and state laws? I am guessing she was. Now, did the elderly man have a tax id number and did he deduct social security and Medicare taxes from her salary and file quarterly with the state, as required for household employers? Did he pay her unemployment, disability, etc. to the state? Again, quarterly filings were required, as this is CA. If these filings were made, and Marie is a legal employee, then why has she not claimed unemployment benefits?
I am guessing that she was an illegal employee.
Or perhaps she was an independent contractor and she received a 1099 for her services? Again though, she would be able to prove her salary with the 1099 from last year, even if paid in cash.
Or is there a tax evasion issue from last year? And no proof of salary amount, if paid in cash?
Marie, in answer to the how to get water, it too has been answered many times:
1. get an attorney
2. file a claim in court
3. do not expect to see a cent, as the attorney costs will take all the money
4. expect the court to order you evicted within 60 days, water at your expense for 60 days, and an eviction on your record, good luck renting again in the next 10 years....
How do you know it's "very improbable," since the OP hasn't ever said how she was paid and what the conditions of her employment were (and I think she's been asked a few times)? If the OP was paid under the table, then of course she WOULD owe taxes on said payments (and yes, the estate would be in trouble as well, but that wouldn't excuse the employee).
It's odd that she hasn't contacted the Department of Labor -- or at least she hasn't said she did, which it seems like would have been the first step, months ago.
Sorry but the IRS virtually never gets involved in such cases. She will owe virtually nothing and it costs to investigate. If they see a pattern upon the part of the decedent they might chase the estate...but that is also unlikely. Again no return for the investigation dollar. Now if it came up in the filing of some tax return than perhaps. But even then only if the tax return got audited for some other reason.
And there is no mechanism that would report the situation to the IRS. And if carried out in cash there is unlikely to be any written record. The estate could file paperwork I suppose...but then they would have to pay their part.
Marie, in answer to the how to get water, it too has been answered many times:
1. get an attorney
2. file a claim in court
3. do not expect to see a cent, as the attorney costs will take all the money
4. expect the court to order you evicted within 60 days, water at your expense for 60 days, and an eviction on your record, good luck renting again in the next 10 years....
Nope. Statute is quite clear and precise. She gets $100 per day and legal costs. And that is all in the statute.
Kindly cite the special laws governing live-in care givers. I don't believe there is any such in CA.
So far around the www I found lawyers about 3 to 1 that OP would be a tenant. So how about some cites that you are in fact correct?
And actually it makes no difference how the water got turned off. The LL has a duty to provide habitable quarters which in CA requires hot and cold water.
I have had numerous live in nannies for my children. I am in CA now and can say that CA does not, ever, refer to the live in household employees as tenants in their state documents. They fall under the household employee program and the state uses the term that 'lodging is provided' as part of the compensation package and goes into lots of rules about if the lodging and meals are taxable benefits or not. See this link to the state page
Look at about page 9 or so. This is the program that should have been followed if Marie was a legal employee, in my opinion.
Now, its likely that Marie is an illegal employee or was a contract employee with a 1099 instead of a W-2, but she should have been a household employee with a w-2 for taxes, and in that case she is an employee with lodging as part of her compensation package....not a tenant.
And that is what lets one call the police and have a terminated employee removed from the premises immediately. Even if they lived there for a long, long time. Acknowledged, some police departments will not do that...some will....depends on their level of understanding....and if someone let them remain in the house after they were terminated....which happened with Marie.
I have had numerous live in nannies for my children. I am in CA now and can say that CA does not, ever, refer to the live in household employees as tenants in their state documents. They fall under the household employee program and the state uses the term that 'lodging is provided' as part of the compensation package and goes into lots of rules about if the lodging and meals are taxable benefits or not. See this link to the state page
Look at about page 9 or so. This is the program that should have been followed if Marie was a legal employee, in my opinion.
Now, its likely that Marie is an illegal employee or was a contract employee with a 1099 instead of a W-2, but she should have been a household employee with a w-2 for taxes, and in that case she is an employee with lodging as part of her compensation package....not a tenant.
And that is what lets one call the police and have a terminated employee removed from the premises immediately. Even if they lived there for a long, long time. Acknowledged, some police departments will not do that...some will....depends on their level of understanding....and if someone let them remain in the house after they were terminated....which happened with Marie.
Your cite in no way deals with the issue. Tenancy is never mentioned and lodging does not come up in the context.
It appears however that a termination of employment by the death of the owner does effectively terminate the tenancy and a unlawful detainer action is appropriate.
California Code of Civil Procedure, Sec. 1161. A tenant of real property, for a term less than life, or the executor or administrator of his or her estate heretofore qualified and now acting or hereafter to be qualified and act, is guilty of unlawful detainer:
1. When he or she continues in possession, in person or by subtenant, of the property, or any part thereof, after the expiration of the term for which it is let to him or her; provided the expiration is of a nondefault nature however brought about without the permission of his or her landlord, or the successor in estate of his or her landlord, if applicable; including the case where the person to be removed became the occupant of the premises as a servant, employee, agent, or licensee and the relation of master and servant, or employer and employee, or principal and agent, or licensor and licensee, has been lawfully terminated or the time fixed for occupancy by the agreement between the parties has expired; but nothing in this subdivision shall be construed as preventing the removal of the occupant in any other lawful manner; but in case of a tenancy at will, it must first be terminated by notice, as prescribed in the Civil Code.
I would see one potential problem for the new owner. The note from the decedent may well provide tenancy outside employment and thus require termination by notice.
Lol, yeah right.. $100 per day for the lawful period of her tenancy, which ended before the water was turned off.
How does adding a dead guy into the mix make squatting in someone else's house palatable to you guys?
Is it like a park, where since "no one owns it", it's somehow ok to dump your junk refrigerator there?
Read the thread. Tenancy has been kicked too death. She is a tenant and not a trespasser. Same as a month to month tenant who has been noticed to leave. Can be evicted but is a tenant until that is done.
And the note from the decedent may give OP an even better claim to tenancy than just employment.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
