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.
I'm confused by the email the trustee sent the OP about staying in the house if she cooperated with the estate. I find it hard to believe that there was any intention to allow her to stay indefinitely. Maybe the email was unclear, but who in their right mind would expect this family to allow her remain in this house rent and utility-free permanently? The OP should have used the months after the death of her employer to get her ducks in a row. What a mess.
I'm confused by the email the trustee sent the OP about staying in the house if she cooperated with the estate. I find it hard to believe that there was any intention to allow her to stay indefinitely. Maybe the email was unclear, but who in their right mind would expect this family to allow her remain in this house rent and utility-free permanently? The OP should have used the months after the death of her employer to get her ducks in a row. What a mess.
Not the issue. The right of the owner to remove the tenant is clear. Notice to vacate than eviction if not vacated is the proper and standard route. However cutting off utilities violates California statutes and has a substantial penalty - $100 per day.
If the owner had proceeded in the standard way none of this drama would have occurred. Reasonable heirs would also have seen to resolving pay claims though that is a different issue. The nonsense here about taxes is just the standard CD pro LL bias. No meat.
Not the issue. The right of the owner to remove the tenant is clear. Notice to vacate than eviction if not vacated is the proper and standard route. However cutting off utilities violates California statutes and has a substantial penalty - $100 per day.
If the owner had proceeded in the standard way none of this drama would have occurred. Reasonable heirs would also have seen to resolving pay claims though that is a different issue. The nonsense here about taxes is just the standard CD pro LL bias. No meat.
True words of wisdom from the above poster:
"If the owner had proceeded in the standard way none of this drama would have occurred."
Reasonable people would never have acted in this manner. Get your utilities back on, get your life together, and get out of there and away from these crazy people!!! It is people like these that give kind hearted members of the human race a bad name.
Not the issue. The right of the owner to remove the tenant is clear. Notice to vacate than eviction if not vacated is the proper and standard route. However cutting off utilities violates California statutes and has a substantial penalty - $100 per day.
If the owner had proceeded in the standard way none of this drama would have occurred. Reasonable heirs would also have seen to resolving pay claims though that is a different issue. The nonsense here about taxes is just the standard CD pro LL bias. No meat.
I agree with you on reasonable heirs and the back pay issue...however for everything else you are speculating. First, its not shown the OP was ever actually a tenant. Second, OP never stated the LL turned off the water...Water was turned off, but was it turned off by the utility when notified of a death, or by the LL? We do not know and the answer to that question is important.
$100/day wont be applied by any reasonable judge if the new owner can show that 1) THEY did not turn the water off, the utility company did when notified of death 2) the title was not in their name yet, so they had no authority to turn it on.
A normal eviction process will certainly work, but there are special laws governing live-in care givers.
I agree with you on reasonable heirs and the back pay issue...however for everything else you are speculating. First, its not shown the OP was ever actually a tenant. Second, OP never stated the LL turned off the water...Water was turned off, but was it turned off by the utility when notified of a death, or by the LL? We do not know and the answer to that question is important.
$100/day wont be applied by any reasonable judge if the new owner can show that 1) THEY did not turn the water off, the utility company did when notified of death 2) the title was not in their name yet, so they had no authority to turn it on.
A normal eviction process will certainly work, but there are special laws governing live-in care givers.
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.
the reason I'm staying: I have no where else to go. My dog just gave birth to puppies, so no one is going to rent to me. they are too little to find homes for, I have no money to move. I don't have savings ( My dog had o have a C-section that took my savings of 4000.)
Someone that has little savings spent 4000 dollars on a DOG for a c section? Wow your special.
Someone that has little savings spent 4000 dollars on a DOG for a c section? Wow your special.
In a previous post, the OP clarified that her "savings" was actually the availability to make charges on her credit card and she charged the ER vet care to the card and is now maxed out on her card. There never was liquid savings, merely the ability to use her charge card has been lost.
I'm guessing that they have asked her multiple times in multiple ways to leave. But she isn't *getting it.*
So they finally shut off the utilities to force her to get out, which she is still refusing to do.
But again just guessing. There are always two or three sides to every story.
When one is trying to remove a tenant, caregiver, or squatter occupying a property, asking them to leave multiple times, even in multiple ways, is not going to cut it. Nor is shutting off the utilities. Depending on the jurisdiction and circumstances, the landlord could even end up spending a while in jail. One needs to follow the letter of the law, which is generally quite explicit and strictly enforced. If the person/people in charge had done that, I think she would have been gone long ago, unless there is more to this story.
Originally Posted by DebNashua View Post
I'm confused by the email the trustee sent the OP about staying in the house if she cooperated with the estate. I find it hard to believe that there was any intention to allow her to stay indefinitely. Maybe the email was unclear, but who in their right mind would expect this family to allow her remain in this house rent and utility-free permanently? The OP should have used the months after the death of her employer to get her ducks in a row. What a mess.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lvmensch
Not the issue. The right of the owner to remove the tenant is clear. Notice to vacate than eviction if not vacated is the proper and standard route. However cutting off utilities violates California statutes and has a substantial penalty - $100 per day.
If the owner had proceeded in the standard way none of this drama would have occurred. Reasonable heirs would also have seen to resolving pay claims though that is a different issue. The nonsense here about taxes is just the standard CD pro LL bias. No meat.
Well, I was not commenting on the legality of it, just mystified that the OP somehow thought that she had a place to live for free indefinitely. Regardless of the right and wrong way to get her out, surely the OP didn't think she would be welcome to stay there for forever. She had a pretty generous amount of time after the man died to start to get her affairs in order, that didn't happen and now she is in this big mess.
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.
