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 understand, thank you for responding and I agree with you that I need to move and that court is not cheap. Speaking of court not being free, if anyone knows how to file an injunction in California, or has done it or has a good example of one I could use that. There is no premade form on the court forms website for California so I guess that means it has to be done on 28 line pleading paper? this is a little intimidating, but I think I can do it properly with a little guidance. So, if anyone is willing to help Im all eyes and ears.
Why do you want to file an injunction? You do realize that there's fees to file documents in court, right? And then to have people served, there's fees. Instead of fighting this, GO LOOK FOR A JOB! You've had 3 MONTHS of freeloading and not working. There's no excuse.
Even if the OP went to court, the court would likely give him a 60 day eviction order and allow him to open a water account for those 60 days in his name. So, in CA, he likely will need a security deposit for the water of about $200 unless he has spectacular credit.
So even going to court is not going to get him what he wants. And likely he does not have the money to turn on the water.
Since the OP is no longer caring for a client in the home, I doubt that the court would order that he be given water at the property owner's expense.
And his back wages, if any, would be a separate case and likely all the wages are offset by his not vacating the home. I have hired many live in nannies, and there are definite formulas for how much credit room and board is given against the salary. With 3-4 months of room and board or at least room, he likely has exceeded the salary owed by his use of the boarding without providing a service.
OP is a month to month tenant. If the decedent paid the water and power they should both be turned back on at the owners expense. A LL cannot turn off utilities to force out a tenant it violates statute.
The LL only defense is that OP is not a tenant. That is a lost cause I think. The tenant in fact likely has an action against the estate or the new owner for damages if it can be gotten into court. I would also check with the utilities commission for rules about turning off water with a tenant occupying the home.
Further...
Civil Code section 789.3 states that,
“(a) A landlord shall not with intent to terminate the occupancy under any lease or other tenancy or estate at will, however created, of property used by a tenant as his residence willfully cause, directly or indirectly, the interruption or termination of any utility service furnished the tenant, including, but not limited to, water, heat, light, electricity, gas, telephone, elevator, or refrigeration, whether or not the utility service is under the control of the landlord.
and in the penalty section...
(1) Actual damages of the tenant.
(2) An amount not to exceed one hundred dollars ($100) for each day or part thereof the landlord remains in violation of this section. In determining the amount of such award, the court shall consider proof of such matters as justice may require; however, in no event shall less than two hundred fifty dollars ($250) be awarded for each separate cause of action. Subsequent or repeated violations, which are not committed contemporaneously with the initial violation, shall be treated as separate causes of action and shall be subject to a separate award of damages.
So are new owner is potentially digging a huge hole. Thousands of dollars.
OP is a month to month tenant. If the decedent paid the water and power they should both be turned back on at the owners expense. A LL cannot turn off utilities to force out a tenant it violates statute.
The LL only defense is that OP is not a tenant. That is a lost cause I think. The tenant in fact likely has an action against the estate or the new owner for damages if it can be gotten into court. I would also check with the utilities commission for rules about turning off water with a tenant occupying the home.
With the timing of the utilities being turned off, I am guessing that they were not 'actively' turned off, but that the bill was not paid as the bill payer passed away.
And no one has opened a new account as the property is being transferred to another person, from the trustor to a trustee, and once the transfer is complete, then they will be able to turn on the utilities. And if the trustee is on vacation, it may take a while, especially if there are many thing in the trust that need to be split up. Depending on how the trust is worded it may take a lot of signatures to do anything.
With the timing of the utilities being turned off, I am guessing that they were not 'actively' turned off, but that the bill was not paid as the bill payer passed away.
And no one has opened a new account as the property is being transferred to another person, from the trustor to a trustee, and once the transfer is complete, then they will be able to turn on the utilities. And if the trustee is on vacation, it may take a while, especially if there are many thing in the trust that need to be split up. Depending on how the trust is worded it may take a lot of signatures to do anything.
But they are still running up potentially large damages. And I very much doubt it has occurred to them that OP is making more than 700 a week plus potential legal fees. And it may well be that OP can collect as part of any eviction action...
And if the house has any value the OP will almost certain collect eventually.
The home is in a living trust, and not part of the estate. The estate which includes everything not in the living trust, is separate from the home or anything in the living trust. The new owner was second in line in the trust, and when the old owner dies the new owner moves into trustee position and thus is the owner. It does not get involved in the estate in any way. It is exempt from the estate. The executor to the estate did not actually release the home to the new owner, as it is automatic on the death of the old owner.
The new owner is supposed to be away at the present time, and not available to look after the affairs of the home. The estate started the eviction process, and the executor probably realized they do not have the authority to do such a thing, so it was withdrawn. The new owner is the only one with any authority over the home, and not currently available.
As the estate had no authority to pay any future bills on the property, the utilities were probably turned off as no one with the authority to have utility accounts was available.
The OP has a claim against the estate for wages, etc., which is in early probate at the present time, not against the property which is now owned by someone else and legally was not part of the estate since the trust was created.
The OP has a claim against the estate, not against the property, for wages, etc. If there is money in the estate, the OP can get his/her wages paid from the estate, as will other claimants for bills, etc. It can take up to 18 months to get it all cleared, by state law. The executor has to advertise for monetary claims such as the OP. The period to wait for all claimants has to expire. Then depending on the amount of money and assets in the trust, if there is enough money to pay all claims, they are paid. If not enough money, the court may end up deciding who gets what. And this can take a year to 1 1/2 years after the death to all get cleared up.
And the house is not part of the estate, but owned by another party as defined in the living trust and ownership has already passed. The OPs claim for wages, etc., is not against the home but against the rest of the estate, if the trust was properly set up. And what country was the living trust established in. Many people, especially very wealthy people set up their living trusts in some place like the Grand Cayman Islands, and the property is controlled under the laws of the Grand Cayman Islands.
At a conference I attended in 1977, in the Grand Cayman Islands, I learned a lot about this. A very good friend of mine was the American CPA/Attorney that wrote the tax friendly laws for the Grand Cayman Islands. Chuck and his wife sat with myself and my wife for the entire 10 day conference. I learned a lot at the conference, and over dinner at night with our friends. The Prime Minister (not his title, but the same power and responsibilities but a name you will understand) sat in front of me for those 10 days, and we had the opportunity to discuss this type of thing.
We discussed one example which was one of the richest men in this country. On his death the only thing he owned was a real old Cadillac, the clothes on his back, and about $20 in his wallet. Everything else was owned in off shore trusts in the Grand Caymans. His children are still some of our richest people, and we read about them all the time.
In the OPs case, her claim is against the estate who is to pay the employer's bills. The house is separate and not part of the estate, and that is why the ownership has already passed to the new owner. The person that died did not own the home, but was the first trustee and allowed to use the home as his own till his death. On his death, the home automatically passed to the new owner. If Montana did not have an even better system for our use, we would have our big possessions in a trust.
None of the creditors like the OP has a claim against the house, unless there is a mortgage, etc., on the home which would have standing on the home. Forget about the home as a cash cow for the OP, as her employer did not own the home, and only lived there for his lifetime. On his death, the home automatically become someone else's property. It depends on the rest of the things the old home owner owns, as to the ability for any creditor to collect anything from the estate. There may be enough money to pay the bills, and there may not be anything at all to collect from.
From courses on things like this to be able to help my investor clients, and the conference in the Grand Cayman it is my opinion and this is how I have seen things done over the years, but this is not a legal opinion.
OP is a month to month tenant. If the decedent paid the water and power they should both be turned back on at the owners expense. A LL cannot turn off utilities to force out a tenant it violates statute.
The LL only defense is that OP is not a tenant. That is a lost cause I think. The tenant in fact likely has an action against the estate or the new owner for damages if it can be gotten into court. I would also check with the utilities commission for rules about turning off water with a tenant occupying the home.
Further...
Civil Code section 789.3 states that,
“(a) A landlord shall not with intent to terminate the occupancy under any lease or other tenancy or estate at will, however created, of property used by a tenant as his residence willfully cause, directly or indirectly, the interruption or termination of any utility service furnished the tenant, including, but not limited to, water, heat, light, electricity, gas, telephone, elevator, or refrigeration, whether or not the utility service is under the control of the landlord.
and in the penalty section...
(1) Actual damages of the tenant.
(2) An amount not to exceed one hundred dollars ($100) for each day or part thereof the landlord remains in violation of this section. In determining the amount of such award, the court shall consider proof of such matters as justice may require; however, in no event shall less than two hundred fifty dollars ($250) be awarded for each separate cause of action. Subsequent or repeated violations, which are not committed contemporaneously with the initial violation, shall be treated as separate causes of action and shall be subject to a separate award of damages.
So are new owner is potentially digging a huge hole. Thousands of dollars.
The OP was an employee, whose employment ended upon the gentleman's death. Everything that I can find differentiates tenant from employee....So the same tenant laws don't apply.
The OP should contact the DOL in the area and ask for help regarding any wages owed. Here is the Nat'l website, look for your local contact on there. https://www.dol.gov/
The fact that the trustee, nor the daughter that inherited the house will respond to your calls makes me think they have been told to have no contact with you.
Quoting your post [u]HOW about the fact that I couldn't go to work because I couldn't bathe? no clean clothes? etc etc? [/U So you do have another job....You are not entirely without resources.
Perhaps they don't even know you still reside there, you said they haven't been to the home, or responded to any communications from you.
I agree with the poster that said what ever wages you can prove were owed will be offset by your continuing to live in the house after you were told to move....3 months ago.
That is an awful long time to remain in a place you've been told to leave. Sounds like they gave you 30 days to vacate....and then cut the water off. What was their last communication with you?
I think you have been hanging on in the hopes that you would be able to figure out your next move, and perhaps you are still grieving for your bio Mom and your Folks.
I think that you should talk to the pastor of the nearby church and get some help with moving and with rehoming your dog/pups and with your grief and loss.
It almost seems that you are just "stuck" because doing nothing is doing something....You need some emotional support and help.
I have no doubt it will eventually be ok, if you just put one foot in front of the other....and you will get stronger with each step. Get out of this situation so that you can grieve your parents, all 3 of them.
Ask for help at the church, they care and you're very lucky to have support.
Good luck to you, please let us know how you're doing
And it makes sense as living in the residence was part of the job.
As to oldtrader the tenancy runs with the property not the estate. Salary may well be due from the estate but the tenancy runs with the land. And it is the land owner who has the liability. Unless there is something in this trust that prevented the trustee from granting tenancy it looks like a done deal.
And if the owner loses the tenancy battle it can be big numbers including legal fees.
And it makes sense as living in the residence was part of the job.
As to oldtrader the tenancy runs with the property not the estate. Salary may well be due from the estate but the tenancy runs with the land. And it is the land owner who has the liability. Unless there is something in this trust that prevented the trustee from granting tenancy it looks like a done deal.
And if the owner loses the tenancy battle it can be big numbers including legal fees.
Job which ended when the gentleman died. The link you provided was from TX, the OP is in Calif. And the Attorney's advice in your link does not support what you're encouraging the OP to do, which is to continue squatting.
From https://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/i...ch-849592.html
"Unless there is a written contract stating how soon you have to be out, you have no legal rights to be in the house for longer than she chooses to allow you to be in the home. In other words, for your situation, there is no law that governs, nothing that says you do or don't have to be out by a date certain.. Your best option is to try and negotiate with her for some time to be out. Technically, until she's probated the will, it's not actually her property yet, but that might not stop her from calling the police and trying to have you removed from the property"
The home was held in trust, as a previous poster explained very well....As soon as the gentleman died, it became the daughter's.
Last edited by JanND; 08-04-2016 at 08:05 PM..
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.
You do realize that there's fees to file documents in court, right? And then to have people served, there's fees. Instead of fighting this, GO LOOK FOR A JOB! You've had 3 MONTHS of freeloading and not working. There's no excuse.
