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.
That would be a waste of $10k. No lawyers needed, just start the normal eviction process.
Yeah I'm guessing you haven't advised clients with this exact situation in Oregon. I have. Trustees will burn 10 in legal fees in no time flat. Its probably 2% of the estate essentially going to his girlfriend.
Some states are exceptionally tenant friendly, some are exceptionally landlord friendly, and everywhere in between.
If one has a dozen properties and is well versed in the process, that's one thing. But if you live out of state and have zero idea of the areas property laws, and are unaccustomed to the ins and outs of the process in general, its a different story.
And, plenty in jurisdictions where the courts are tenant-friendly will simply hire an attorney to handle it.
If a court chooses to provide a tenant with extra-legal protection, a landlord will likely need an attorney. In the absence of that circumstance, an attorney is rarely needed.
Yeah I'm guessing you haven't advised clients with this exact situation in Oregon. I have. Trustees will burn 10 in legal fees in no time flat. Its probably 2% of the estate essentially going to his girlfriend.
What law/legal principle is it that creates this situation?
It seems reasonable enough that the inheritor who wants LIG to stay in the house would be willing to buy the other inheritor out equal to half the amount the property is worth. Then the other inheritor needing the $ can move on with life.
Seems like it is a win-all situation...
Wondering who pays the property taxes, utilities, maintenance on the property at that point though? Seems like the LIG should have some financial responsibility at that point.
Not necessarilyand at least not immediately. If the utilities were in the deceased name they would be part of the estate right? Since a LL cannot turn off utilities while a tenant is living in the unit it makes for a interesting matter. The inheritors would need to amend the “lease” with proper notice to tenant to transfer utilities into tenants name at x date.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GotHereQuickAsICould
The executors need to call the kid with the casita, explain the house will be sold as part of settling the estate, and ask if there's a family member who can come help her pack up and move.
Then contact the LIG and explain that the house will be sold to settle the estate and what items from the house would she like to take with her when she moves, which will be within the next two weeks as they need to start cleaning and painting the house to get it ready to sell.
REGARDLESS of what or when they want to sell, they currently have legal tenants and all the proper procedures to end tenancy or start subsequent eviction need to be followed She should only be allowed to take her personal property or if the deceased stated in a will/trust some items are to go to LIG.
Then contact real estate agents and get the ball rolling.
Sure. After the place is vacant.
May need to arrange for an estate sale, have a staging consultant come through to offer suggestions, get estimates for repairs and painting, ... lot of work to get a house ready to go on the market.
But do it all matter of fact. If she starts in about having tenant rights or not wanting to leave, point out that the heirs have been covering taxes, insurance, utilities for the past six months and you would like to be reimbursed before she goes.
Sorry. None of that matters to the tenant. N fact it’s not the tenants problem in any way shape or form.
Also, if things turn unpleasant and you have to hire an attorney to straighten this out, she will be sued for the legal fees involved in the eviction proceedings.
Sure. And let’s assume you win. You gonna get blood from a stone?
If she leaves now, they'll let bygones by bygones.
There are no bygones. The LIG has a legal right to live there. It’s no different than you owning a house and renting a room and having a roommate.
No need to be unpleasant about it. But it is unrealistic to expect the heirs to continue picking up the tab. Her children have a place for her to live. She needs to move there.
No. She doesn’t. You don’t seem to understand that there are legalities that you’re trying to steam roll over. If you had a aforementioned roommate you couldn’t just up and tell them to leave. Even if they weren’t paying rent. You couldn’t even lock them out of the house. And you covering taxes etc doesn’t mean a hill of beans to the tenant.
Because this house is being sold
And the house being sold is completely inconsequential to the legalities that must be followed to remove a tenant.
.
Bold
Quote:
Originally Posted by JONOV
...Yes, and no.
Some states are exceptionally tenant friendly, some are exceptionally landlord friendly, and everywhere in between.
If one has a dozen properties and is well versed in the process, that's one thing. But if you live out of state and have zero idea of the areas property laws, and are unaccustomed to the ins and outs of the process in general, its a different story.
And, plenty in jurisdictions where the courts are tenant-friendly will simply hire an attorney to handle it.
One can pick up a book and familiarize themselves with the legal process of terminating lease agreements and rental law in the particular state. At least to know the procedures.
What law/legal principle is it that creates this situation?
I'm not an attorney. But in our profession we get involved in all kinds of things, including like this. Okay maybe not 10, but 5k. She may feel like she deserves something even though they weren't married. She's entitled to nothing but out of respect for the deceased, if it were me I'd be inclined to include her on a small amount of his estate to smooth the whole situation out. Simple as that.
My recomendation? Talk. Talk to her, talk to each other.
She doesnt have the "right" to stay there, but come on folks. What would your deceased relative want? And lets be honest-waiting for her to die might take longer then you expect. A average of 16 years if she is currently 70: https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4c6.html
Does she have a income? Buying one side out, and having her pay rent might actually be profitable. If push comes to shove though-she needs to get out, and the house sold.
They know what the deceased wanted ... he put it in writing, signed it and made it a legal document.
I'm not an attorney. But in our profession we get involved in all kinds of things, including like this. Okay maybe not 10, but 5k. She may feel like she deserves something even though they weren't married. She's entitled to nothing but out of respect for the deceased, if it were me I'd be inclined to include her on a small amount of his estate to smooth the whole situation out. Simple as that.
OK, I'm confused. What you are saying above seems to be different than what you posted here:
Quote:
Originally Posted by DKM
Yeah I'm guessing you haven't advised clients with this exact situation in Oregon. I have. Trustees will burn 10 in legal fees in no time flat. Its probably 2% of the estate essentially going to his girlfriend.
If the will isn't contested, why will the Executor be spending legal fees in the $5K-10K range?
Then you say 2% is going to the LIG, but now it is "a small amount"? And in your original post you implied that it would happen as a matter of law, but now you are saying that it would be just to "smooth the whole situation out."
Without some clarification about what your profession is and what you do, and some clarification about what you actually meant to say in your two contradictory posts, it will be reasonable to assume that you don't advise anyone, and you really have no idea what you're talking about.
She shouldn't get anything other than her own personal property.
She doesn't have to "start in about having tenant rights," she already has them, whether she "starts in" or not. No reimbursement will happen, as she is under no obligation to do so. She has been allowed to live there for free.
A 90 day notice generally must be given. If she leaves within that time, no attorney fees will be coming from her.
Are you sure about that? I'm pretty sure a landlord can't cut off utilities in attempt to speed up an eviction.
They are not cutting off any utilities. Nor did I suggest that. They've been paying taxes, insurance, and utilities right along and will continue to do so as they get the house on the market.
However, they own the house now and as I understand it, they have no written or verbal agreement to be her landlord.
The only verbal understanding is that months ago, she was supposed to move into a casita in Arizona that one of her kids fixed up for her.
At this point, she is a squatter as the homeowner she was living with, and presumably providing services for in exchange for the rent, is no longer the owner.
If she wants to start claiming she is a bonafide tenant entitled to tenants' rights, she certainly can do so. Cross that bridge when you come to it.
As to not being able to sue, ha. People can sue for anything they want. Whether they can prevail is another question. But there is nothing stopping them from filing a lawsuit for expenses while she squatted in their property.
But cross that bridge later.
Right now, I suggest being matter of fact about carrying out the terms of the will and getting her children involved in helping her move may be the heirs' best bet.
They are not cutting off any utilities. Nor did I suggest that. They've been paying taxes, insurance, and utilities right along and will continue to do so as they get the house on the market.
However, they own the house now and as I understand it, they have no written or verbal agreement to be her landlord.
The only verbal understanding is that months ago, she was supposed to move into a casita in Arizona that one of her kids fixed up for her.
At this point, she is a squatter as the homeowner she was living with, and presumably providing services for in exchange for the rent, is no longer the owner.
If she wants to start claiming she is a bonafide tenant entitled to tenants' rights, she certainly can do so. Cross that bridge when you come to it.
As to not being able to sue, ha. People can sue for anything they want. Whether they can prevail is another question. But there is nothing stopping them from filing a lawsuit for expenses while she squatted in their property.
But cross that bridge later.
Right now, I suggest being matter of fact about carrying out the terms of the will and getting her children involved in helping her move may be the heirs' best bet.
She doesn’t have to claim tenant rights, she already has them. She’s not a squatter, but a tenant. Heirs can sue, but they won’t get anything.
It's interesting that after more than a dozen pages here we still have no idea what the dead guy would have wanted. Sure, the legal eagles here affirm that a will written eight years ago, before he even met the woman who would become his companion is all that need be considered. Depending on the state that may very well be correct but what about morally and ethically? That turns on what he would have wanted. There was plenty of time to write a new will but that doesn't mean that by not doing so the deceased was affirming what had earlier been set in stone or if he simply was too lazy to get around to stating his current desires up until the day he kicked off.
The OP may not know, the heirs may not know, even the surviving companion may not know but that doesn't change what's right morally and ethically.
I come from a family with what most would consider a large number of siblings, all alive after our first parent died and for a few years after that. One sibling died a few months before our second parent did. According to the terms of my parents' wills the division of assets would exclude the deceased sibling, their spouse and children from any of the proceeds of the estate.
The executor (one of the siblings) polled each of us privately about our feelings and we unanimously determined that our parents would have wanted the deceased sibling's survivors to share as if the last parent was not predeceased by that one child. We all agreed to a redistribution of the assets. It was the right thing to do even though there were no grounds in the will to require it and certainly none that would have indicated it was the current desire of our parents at their passing.
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.
