97 year old Burlingame woman is being evicted from the small home she has rented for 66 YEARS (eviction, tenants)

[Texamichiforniasota]

I saw a super-biased version of this story on USA Today where they didn't mention the house was in a trust that expires in a few months. I figured that was probably the case and it was just written in a way to try to make the landlord look evil. It's too bad for this woman, but the landlord doesn't really have any options as he is bound by the terms of the trust. I guess he could try to sell the house for a few hundred thousand less with the woman as a month-to-month tenant, and let someone else evict her. I would probably do the same thing he is doing, rather than take several hundred thousand away from my kids, although just like him I'd feel conflicted about it.

[justinbro2002]

Originally Posted by MountainHi

I'm trying to figure out the issue with this trust. It expires this summer. That doesn't sound like something the deceased wife had drawn up. It sounds like something her mother or grandmother had set up. And they failed to include a provision for the renter. So the surviving spouse needs to sell the house before his ownership becomes invalid, it sounds like. He wants the money in order to create a nest egg for his kids, I'll bet.

But why would a family trust terminate in the middle of the granddaughter's expected lifespan? Oh well, I can't figure it out.

The wife probably set up the trust and there is probably a provision that her sons be paid out when they both reach a certain age like 21 or 25. So the youngest son will probably turn that age this summer

[NewbieHere]

66 years and still complaining?

[HockeyMac18]

Originally Posted by NewbieHere

66 years and still complaining?

Dang those entitled millennials...I mean silent generation members...

[SOON2BNSURPRISE]

I realize she has been there for 66 years. Still, she does not own the home. Others have stated that the trust states that the home has to be sold. Maybe time for the renters to move on. I would say head on over to a less costly place. Maybe Fresno, Bakersfield, Phoenix. Some place that she could afford. Sounds like she is not able to afford the area she lives in.

[NJEmmert]

Would we be having this conversation if she weren't in her 90s, didn't have cancer, or hadn't lived there for 66 years?

No?

Then why are we having this conversation at all?

Her age doesn't entitle her to continue living on someone else's property.
Her having cancer doesn't entitle her to continue living on someone else's property.
Her having lived there the previous 66 years doesn't entitle her to continue living on someone else's property.

People that support her probably think I shouldn't evict people over Christmas either.

Her living there is potentially hurting the owner. The owner has EVERY right to do what's in his best interest and shouldn't feel bad about it at all.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by NJEmmert

Would we be having this conversation if she weren't in her 90s, didn't have cancer, or hadn't lived there for 66 years?

No?

Then why are we having this conversation at all?

Her age doesn't entitle her to continue living on someone else's property.
Her having cancer doesn't entitle her to continue living on someone else's property.
Her having lived there the previous 66 years doesn't entitle her to continue living on someone else's property.

People that support her probably think I shouldn't evict people over Christmas either.

Her living there is potentially hurting the owner. The owner has EVERY right to do what's in his best interest and shouldn't feel bad about it at all.

I intuit a lot of very deep thought went into this post.

[Ruth4Truth]

Originally Posted by SOON2BNSURPRISE

I realize she has been there for 66 years. Still, she does not own the home. Others have stated that the trust states that the home has to be sold. Maybe time for the renters to move on. I would say head on over to a less costly place. Maybe Fresno, Bakersfield, Phoenix. Some place that she could afford. Sounds like she is not able to afford the area she lives in.

The article said that a local hot-shot law firm has taken up her case. Good luck with that. I don't see how they could possibly win, but who knows? They might find an angle. \

I wonder what type of work she did during her lifetime, or if she every had a paycheck at all. It sounds like she and her housemate are paying the rent from a Social Security check: $450 each. She really lucked out with that rent deal. Her mistake was to live too long. Maybe someone will step forward and offer her a MIL apt. in their basement, or something. And then--what about the housemate? What's she going to do? Also with no kids, no family around.

[sav858]

Originally Posted by NJEmmert

Would we be having this conversation if she weren't in her 90s, didn't have cancer, or hadn't lived there for 66 years?

No?

Then why are we having this conversation at all?

Her age doesn't entitle her to continue living on someone else's property.
Her having cancer doesn't entitle her to continue living on someone else's property.
Her having lived there the previous 66 years doesn't entitle her to continue living on someone else's property.

People that support her probably think I shouldn't evict people over Christmas either.

Her living there is potentially hurting the owner. The owner has EVERY right to do what's in his best interest and shouldn't feel bad about it at all.

Jesus is that you? Or are you Mother Teresa? I can't tell with all of the compassion flowing from this post.


She is 97 and as cancer though. Some cold ass hearted people in this world.

[Ruth4Truth]

Originally Posted by sav858

Jesus is that you? Or are you Mother Teresa? I can't tell with all of the compassion flowing from this post.


She is 97 and as cancer though. Some cold ass hearted people in this world.

Dang Republicans!