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.
^^^ well tell that to the judges who hear these cases in small claims court all the time and oftentimes do side with non least tenants. Silly huh
Small claims court lacks the jurisdiction to order that the leaseholder accept the roommate back. If I decide to evict a roommate and change the locks on the place, no cop or small claims court is going to force me to allow that person back in the place in the face of a lease with only my name on it. It wont happen.
And just to clarify yet again I'm not claiming non lease tenants have near as many rights as the actual lease holder I'm only stating the fact it is not legal to throw them out (escpecilly if they are paid up) without any sort of notice. You can deny this all you want but numerous judges and police in DC and all over the country have cases to prove otherwise. Fact remains that non lease tenants do have some rights when it comes to their housing. Silly huh
And just to clarify yet again I'm not claiming non lease tenants have near as many rights as the actual lease holder I'm only stating the fact it is not legal to throw them out (escpecilly if they are paid up) without any sort of notice. You can deny this all you want but numerous judges and police in DC and all over the country have cases to prove otherwise. Fact remains that non lease tenants do have some rights when it comes to their housing. Silly huh
Please produce the records of those decisions. I find none. The issue is eviction of a non lease signer with no written agreement between roommates. I believe they remain in the property at the forbearance of the leaseholder and can be evicted at will. In short, I can change the locks and they are gone. They have no right to reenter.
Please produce the records of those decisions. I find none. The issue is eviction of a non lease signer with no written agreement between roommates. I believe they remain in the property at the forbearance of the leaseholder and can be evicted at will. In short, I can change the locks and they are gone. They have no right to reenter.
I'm not saying that a court will force you to re-accept a non-lease roommate to move back in. That would be ridiculous and I doubt many people would want to reenter that situation. There are a ton of people living in roommate/non-lease situations (especially younger people and unmarried couples). When I was in college (in Pittsburgh) I witnessed angry roommates through a guy and his stuff out of their house and on the sidewalk without a notice. Cops were called and the angry roommates explained situation as to why they threw him out. It was explained to them that if they blocked him from re-entering the house they would be arrested. You might consider this "Cops over standing their authority" but whether it is or not I'm sure the cops would have arrested them and it would have been a huge headache for them to sort out.
I agree that laws can be very vague and murky but there is a system in place that attempts to protect the tons of people living in these non-lease situations. If you have not actually signed a lease than you have a verbal agreement (admittedly this makes it much much harder to prove anything in court and you are at a severe disadvantage). Even without a signed lease you can prove to a judge your claim to a shared apartment through things like past rent check copies, mail addressed to you there, witnesses, etc... If a roommate kicked you out without giving you a formal notice ahead of time you would have grounds to sue them.
I think most people that end up in this bad situation don't bother to take it to court because it is a huge challenge and mostly not worth the effort in most situations. If you follow the contact info on the link I shared I'm sure the experts at the DC government can provide you with the specifics you are asking for regarding these situations. You'll find numerous situations where a judge has sided with a non-lease tenant/roommate for being unrightfuly thrown out on the street without proper notice. These judges will not rule that they should be allowed to move back in but will award them for their monetary losses. This just goes back to my original point that a non-lease holding tenant still has some rights to their home (albeit much fewer but they are still there just the same). Just as landlords need to be careful as to who they chose to rent to renters need to be careful as to who they take in as roommates.
I'm not debating whether this is "right or wrong" it's just the way things are. It's kinda like how in some areas of the country where "Common Law" marriage is still recognized. If you are in a long term romantic relationship with someone (even though you are not "legally" married") they may have a legal claim to a portion of your belongings should you break up as if it were the same as a real divorce.
Small claims court lacks the jurisdiction to order that the leaseholder accept the roommate back. If I decide to evict a roommate and change the locks on the place, no cop or small claims court is going to force me to allow that person back in the place in the face of a lease with only my name on it. It wont happen.
You sue in landlord tenant court in DC. A judge isn't going to force bickering roommates back together (too much risk of violence), but they certainly can award damages for damges to property or unexpected costs of a move. Your roommate is a master tenant and you are a subtenant. You have very limited rights against the property owners or real landlord, but the master tenant is supposed to follow the eviction procedures like any other landlord.
Here's the rub. While real landlords have strong incentives to comply because they own valuable property and there are big financial incentives to comply with the landlord tenant court. A master tenant could be just another broke guy where it is pointless to enforce a judgment. So you would have a file a complaint, prove he did what you claim, prove the value of what you lost, go through possibly weeks or months of litigation, defend probably a bunch of lies about you, and then if you win, try to enforce that judgment.
See how just gathering your stuff you can't lose, stash them in storage or with a friend, try to salvage or calm the relationship for a bit, look for another place, and then get the heck out fast is probably a better solution.
^^^ This exactly nails it. Most sub-tenants/roommates who get thrown without notice know that it is mostly futile to go after their broke ass lease-holding roommate who unlawfully threw them out (especially college age types where this is more prevalent). It doesn't mean they don't have the legal right to do it. Most of these situations they just look for other justice in the form of revenge like slashing tires
Thats not to say though that there aren't a minority of cases where the sub-tentant does proceed with a court case and is able to produce evidence stating their case and is awarded for their loss.
You sue in landlord tenant court in DC. A judge isn't going to force bickering roommates back together (too much risk of violence), but they certainly can award damages for damges to property or unexpected costs of a move. Your roommate is a master tenant and you are a subtenant. You have very limited rights against the property owners or real landlord, but the master tenant is supposed to follow the eviction procedures like any other landlord.
Here's the rub. While real landlords have strong incentives to comply because they own valuable property and there are big financial incentives to comply with the landlord tenant court. A master tenant could be just another broke guy where it is pointless to enforce a judgment. So you would have a file a complaint, prove he did what you claim, prove the value of what you lost, go through possibly weeks or months of litigation, defend probably a bunch of lies about you, and then if you win, try to enforce that judgment.
See how just gathering your stuff you can't lose, stash them in storage or with a friend, try to salvage or calm the relationship for a bit, look for another place, and then get the heck out fast is probably a better solution.
Please point out the DC ordinance or case law that articulates this eviction process that roommates must follow because I can't find any for DC.
Damage to someone's property is not the issue. The issue is a right of tenancy.
From my understanding of renter rights that I've read over the years around the country...
You do have some rights. Unless there is some type of specific exception in the law in DC about you paying your roommate, the fact that you've been paying rent to live there means you're basically on a month to month lease, which entails some rights.
The rights you don't have are that he can raise the rent next month, he can give you notice to move out (not sure how much but he needs to give you notice), but he can't walk into your room and throw your stuff out.
I'm not a lawyer of any kind, and this is just stuff I've read over the years, but the key here, I think, is the fact you've been paying rent to this guy (or to the landlord) for a period of time, and unless the there's something specific in the law that doesn't apply to roommate situations, he can't kick you out.
But obviously life can be hell with someone who doesn't want you there. Start looking ASAP.
Please point out the DC ordinance or case law that articulates this eviction process that roommates must follow because I can't find any for DC.
Damage to someone's property is not the issue. The issue is a right of tenancy.
Listen, not every obscure law for every single jurisdiction is available to find by some simple google search. I've provided you with a link to contact people in the know at the DC governments Landlord/tentant division if you don't want to take our word for it and since I'm sure my real world experience does not satisfy you. Furthermore every situation like this is a decided on a case by case basis and your verdict will largely depend on how much evidence a non-lease holding tenant is able to provide (rent check copies, mail at that address, witnesses, etc...) that they were illegally locked out on the street without prior notice. Setting property damage aside they could sue for the costs inherit to having been illegally evicted and locked out on the street (hotel costs, moving, storage, etc...). Just because most people in these bad situation don't pursue it in court (because they realize what a major hassle it is) doesnt mean that the "rights" arent still there. Locking your roommate out of the house without any sort of notice can definitely carry some serious legal repercussions whether you want to believe it or not.
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.
