Posted by michaela-FL on June 18, 2006 at 08:31:04:
Jim,
you’re right, there’s a difference in regards to attitude. I just wanted the confirmation, that there was something correct with his assumption, since I had to deal with a similar situaiton in the past and wanted to avoid any potential mistakes on my part, should it arise again.
Yep, I love it here. All that water. Wherever you go there are bridges to cross. I didn’t realize, that JAX is the largest city in the U.S. when it comes to SQ miles. Lots of driving
After all these years,you would think I knew better.I closed on a house last week-june 8th.The sellers were 5 months behind on there house they only owned for a year.They put a large amount down they got from a relative that passed on.After we closed they told me they needed another day to get out,because the rental they were getting would not be ready until the next day. So I said OK and I had to go out of town until june 13th.I come back tuesday and there still there and giving me excuses.I go over there today and the car is in the yard and the garage door is up. I knock on the door and all is quiet, So I knock again and a big guy, her brother comes to the door and does not know where there at and he is blocking me from looking in the house. I know he is not telling the truth, they are most likely hiding in the house. What is my next move? Do I evict them like a renter? Anybody been through this before? stupid,stupid,stipud
I called them last night and told them I was going to call my attorney today and have them evicted. I also said this would stay on there record. It worked,I went by this morning and they had a rider truck there moving out. I went over there tonight and there gone.Thanks for the help.I won’t be so nice next time.The numbers on the house are. I paid 91k,it needs paint inside and out,carpet and doors. 6k should have it back in shape. ARV is 145k
Sounds like your concern could be the fear of the unknown: Will they be out tomorrow or not untill evicted? Right know you don’t know. I would keep knocking at the door to try and get that answer. Is it a money issue for them? Did they walk away with any money when they left the closing? Maybe offering some money to leave would be cheaper than an attorney and loss of time to evict? It grinds you the wrong way to do this but it may be cheapest for you in the long run.
Re: I made a big mistake - 1 more thing - Posted by John Corey
Posted by John Corey on June 15, 2006 at 08:55:49:
You said the brother was there.
As there should be no one in your property and the brother is not someone you rented to I would have gone back to my car and called the police. Have the person arrested for breaking and entering. When it comes out that the others in the house let him in there will be no debate that they are still present and that you are pretty serious.
Jimmy is definitely correct that you have to evict any named parties plus all others found to be resident but not named. A local lawyer will know the wording. Check with the local investor groups or apartment owners association for lawyers who specialize in evictions. Pick the one that has the most recommendations for successful evictions.
Dumb but you can easily recover - Posted by John Corey
Posted by John Corey on June 15, 2006 at 08:52:40:
Celeste,
You have admitted the mistake. Now move on.
As Jimmy noted you will evict.
I suggest using a lawyer to handle the paperwork just to make sure there are no mistakes. I say this even though I handled all my own evictions directly in the past.
This ‘unauthorized renter’ clearly is playing for time. Make them pay and play hardball. No grace periods. Nothing. Everything by the book as spelled out in the local laws. Be prepared for damage. Change the locks and make sure the place is truly secure once they are out as they will likely be back if they want to mess with you.
If they do re-enter after being evicted report it as a break-in. Do not try to discuss the eviction with the police as they will claim they do not understand such matters. Just file a complaint for a break-in and trespassing and have them arrested if there is proof they were there. Let the court determine the laws and let the police focus on arresting people.
Get it in the past and move on wiser for your unplanned educational session.
Jimmy has the right advice, and the following is too late to help you but anyone reading the archives in may benefit from it. It’s something I learned the hard way too, a statement that I put in ALL purchase and sales agreements; PROPERTY TO BE VACATED PRIOR TO CLOSING.
Sorry, but come on,YOU knew they were deadbeats, didn’t you?
^^^^^ Nike needs to read this ^^^^^ - Posted by Rob Ricker
Posted by Rob Ricker on June 15, 2006 at 23:35:59:
Good job Celeste. You handled your situation like a pro. Some people (Nike) would have got them out about 45 days later than you, but they know it all so that’s ok I guess.
Seriously though, I’m very happy for you that things worked out so well in the end.
Speaking of dumb–you would call the police and have the brother arrested for breaking and entering? Based on these facts? That’s dumb. Celeste knows he’s the brother of the former owner–do you doubt that he had consent to be in the home? But you would file a complaint claiming he’s guilty of breaking and entering?
A seller failing to vacate after the sale is not uncommon and there’re remedies available to resolve the issue including suing for wrongful trespass (civil court) and recover for any damages incurred.
Posted by Natalie-VA on June 15, 2006 at 10:27:35:
Hi John,
They changed the law recently in my area so that the sheriff’s dept can remove all parties in possession even if the eviction was only in one name. I have even done evictions as “Any and All Occupants” when I didn’t know who lived there.
I think it was a good move. Prior to the change, you always ran the risk of the sheriff’s deputy only removing the person on the unlawful detainer.
I wonder how this works in other areas of the country. Anyone?
Posted by John Corey on June 15, 2006 at 11:28:49:
Simple answer.
I would have him arrested.
He was never the occupant. He indicate that the prior occupant was no where to be found. Call his bluff.
He can not be given permission to be there if the person who gave permission has no right to be there or to let others be there. It is still trespassing. Let him explain if he broke in or was given permission by someone else who is there illegally.
No need to be flexible. That bridge was burned by the other party when they started saying one thing and doing another.
John Corey
PS. There are remedies. This is clearly one. Eviction will address anyone who is there who overstayed their welcome.
Posted by Rob Ricker on June 16, 2006 at 03:18:04:
She didn’t have to …she decided to think outside the “Nike” box. The truth is these people were EASY to get out and it wasn’t done through a conventional eviction. I’m sure Nike’s a good guy just having a bad day. I just didn’t care for the way he tried to disrespect a good poster.
Based on the facts provided do you really think the police would arrest the brother for breaking and entering or criminal trespass? She can file a report but the police will not arrest him.
But assuming for a moment that the brother is arrested–what’s it get you? Sure- you showed them that there’s a new sheriff in town but such posturing does not solve the matter of the hold-over seller. You still need to file eviction action–if she has suffered any damages she can sue to for damages too.
Posted by John Corey on June 15, 2006 at 18:36:11:
Nike,
It is very black and white. Let the police rattle them and let the lawyer nail them with an eviction. Then file the judgment against any an all names listed (include the brother if you like as he appears to be resident now). They are breaking the rules and the landlord is just trying to get back their property. Why should the tenant have a free ride just because they get a big guy to stand in the doorway?
If someone asked to move out later and signed a rental agreement that is fine. People agreeing to agree. I am all for agreement. If you do not ask you do not receive.
To just stay, to have relatives lying and being present in the property when the relatives have no right to be there is not a solution. Intimidation could be one view and that is yet another criminal offense. It matters little that the brother was invited in by an illegal tenant.
She can sue for what damages? Staying past her legal right to stay? Having to explain to the police what her brother is doing there when she has no legal right to be there or to invite others in? Being evicted by the sheriff and having to pay to get her stuff back if she does not get out first?
I get the point that she has to be evicted. Her brother does not but will be covered when “and anyone else” is listed on the eviction or could be listed by name if you want to wind him up. In the mean time there is no reason not to assume that he is not trespassing. All the owner knows is a strange person is somehow in the property with out permission. He claims to be a relative but no one that is recognized can vouch for him. Ask him for ID and then make sure you list him on the eviction. Let him know that this means he will have a judgment on his file so he needs to have his checkbook ready.
Or let the court decide how the individual should be tried after the police take him downtown when he can not show why he legally can be in the property.
Shall we agree to disagree?
You deal with it how you like if it happens to you. I stick to the rules but use all the rules. If there is gray area there is no reason to offer the gray to the other side. They are already taking more than they should and not being truthful about it.
The tenant landlord rules are pretty fair so expect people to play by them. Enforce your rights if the other party does not want to communicate. The system works if you use it early and often.
Posted by John Corey on June 15, 2006 at 18:14:45:
Nike,
It is very black and white. Let the police rattle them and let the lawyer nail them. They are breaking the rules and the landlord is just trying to get back their property. Why should the tenant have a free ride just because they get a big guy to stand in the doorway?
If someone asked to move out later and signed a rental agreement that is fine. People agreeing to agree. I am all for agreement.
To just stay, to have relatives lying and being present in the property when the relatives have no right to be there is not an improvement. It matters little that the brother was invited in by an illegal tenant.
She can sue for what damages? Staying past her legal right to stay? Having to explain to the police what her brother is doing there when she has no legal right to be there or to invite others in?
I get the point that she has to be evicted. Her brother does not but will be covered when “and anyone else” is listed on the eviction. In the mean time there is no reason not to assume that he is not trespassing. All the owner knows is a strange person is somehow in the property with out permission. Let the court decide how the individual should be tried after the police take him downtown.
Shall we agree to disagree. You deal with it how you like if it happens to you. I stick to the rules but use all the rules. If there is gray area there is no reason to offer the gray to the other side. They are already taking more than they should and not being truthful about it.
The tenant landlord rules are pretty fair so expect people to play by them. Enforce your rights if the other party does not want to communicate.
I’m not sure of the end results, but I think the argument is useful.
You: Are Mr and Mrs X here?
Guy: No.
You: What are you doing here?
Guy: I’m the brother.
You: Well, you don’t have permission to be here, you need to leave.
Guy: They gave me permission.
You: Prove it, otherwise you have to leave.
Guy: They aren’t here.
You: Well, then you don’t have proof. You are trespassing and need to leave, otherwise I have to call the polic.
Guy: Oh, ok, they’re hiding in the broom closet.
His method is more lawful than what I’d do - Posted by Rob Ricker
Posted by Rob Ricker on June 15, 2006 at 13:47:13:
If I was upset enough about the situation, I’d just stake out the house till they left for a moment. Then change the locks on them. Then I’d track them down and beat them like dogs :-0 Well maybe not, but it sounds good and I’d be tempted!
