The term for a holdover tenant is a “tenant in sufferance” meaning that the tenant occupies the property against the will of the owner.
I really don’t get the judge’s position, however here’s how I’d deal with this (Rich-CA is probably a better prop mgmt advisor, tho).
Ideally, retain an attorney that specializes in unlawful detainers (evictions) and try to step out of the picture on a personal level. Now, there are plenty of smart landlord types that will tell you that you can do this yourself, or, why spend the money for an attorney, however if you don’t do this all the time, best money would be to hire the dirty work out. In CA we have plenty of well-qualified firms like Liddle & Liddle (in Glendora, CA) and Kimbel, Tirey (which is mostly statewide).
Also, if your holdover tenant tries to get clever, especially knowing that the judge pulled a fast one on you during the first run, s/he may try to play you just for the sport of it.
As for the damages, etc., I’d shoot for getting possession and not count on seeing your lost rent or fix up costs from the deadbeat tenant.
Lesson learned is how allowing a tenant to continue without benefit of a written agreement, or being a bit sympathetic and leanient, can result in getting the short side of the deal.
When a lease expires and the tenant stays, and pays monthly, is he/she responsible for the rules in the original lease??? I live in Tennessee…
Thanks,
k
Re: Lease expired, ? “Rollover”? - Posted by John Merchant
Posted by John Merchant on June 09, 2008 at 08:22:34:
2 points to consider here:
First, if a court has ruled and entered a final (not appealed) judgment, all the issues he ruled upon are now “res judicata” (the thing’s done, in English) and those questions cannot now be rehashed or redecided.
Second, if you’re now, by court decision, the holder of a m-t-m rental agreement, give that T a 30 day notice, or whatever your state says, and get the bums outa there.
They’ve got no rights to stay longer according to the judge.
Rich: I can see, re-reading my message, where you might think I’m the tenant; nay, nay…I’m the “put upon” landlord who went to court with lease in hand only to be told by a judge that the lease had expired and nothing in it was valid any longer. It made NO sense to me but thought better of arguing knowing I would loose and may be held in contempt. I simply can’t see how you can enter into a “month to month” situation WITHOUT RULES… Anyway, not only did my tenant cause what appears to be about $3,000 in damages, he can now give me $150/mo to pay the 1 1/2 months rent (total of $900.00 meaning I wait SIX MONTHS for the money he owes)…no late fees allowed by the judge (again, my lease is invalid)… What a country!!!
k
You are living there under rules that were established when you moved in. Why would you think these would go away just because the landlord has not given you notice to move out.
What state is this in? I know some areas in CA (like Berkeley) have judges that do exactly this kind of crap. Sometimes you have get get above their jurisdiction just to get a fair hearing. You may want to read your local landlord-tenant law so you can cite the passages that the trial judge violated in making their decision. Then appeal the decision.
I would also give the tenant a termination notice on the grounds that unless they are living there under the terms of my lease, I do not want to rent the property to anyone. Heck, you may even want to take a sleeping bag and “move in” to force the bum out. Bottom line: whatever it takes to get what is owed you and get rid of the dead beat.