Am I an a**hole if I change the locks?

In My Humble Opinion
41

[QUOTE=Plynck]
Your relationship may not be a legal matter. The ownership of your house is, and her name is currently on the deed (however short term). Furthermore, you will be barring her access to personal possessions that you both agree are hers. You should get some legal advice on this, but barring that (and coming from someone with no law background):

I’d tell her your plans, and get her to sign an acknowledgement to that effect, perhaps in exchange for letting her off the hook for her May mortgage payments. Work out some deal to either schedule a time for her to get her belongings, or put them into storage.
[/QUOTE]

I agree with this as well as the idea of helping her pack etc. One good thing about helping her pack is that you see what’s leaving the house.

42

[QUOTE=Leviosaurus]
BOOYA! Good man, Chao!
[/quote]

Chao’s a woman IIRC.

43

[QUOTE=Mikemike2]
Talk to a lawyer is good advice. Don’t you already have one to do the divorce?..
[/QUOTE]

I don’t know the OP’s location, unless civil unions/same-sex marriage is legal there there’s no divorce to speak of.

44

Change the locks. Add dead-bolts and those bolts on the hinge side to reinforce frame stength too. Who knows what the future brings? Be prepared.

45

[QUOTE=Mikemike2]
Under common law she would have to show how locking her out caused her a financial loss, and I don’t see any.
[/QUOTE]

Umm…no. This is not at all the law. Not that it matters, because I’m sure the OP is smart enough to talk to a real lawyer. But just for the sake of fighting ignorance, the general rule is that co-owners who are ousted are entitled to a share of the market rent.

46

I have a novel solution. ADD a lock. If you don’t have a deadbolt then add one and leave the other lock alone. If she complains that the door was bolted you can say that all she needs to do is give a heads up and you’ll leave the deadbolt unlocked. You can offer to help her at the same time (what a coincidence, I’m going to be painting that day).

I’d be REAL leery of doing anything that could give her an excuse to screw with you. If you don’t go the lock route then I’d put hidden cameras in the house and move anything you’re worried about in view.

47

[QUOTE=Leviosaurus]
Sorry Angel, I have to disagree. Telling her is just inviting trouble.

Think of it this way - I change the locks on *my * house it’s *my * business. Nothing I need to share with anyone, it’s just a thing I did to my house like cleaning the gutters.

On the other hand, I call up my ex and say “I’m changing the locks on the house to prevent you from entering” (and no matter how I phrase it, this is the message that will be sent,) now it’s an attack. Instead of doing something to my house, I’m doing something to my ex. See? It becomes an attack, which demands a response.
[/QUOTE]

Huh?

It isn’t HIS house. It’s THEIR house. He is changing the locks on THEIR house.

Even if he does change the locks, if she shows proof that her name is on the deed a locksmith will let her in and even make her a key if she asks for one.

I’d speak to a lawyer, or wait until the paperwork is final. Anything else is jumping the gun and although I don’t think it would make you an asshole, it would be wrong.

48

Another vote for waiting until the loan is changed to changed the locks. You just don’t have a legal leg to stand on until then - if she’s still on the title for the house, it’s still her house, too. Like others have said, though, I’d take my own stuff of any value (money or sentimental) and lock it up like tonight. How many Dopers do you have to have telling you that every split is amicable until it isn’t before people get it?

And pack her shit and put it out the day the title is changed. There’s some closure for you!

49

[QUOTE=Sleeps With Butterflies]
Huh?

It isn’t HIS house. It’s THEIR house. He is changing the locks on THEIR house.

Even if he does change the locks, if she shows proof that her name is on the deed a locksmith will let her in and even make her a key if she asks for one.
[/QUOTE]
So? She moved out, she stopped paying.

What if she was abusive, and a restraining order were put in place? Then it would be okay, right? What if she were coming in and stealing things? It would be okay then too, right? So Chao has to wait until damage happens before protecting yourself? That’s ridiculous.

Look, she’s WALKED OUT. She’s left the building. You don’t need a judge to tell you it’s okay make changes!

[QUOTE=Quartz ]
Chao’s a woman IIRC.
[/QUOTE]
Oops! Well then, good on ya, sister!

50

[QUOTE=Leviosaurus]
So? She moved out, she stopped paying.

What if she was abusive, and a restraining order were put in place? Then it would be okay, right? What if she were coming in and stealing things? It would be okay then too, right? So Chao has to wait until damage happens before protecting yourself? That’s ridiculous.
[/QUOTE]

If there was a restraining order, the person isn’t ALLOWED to be at the house so that’s hardly a good comparison.

Moved out and stopped paying doesn’t mean you can do whatever you want. That’s why you want to be very, very careful when moving in with someone and especially careful when you sign to purchase a home with someone. I’m not blaming the OP, it sounds like they are getting a bad deal… I’m just saying that there are residency laws to be followed and the person to help you with that is a lawyer. You don’t need a bunch of people on a message board to take the place of someone who actually knows what they’re talking about. You can find it as ridiculous as your little heart wants, it doesn’t mean it’s legal.

[QUOTE=Leviosaurus]
Look, she’s WALKED OUT. She’s left the building. You don’t need a judge to tell you it’s okay make changes!
[/QUOTE]

See, that’s where you’re very, very wrong. You can’t just make changes when you’re not the only person who owns it and the other person disagrees with those changes. In this situation, they’re not even being made aware. This person can be held legally responsible for activities that take place ON the property but can’t get into the property?

The law doesn’t care how ridiculous Leviosaurus on the internet thinks, and if the OP is smart… neither will they.

51

[QUOTE=Sleeps With Butterflies]
The law doesn’t care how ridiculous Leviosaurus on the internet thinks, and if the OP is smart… neither will they.
[/QUOTE]
Doesn’t care how you think it is either sweet cheeks - as I said, she’s signalled her intention to leave, **Chao ** can offer any access to her stuff on request, that’s all **Chao ** needs. There is no damage to Princess to not have access to the house - **Chao ** can change the locks and the only thing a judge will do is ask her to change them back - IF it gets that far, which it won’t. Princess can’t claim she has been damaged if she still has access to her stuff, and she can’t claim occupancy when she’s moved out.

52

As I said above, I was part of a legal situation in which it was absolutely and clearly the case within the law that one party could not restrict entry to a domicile to which the other person had rights–in that situation, the other person was not on the deed but was considered a resident. The person who tried to bar entry was found to have committed a crime and advised to seek a restraining order if he had reason to believe that the ex was a threat.

53

[QUOTE=Leviosaurus]
IANAL but I know . . . .
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Leviosaurus]
What if she was abusive, and a restraining order were put in place? Then it would be okay, right? . . . . . Look, she’s WALKED OUT. She’s left the building. You don’t need a judge to tell you it’s okay make changes!
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Leviosaurus]
Doesn’t care how you think it is either sweet cheeks - as I said, she’s signalled her intention to leave, **Chao ** can offer any access to her stuff on request, that’s all **Chao ** needs. . . . . the only thing a judge will do is ask her to change them back - IF it gets that far, which it won’t.
[/QUOTE]

Leviosaurus, do you know your ass from a fucking hole in the ground?

Other than your morally indignant view of what the law must be, do you have any well-supported basis for saying what a judge would do? Perhaps something grounded in the actual law, maybe with citations, and not just the spew of someone’s opinion on a message board.

As someone who is a lawyer, admittedly one who is (I believe) out of chao’s jurisdiction and not sure of the specifics of the law in this area, I can tell you you have no clue whatsoever. Chao did the right thing (or one of the right things), and consulted a police officer in her town, who said that she’d have to let the ex- in if called. That is consistent with the general law of co-ownership of real estate – where people are “tenants in common” they each have the mutual right to use concurrently occupy the property, and one’s excluding the other from occupancy is a violation of the excluded person’s rights.

Further, this is a domestic situation, and any domestic situation with police or judicial involvement is seriously fraught. If the ex- (accurately or not) claims abuse or violence, there is a very good chance that chao will quickly wind up barred from her own house, and that’s a deep and bad hole to have to climb out of. And I don’t know, but there may be some law in chao’s jurisdiction that changing the locks is by its nature abusive. As I suggested, in New York, illegally excluding someone from occupancy is a good way to earn yourself a set of silver bracelets, and the fact that occupant moved out for a while but left her stuff is not an excuse.

In my experience, judges aren’t necessarily so lenient on people who may have violated the law just because they didn’t know what the law was (ignorance no excuse, and all). And any situation where chao gets before a judge is almost definitely bad. It probably is better to try to avoid it however you can.

So, Leviosaurus, could you please let us know if you have some basis for your bullshit, of just shut the fuck up.

54

[QUOTE=Leviosaurus]
Doesn’t care how you think it is either sweet cheeks - as I said, she’s signalled her intention to leave, **Chao ** can offer any access to her stuff on request, that’s all **Chao ** needs. There is no damage to Princess to not have access to the house - **Chao ** can change the locks and the only thing a judge will do is ask her to change them back - IF it gets that far, which it won’t. Princess can’t claim she has been damaged if she still has access to her stuff, and she can’t claim occupancy when she’s moved out.
[/QUOTE]

And what is the legal significance of Princess still being a one-half owner of the house, and being locked out by the other owner?

Since you appear to have a firm grasp of the legal nuances of the situation, perhaps you can expound on this point.

55

[QUOTE=The Chao Goes Mu]
I’m still leaning on changing them once her hat is being hung in a new abode. I know that legally the place will still be half hers for the next two weeks but I will be quite fair about making arrangements for her to get the stuff she can’t get this weekend. Like I said, I’m not changing the locks to be a bitch, I’m changing them for my peace of mind.
[/QUOTE]

There is always the possibility (speaking as a legal devil’s advocate) that her new living arrangements could fall through, and you’d have locked her out of a home that she legally owns half of. Doesn’t matter if she moved some stuff out, doesn’t matter if she said she was leaving. What if it were a vacant investment property that neither of you lived in? What if moving some boxes was really a threatening tactic to get you to take her seriously? She’d still have a legal right to access. It’s necessary (I think) to either give an eviction notice or have her provide you a written and dated intent to vacate.

Believe me, I more than understand the urge to Get. Shit. Done. You’ve played it smart so far, don’t take a chance on screwing it up now with a minor legal gaffe. Take steps to protect high-value items in the house and hold your breath until the paperwork is done. It will feel good to change the locks, but nothing steals the thunder from a grand gesture of closure like having it undone because you ignored the legal details.

56

God, now that I think about it, just changing the financing arrangements may not be sufficient if she decides to sing a different tune. You may actually have to go through the eviction process. You can’t just kick someone out of a home with no notice just because you broke up and took them off the house note. Please do see an attorney, I’d hate to see you get screwed by a petty vindictive björtch who decided to press a minor detail.

57

[QUOTE=Cosmic Relief]
God, now that I think about it, just changing the financing arrangements may not be sufficient if she decides to sing a different tune.
[/QUOTE]

It looks like chao is not merely changing the financing, but having the ex- sign the deed to the house back to chao’s name alone. If that is indeed the case and there are no other confounding factors, that will likely be a pretty darn good legal indication that ex- is relinquishing any occupancy rights she may have (unlike merely leaving, which would probably not considered to be an abandonment of rights to a co-owned property).

58

I think I’ve got it all sorted it out. I have to dash off to meet the appraiser but will be back in an hour or so to give you guys an update.

59

Oh, crap! I just realized that this was in IMHO, not the Pit. My apologies for the intemperate language in post 53.

60

[QUOTE=Leviosaurus]
Doesn’t care how you think it is either sweet cheeks
[/QUOTE]

Captain Obvious, that’s why I said the OP should consult with an attorney… not a bunch of people on a message board. So your “oh yeah? you too!” response makes little sense.

The rest of your response has already been addressed by people who know a bit more about the law, so I’ll leave it there.