The OP used the term “guest”, implying that the person is neither an employee nor paying for their accommodation. Even in this country, where tenants tend to have the whip hand legally, I think that if you overstayed your welcome as a “guest” I could simply throw you out - with minimum force and after asking nicely failed, naturally.
The situation with the nanny is a bit murky since there was a business relationship and there likely was some contract about housing. But it seems the eviction action would still be necessary even in the case of a uncooperative guest. Maybe you offered to let a relative stay while he tried to find a job, but now 6 months later you want him out. Or a relationship goes south and the person refuses to leave just to be spiteful. I can’t recall a news story where that happened, but often people will mention that eviction may be necessary if the guest has stayed there for a long time.
Probably. I’d expect if I had a live-in girlfriend who lived in my home (which I own, not jointly with anyone else) and I became violently abusive to her such that a TRO was issued, I might be required to move out of the house in order to remain separate from her. At least for a time, I imagine eventually my property ownership rights would prevail in me taking ultimate possession of the home. But I would expect in such a situation a victim of domestic abuse would be given some time unmolested in the place where they have established residence while things work there way through the system.
I’m amazed at the number of people who are dead set against that Nanny. I’m not saying the homeowners should have to support her indefinitely, but 30 days notice to vacate seems reasonable. Otherwise, every live-in employee who gets fired would be homeless.
How are they supposed to find housing if they’ve just lost their jobs? Even with 30 days notice, it’s an incredibly vulnerable position to be in.
ETA: OK, I read a bit more and it seems this particular lady is a bit “out there”, but I still think 30 days is reasonable.
That’s true and not something I’ve disputed.
That’s also true, but the point is that that’s not the extent of it, as you yourself have also noted.
No, he meant you need an eviction. Apparently it depends on what type of hotel, but for the most part, for what’s most commonly thought of as hotels, you are correct.
Exactly. If they leave the house, change the locks, dump their stuff, and have them arrested if (when) they try to break in.
Also, you can make it reeeeeeal uncomfortable for them to stay there. For example, host late-night poker parties for the local “Motorcycle Enthusiast” groups. (or whoever you have the best relations with). Stop providing food, water, power, heat etc. etc. Fart a lot.
I could get a squatter out of my place in about an hour! 
As far as rentals and leases and such, some states are simply awful! California is one of them. A real Dickbag can tie up your place with out paying rent nearly forever if he is smart/sneaky/douchy enough. Not so in Nevada. You fuck up, you are outta there, PRONTO!
I’d say he still missed the mark as I first stated–those special cases the hotel operator wouldn’t really match the common definition of an innkeeper in any case, but would be more of a land lord. A rare area of California landlord tenant law that makes some good sense as those special classes of hotel guests had essentially been permitted to establish semipermanent residency.
Sure you could do all those things, but they would all be illegal in almost any state, you would be sued and likely lose.
“TRO before hearing” is fairly commonly granted. But after the hearing (in which the judge has the opportunity to hear both sides) are certainly not given out “as requested.”
TRO hearings are the due process by which someone may be deprived of their civil rights. As such, they are considered stringently by most judges.
If you were to go online to review the written law as to what constitutes grounds for a TRO, you might think that they were easy to get. But the actual practice of a judge is typically to interpret the law in such a way as to make it more difficult for a petitioner to prevail than most people think.
Of course, every judge has their own interpretation of case law, every state has their own particulars, and each case has its own merits.
But the public perception of judges handing out TROs like candy is far from the truth. I’ve seen some very disturbing restraining order denials over the years.
In my personal opinion, the view of the easy restraining order reputation comes from people who were subject to them but who downplayed the situation to their friends and associates to save face.
But I won’t argue this further because I don’t want to hijack this thread.
Where it does pertain to this thread, it’s possible that the owners did seek a restraining order, but the judge didn’t deem the woman a threat because she had made no threats. I’d personally think that someone who seems potentially mentally unbalanced or manipulative as the person in the article sounds–would be a threat to me by the act of being there. But if they did attempt a restraining order, the judge disagreed. No mention is made of any specific threats.
I’ve never seen a restraining order against the actual owner of a dwelling be required to leave. I’ve seen co-owners (such as spouses for example) be required to leave temporarily. TRO applications (at least in CA and I imagine anywhere else) can request just about anything. But judges can, and do, grant , deny, and change parts of the application. I’d be shocked to see any case of an owner being required to leave while a non owner was allowed to stay. IANAL, but AFAIK there isn’t any case law to support that.
So what is the new nanny supposed to do, sleep on the sofa, ho rack with the old one?
[QUOTE=Fotheringay-Phipps]
Actually that raises the even more interesting question as to whether the unwanted guest could get a restraining order against their hosts and evict them from their own home. (At least temporarily - TROs are pretty given out as requested, for the most part.)
[/QUOTE]
What do the police do if the hosts refuse to vacate?
Regards,
Shodan
One of us is confused here. A TRO is a temporary restraining order. These are granted without the subject of the order being present and are what’s given out like candy. (Some random woman got a TRO against David Letterman based on her claim that he was mentally abusing her in his broadcasts, which contained abusive messages aimed at her personally.) These are followed up with a hearing for a permanent RO, at which the subject of the order has the right to be present with legal representation. Even then, the standard of proof is “preponderance of evidence”, meaning 51% likely. And as a practical matter, it really means a lot less than 51% likely, because a judge is more nervous about being critisized for having failed to protect someone who later becomes a victim than he is about incoveniencing some guy.
I would assume - if such restraining orders are granted - that it would be the same as anyone else who violates a restraining order (i.e. jail time).
I have. When it comes to a TRO it doesn’t matter who’s name is on the lease or the deed. The purpose is to remove the offender and keep temporary peace. Does it make sense that the victim of domestic violence comes forward for assistance, is found to be credible enough to be granted a TRO and then put out on the street as a reward? That’s not exactly encouraging people to come forward as victim’s of domestic violence. But a TRO is not even close to being an eviction so it really doesn’t belong in this thread. During the process only the plaintiff is heard. The TRO is only in effect until a future court date with both parties. Here it is in about a week. Domestic Violence laws are different from state to state. Here in order to qualify for a TRO there has to be a current or former dating relationship or they have to be cohabitants. Being a house guest does not make you a cohabitant. But there is no bright line where a guest turns into a cohabitant.
What do you think? If you refuse to follow the order of a judge you are arrested. Around here its a no bail warrant until you personally appear in front of a superior court judge.
I’m here in New Jersey where we led the charge on stronger domestic violence laws. We still have some of the strongest in the country. You are correct that for TROs they tend to err on the side of caution since it is temporary. However, I have seen plenty that have been denied because they don’t fit the criteria. I have seen plenty that have been thrown out on immediate appeal by the defendant. I have seen plenty that have been dropped at the Final Restraining Order phase. Your assertion reads more like something from a men’s right page than GQ.
So if someone is staying in my house against my will, I have to go thru the eviction process, but if I am staying in my house against his will, I get arrested?
Regards,
Shodan
No. If you are found to be in a domestic relationship with someone and have enough credible proof to convince a judge that you may have committed one of the fourteen enumerated crimes of domestic violence you may be ordered to temporarily vacate your residence until a court hearing. In order for a restraining order to be granted a judge must find that 1) a domestic relationship exists 2) a crime which falls under the domestic violence statute was committed. If both of those conditions do not exist the judge can not grant a TRO by law. If the judge grants it and you do refuse to follow the order you will then be arrested. I’m sorry if that doesn’t fit your pithy comment.
*Laws vary from state to state and I do not have knowledge of all 50.
I assume in most states, like in Canadian provinces generally, the strict protections against eviction, etc. - apply to private dwellings. Never had to deal with this, but what I read of the various actions, the difficulties with evicting delinquent or destructive tenants applies to separate apartments and houses. When it comes to your own dwelling, the domestic TRO stuff is the limit of the powers that can be brought to bear. In the end, the court cannot enforce domestic tranquility and won’t try.
Even with rooming houses, IIRC, there’s a separate law for one which is effectively the owner’s primary dwelling, not a commercial establishment. I think this recognizes the difference between a commercial transaction and putting the owner’s family and possessions at risk.
So the question would be, to what extent is the nanny’s “room” a self-contained living unit - its own kitchen, toilet, separate entrance, and all the other pieces that go into making a place a private apartment? Depending on this, different laws may apply. The nanny with the middle bedroom to herself is one thing, the basement nanny suite zoned, built, and licensed as a separate apartment is something else.
After all, parents are fully entitled to kick their kids out at a certain age, a houseguest (not an employee) would be no different. You are there at the sufferance of the owner(s). Plus, even someone in receipt of a TRO, as owner, can I imagine let their buddies the biker gang hole up in their house for a few days as temporary guests also.
I agree with the facts as you’ve described them, and am uncertain what it is that I wrote that you’re disagreeing with.
Of course, not all requests for permanent ROs are granted. I think I’ve been pretty clear about this. What I did say is that even for permanent ROs, judges are going to tend to err on the side of caution, for reasons given. That doesn’t mean they’re going to issue ROs when it’s clearly unwarranted by the law and facts, but it does mean if the facts are murky, as they frequently are, they will tend to err on the side of issuing the order, despite the nominal “preponderence of evidence” standard.
I’m not going to argue here about my assertions regarding TROs or ROs in general and how often they are granted, etc, because I don’t want to hijack the thread.
As far as where TROs might be relevant to the story in question:
ROs in general are not only for domestic violence. States have different specific definitions of what the relationship is that makes a DV TRO form the proper form (and corresponding law) to use.
There are other types of restraining orders used when the person you wish to restrain is not covered under the domestic violence section. I know less about these, but they are basically similar in nature. For example, if you were afraid of your next door neighbor, or someone who you see on the street, you can still request a restraining order against them. I imagine in the story we are discussing this would have been the type of RO that might have been filed.
And yes, I’ve seen people who hold the lease been forced to leave, (at least temporarily) but I haven’t seen the owner forced to leave (except where the property is jointly owned). I’m surprised, but I believe you because I don’t see why not.
And yes, you are right, the restraining order before hearing is most properly called the Temporary Restraining Order and the order after hearing is the “permanent” restraining order. In the vernacular that we use, we typically call both “TRO” because it’s less confusing for our clients and because even a permanent RO is not really permanent. Two years is typical. 10 years is rare but I’ve seen it. I believe there is such thing as a lifetime RO, but that’s really beyond my knowledge.
51% or preponderance of evidence is needed to grant the RO. But the larger question is 51% of evidence of WHAT. In other words, what counts as a threat of imminent harm? The judge may believe every word that the petitioner says and disbelieve every word that the respondent says (much more than 51%). The judge still may not believe that the petitioner’s previous rape by the respondent is a threat of imminent harm (right now) to the petitioner.
So 51% doesn’t always mean easy to get.
So again relating to the article at hand, if the owner did attempt to use a restraining order to move her off the property (which would be what I would try first), the judge did not see that the “squatter” was enough of a danger to the resident, even if the judge believed the property owner.