I again linked to that information in this very thread. Post # 22
HE DOES NOT CARE
He is convinced since his landlord told him he can, that he legally can. Of course this is the same person who has lied to him in the past and seems to be brushing all responsiblity for these tenants on to the OP which he/she should since he did not sign the lease with the losers, the OP did.
He is going to do what he wants no matter what information we give him.
He can write and read but can not seem to comprehend.
With the help of an attorney, I think it would be possible, based on this law to prove that they are not legal tennents.
Well, we already know this isn’t the case. The roommates are not on paper anywhere.
This is the tricky part. bouv’s attorney needs to prove that bouv never gave them oral consent to live there. Not only has bouv not allowed them to live there, bouv has repeatedly asked them to leave. They seem to be under the impression that even though bouv did not want them there, and even though they were asked to leave that they were allowed to stay by simply paying part of the rent once in a while*
I’m not sure about this part. It probably says right in the lease, very specifically that bouv can NOT sublet. Would this mean that bouv can not legally be the landlord?
*The attorney comes in here as well. If the money was paid to bouv, in cash. You might be able to claim they never gave you rent money. Or, depending on the amounts, you might even be able to claim it was utility money (including back utilities). If you claim that it was money to pay for water/gas/phone/cable etc (you didn’t ask for it, they just gave it to you) then it wasn’t rent money and that might help your case. But I really don’t know anything about VT tennent law.
Sorry, it’s a sucky situation, I know. I once had an apartment with two other people and one of them decided, a few months before the end of the lease, that he didn’t want to live there anymore, so he just packed up and left. I had to sue him for about $2000 to get back the shit load of money I paid out to avoid eveiction. (His rent for last month that he didn’t pay, ALL rent for this month and a early termination fee since I couldn’t afford to live there without him). Apparently he had mailed his key to the landlord with a note saying he was moving out and honestly thought that got him out the rent. In court he threw a fit about it. The jusge couldn’t seem to get him to understand that sending in a note doesn’t get you off the lease and he ruled in favor of me.
Why on Earth are you letting them stay at all? You’re asking for trouble if you allow this hostile situation it last the whole month. If they aren’t on the lease, they don’t respect the people who are and most importantly they haven’t paid get them the hell out now!
I take it you haven’t read the whole thread yet, as this was my first impression as well.
But apparently there are all sorts of stupid laws about how anyone who stays over a short while and helps pay with a few expenses is somehow automatically a tenant and therefore somehow gains all these rights about how they can’t just be kicked out.
Still, I’m fairly sure that without anything written, he can just kick them out, because any claim to being a tenant becomes “he said/he said”, and with bouv being the only one with any sort of rental agreement at all, he should be in the clear. But since none of us knows exactly what these laws are and what sort of legal entitlements are due to these freeloaders, the only sensible recourse seems to be to shell out some bucks to talk to a lawyer.
The police are very unlikely to take bouv’s word for it. He will probably need either court order evicting them or the landlord (property owner) standing there authorizing the eviction. And maybe both.
Maybe he can successfully give them the boot by himself; maybe he can’t. But given the legal uncertainties, he’d be a fool to try. IME.
Why do people keep saying this? If this is true, any random stranger could wander into any house or apartment and claim they’re “tenants”, and who’s to say differently?
Look, say the police show up. And the deadbeat says “I’m a rent-paying roommate, bouv cannot just throw me out.”, and bouv says, “No, actually, he isn’t. I let him crash a while back and he hasn’t left since.” Since bouv is the only one with any sort of written documentation, why does he have to prove this interloper is not really a tenant?
If they can produce mail delivered to them at that address, or if they have ID showing that address, they are likely to believed by the cop. At which point OP will be shown to have been lying to a cop.
Because it’s true. As to “who’s to say differently” – not the police, certainly. Say you’re a law enforcement officer and you report to a scene and one party says “Throw him out!” and the other party says “You can’t throw me out! I live here!” and the first party says “No, he doesn’t! I let him crash a while back and he hasn’t left since!”
Neither party owns the house, and the officer doesn’t know if the person lives there or not. The officer does know that, far from being a “random stranger” who “wandered into any house,” the person has at least been staying there (with permission) for some time.
So the question obviously becomes, does the person actually have a right to be there, or not? It isn’t up to the officer to make that determination, and he or she almost certainly will decline to do so – especially since being wrong could expose the officer and the department to liability for having wrongfully ejected a tenant from a home. Showing the officer a lease WITHOUT the person’s name on it is almost certainly not good enough; a lot of people rent or sublet without written agreements – as was in fact the case here. That’s why having “written documentation” is probably not enough, unless the document is a court order.
Anyway, I don’t know why some posters think law enforcement is going to be zipping right over to solve the situation. They hate this shit and they rightly do not consider it to be their job to get some guy’s roommate to leave. They generally don’t become involved in evictions without notice, a court order, and payment of a fee.
Alright, I’ve got a meeting with a lawyer who specializes in housing issues tomorrow. As for me being berated for not taking advice listed in the two threads, let’s face it, the only GOOD advice I ever got in the two threads was “talk to a lawyer.” I did it too late, but that’s because I really would prefer to settle things myself and not have to get into any legal action.
Most of the advice people seem to be giving is bad. The police don’t want to get involved, and without a court order, there’s no way they can do much. Just changing the locks sets me up to have legal action taken against me. It’s a murky area on whether their considered tenants, since I’m not a landlord, but I am taking money from them. But on the other hand, I’m not allowed to do that, so the landlord just considers them trespassers.
Lawyer tomorrow, then we’ll see. At any rate, they promised ( :rolleyes: ) they’d be out at the end of Feb,(and that they’d pay me the money (double :rolleyes: ) and since I did give them written notification (and told the landlord to do the same, just to cover our legal asses,) it looks like at the very least, they’re gone by then (and I doubt it will be easier/feasible to get them out before.) Of course, even after the time is up, it’s still not as easy as getting the cops. A court order has to be gotten, and THEN they still have X amount of time to pay/leave.
Basically, the system is in place to make sure it’s really fucking easy to be a deadbeat.
But if bouvdoes in fact sublet (which he has done) in violation of the lease agreement he has with the landlord, that probably isn’t the jackass roommates’ problem. They entered into a sublet agreement in good faith.
For comparisson, say you lentbouv your bicycle, then he sold it to me without your permission. When the cops stop me and say “Hey, that’s a stolen bike!” how much trouble do you think I’ll be in after I show them my cancelled check made out to bouv in full payment for the bicycle? The next place the cops would be going would be to pick up bouv. I probably wouldn’t be getting in shit for being an innocent victim in a fraudulent transaction.
bouv’s jackass roommates entered into a subletting agreement which has probably granted them tenant rights. They filled out application forms that they gave to bouv (and bouv gave to a landlord who apparently didn’t give a rat’s ass) and they had been paying rent as per their agreement. (Up until the other month).
bouv can probably get in shit for violating the terms of his lease, but chances are good that they are still have tenant rights. If they have to move out specifically because bouv never had the authority to sublet, who do you think is going to get in trouble? The tenants who thought they were entering into a valid subletting agreement? Or the guy who took their money and let them move in without having he authority to do so? The courts don’t like kicking people out of their homes. Douchebags the roommates may be, but they probably still have tenant rights. But as such, they can also be thrown out for non-payment of rent, but the proper paperwork has to be filled out.
The issue of bouv not being allowed to sublet is between him and his landlord. The douchebags didn’t violate the terms of the lease, bouv did.
ETA: And in all fairness, that sucks. bouv did give the applications forms to the landlord, so the douchbags should be on the lease, but his sucky landlord didn’t care enough tto follow up or amend the lease. The landlord is a dick.
Don’t assume that. Possession of stolen property is a felony in my jurisdiction, yea it’s usually used for the guy they think stole the thing, but certainly can also be used for others, especially if, say, you paid $5.00 for a bike worth $200.
Let’s recap. You start thread after thread seeking advice; several people have been telling you to get a lawyer since the first of these threads; you ignored that advice over and over again; and now you’re dismissively bitching that everyone else’s advice was bad except for the advice you ignored…
Which you ignored until now. Had you engaged an attorney the first time someone advised you to do so, you’d be that much closer to getting rid of your deadbeat roommate.
I personally think it’s hilarious that your latest post restates so identically what a bunch of people have already told you, yet you bitch that most of the advice you’ve been given is bad.
I guess if you ignore the good advice, then when you reach the same conclusion you can tell yourself it was your own idea. Congratulations!