In my Florida experience, if the person “lived” there, thats all it took for formal proceedings to be required.
So, my basic understanding was, if the cops showed up and talked to some neighbors, or the person could show some mail addressed to them at that address, formal eviction proceedings would be required, regardless of any or lack of any lease/rent payments…
IIRC, the only real difference between a renter with a lease/contract and somebody who “just lived there” was how much notice you had to give before it became official.
I am not seeing how a foreign exchange student going to the wrong house applies to an instance of a minor being kicked out by their parents at the stroke of midnight on the minor’s 18th birthday.
Can you reconcile what your cite has to do with the OP?
I apologize if if I was unclear in my request for a cite relevant to the OP, I thought it was a given. :smack:
No problem. My mind is spinning with various scenarios scenarios on this. I have a very nice house with two very young daughters. I also have at least two relatives with serious substance abuse problems and recent criminal records. They have hung around the house before but they are not allowed to get even close to it now no matter what. They could argue to the police that they have lived there and that I would have to give formal evictions. That is not my responsibility as a father and a homeowner. I shouldn’t have to prove that a lowlife doesn’t belong in my house (the two people that control it are already on the deed). There is no way that could ever happen and I have never heard of such a thing.
The whole logic doesn’t make sense. Anyone could claim that they lived anywhere and force the owners to go to court to get them out. Homeless people could use that all the time. I am trying to identify the logic of all of this. Once the person is in, what can they do? Eat your food? Take 45 minute showers three times a day? Wake everyone up in the middle of the night for fun? The police can’t do anything to an adult for this? I don’t believe it.
I am thinking in hypotheticals. You shouldn’t shoot to kill your own children on their 18th birthday obviously or anyone else for that matter but I can’t see why you would ever be forced to have a person in your own house that you don’t want if they aren’t paying rent and don’t have a contract with if they are an adult.
Like a lot of these types of GQ questions, it is mostly theoretical rather than practical otherwise someone would need to see a lawyer. Could you have your own house overrun by delusional heroin zombies and have to pay to get them out of your own house anywhere in the U.S. with the police refusing to do much of anything just because you gave them a bed for a few days over the holidays?
An ex sister in law was living in Las Vegas with some guy. They had a falling out and she wanted him out of the apartment. They had been living together for a year or so. During that time he never worked and she did. She paid all the bills, the place was in her name, etc.
When she called the cops to get him thrown out they said (according to her), “If his clothes are here then he lives here and we can’t throw him out.”
She did finally get rid of him and moved back east.
IANAL, but in my own recent expeditions in lease and eviction law, I have learned it is indeed a crime in many states to evict by “self help,” (without legal due process). Now, I think the law will understand a vast difference between someone crashing on your couch for a night that won’t leave the next morning and someone that was staying with you for a few months. Hopefully LEO’s on the ground will be able to ascertain the difference in choosing to help people regain access to a property.
In the latter case, if someone is legitimately living somewhere, they have rights and cannot be summarily evicted via self help. Even without a written lease (an oral lease instead), there are still statutory protections for tenants. Even if they weren’t paying rent, the courts will probably assume some other reason for you permitting to stay in your house for months (do they do the dishes or take care of the kids?).
To flip your homeless person situation around, if someone was permitted to summarily evict by self help a tenant with an oral lease simply by saying, “I want him gone, he’s not allowed here anymore, and he never paid me to live here” then how would the law provide any protection at all for people that have oral leases?
But if he really had no legal right to be there and she was able to kick him out he would have no legal recourse. He can’t sue her (successfully) for wrongful eviction. He can’t complain that she did not comply with the notice requirements. The first step in establishing a case is that the person had a right to be there in the first place.
The OP did not ask what the cops would do. Of course many of them will not get involved in domestic squables. I wish people would stop bringing in anecdotes about how cops acted. The question is about the legality of a parent kicking a child out of his house when that child turned 18. Not how the cops will handle a domestic situation.
Absent some cite which no one has provided there is no basis in AMERICAN property law that I know of that allows one to remain in the home of another absent a lawful claim of right or contract. Sure the police may not want to get involved but that has no bearing on the right of the parent to kick a kid out. Practically speaking you may need to take legal action or get a court order but if the parent says get out and the kid does he cannot then turn around and claim damages because the parents failed to comply with landlord/tenant eviction law.
ETA: Well he may have a claim but not one that requires the parents to comply with any notice requirement. They can say be out right now if they want to.
How this has shit to do with the question being asked is anyone’s guess.
That is what I have always understood and that is what I have always heard happen and what I have always seen on Cops. The notion that you would have someone tresspassing on your property and the cops just “don’t want to get involved” is just plain silly.
If a person has been living in a place for a while and considers that place to be their residence you cannot kick them out without due process. It doesn’t matter if they are squatters, you try to take matters into your own hands and you are in trouble.
My guess is that pretty much in every state (maybe with the exception of Texas because they are always weird) you cannot evict your children or anyone else living in the property without due notice. If someone has been living with you as a guest, not paying anything, for quite a while, you cannot evict them without notice.
That seems obvious but is it really? This whole thread is about ridiculous hypotheticals. I didn’t want to make that a major point but I was asked for a valid cite and gave it. That type of thing has happened in real life but I have never heard of zombie, adult, teenagers taking over a house and refusing to leave yet the homeowners are powerless to do something about it without getting legal counsel and court orders.
People keep making the claim this is true but no one gave any real evidence for it. The reason I gave the shoot to kill trespassing cites for Louisiana is that it my be theoretically easier just to shoot your 18 year old after he/she refuses to stop trying to open your front door or climb in your windows for the umpteenth time rather than worry about going to court over it. All you should have to do is lock the front door the first time the person leaves the house.
Again, that example was meant to be extreme but I gave more evidence for it than those that say you could easily end up with adults in your house that you don’t want to be there and have no control over. If there are laws that allow these types of people free access to your own home, what are they supposedly allowed to do once they are in? Apparently most anything according to people in this thread because you have no recourse to kick them out right away. That sounds ridiculous.
So what happens when you forcefully throw/drag the squatter out of your house (or lock the door behind him when he goes out for a smoke), the cops knock on the door and ask you to let him back in after listening to his sob-story, and you simply refuse/lock the door/and order him to get off your property regardless? Are they gonna kick your door down, cuff you, and let the scumbag roam freely through your house ransacking it/molesting your kids while driving you to the station, just based on his word?
If they won’t forcefully remove a person on the spot without legal process, I can’t see how they’d forcefully implant a person in someone else’s house without the same legal process. So once the freeloader is out, what happens if the homeowner simply refuses them re-entry?
What would appear to be the law in Louisiana has been presented for you. How that qualifies as a lack of real evidence is beyond me. Do you require multiple Gfactor-esque case-law cites to refute your suppositions and assumptions?
Better yet, make it easy for us all, and provide a cite to support your position.
ETA: And even better yet, provide a cite that is applicable to OP’s question that also supports your position.
No, this thread is about whether the parents can kick out of the house their adult children without warning and the answer is that in general terms you cannot kick anyone out of their residence, children or not, without due notice.
No, you gave a cite of something which has Jack Shit to do with what is being discussed.
The Louisana Code of Civil Procedure Section 4702 has been cited and I bet that is the law pretty much everywhere.
Ask anyone who has wanted to get rid of room mates. It does not matter that their names are not on the lease; if they live there you cannot kick them out without notice. It does not matter that they not pay rent, nothing matters except that you cannot kick someone out of their residence without notice.
I can tell you that is how it is in Washington DC because I have seen one such case where the police were called and said to the owner that if the guy who wanted to enter was residing there then he had the right to enter. While it was not said openly, it was clear from the context that the owner of the property would be arrested if he tried to prevent it.
I have no doubt that is how it is in pretty much every state and every developed country. You cannot take the law into your own hands and kick someone out of their residence. You need to give them notice and if they refuse then you need to go to court.
In other words, “tenant” does not mean “paying rent” but “in possession”. It does not matter if he did not have a lease or paid rent. If he lived there he was a “tenant” and due process needs to be followed for eviction. Not following due process would subject the party causing the eviction to civil liability and maybe criminal if force was used.