Son is owner of property and wants to evict abusive alcoholic father.
My understanding is that is NOT so.
If you evict someone without following the process you can get in big trouble both with the law (criminal) AND the person inproperly evicted (civil big money lawsuit).
So, while throwing all their stuff on the lawn and locking the door while they are gone could be quite satisfying, its the kind of thing that makes some lawyers drool at the dollar signs.
So just give your no good rotten offspring written notice to vacate 30 days before his/her 18th birthday.Maybe you will get lucky and they will leave early.
What would the cops do if you came back to your home and found squatters had taken possession and changed the locks? Same thing.
Cops, besides having guns and nice cars, are also equipped with brains and a certain amount of training in how to handle specific situations. The law states that you cannot evict a person from his residence without notice. So the cops ask a few questions and determine the 18 year-old son is, in fact, residing there. Anyone trying to evict him is breaking the law and can be taken down to the station if he persists in breaking the law. So what if he is the owner of the house?
Shagnasty, has become very quiet in this thread…
Of course you can unless they are bigger than you or stronger or meaner. As stated, it is implied that this in not a spur of the moment decision. So, you should know the legal aspects of what you are going to do. Right? If the kid is smart enough to call the cops, they will get back in. If you can’t make them so miserable that they don’t leave within the hour, then you are not much of a parent IMO.
Of course they can. See above. Make it legal and binding? That takes more planning. Find out the legal requirements. Send notice, you collect mail, leave letter in the open with all the other bills, the kid will never open it. Have at least one extra day on hand so you can do the deed on the stroke of midnight or when ever for maximum effect, I like snow or rain falling myself. YMMV
Now this answers the question as asked. All the others tangents have been run off into the woods in all directions.
Summation:
Yes you can if you are big, strong nuff. Prolly won’t last if the one kicked out brings in the law or one of the skanks known as a lawyer.
With proper planning, you can do it and have it stick even if they are bigger, stronger or get a lawyer to waste money on. Even on the stroke of midnight.
:: Now, back to the irrelevant tangents that are so much fun… :rolleyes:
All this legal mumbo-jumbo may be interesting, but lets be real: how many teenagers are going to insist on staying after being told to leave? Truth is that in 99-44/100% of the time it is the teen that says they want to leave and in the remainder they will just say “f… you” and leave. So there is little if any need to argue this point.
I think the core issue-residence vs visitor- has become clear to us all. Trespassing is against the law. Living in a specific place, whether one owns it or has an oral lease, provides that person some legal protections. Examples of trespassing do not apply to cases of eviction of a resident. Even in Louisiana, one can’t shoot a resident of a dwelling just because said resident doesn’t obey the orders of the property owner. Shagnasty has been discussing cases of trespassing. The OP posed a question about a resident. The confluence of the two threads are when a trespasser becomes a resident. I would be interested in hearing further discussion regarding when a T becomes an R. Being in possession of a key, perhaps (but we have keys to the neighbor’s house in case of emergency-as they do of ours), receiving mail (I get mail at my office all the time. Doesn’t mean I live there), I eat at restaurants so eating there isn’t proof, sleeping ditto, some combination of the above-that may be the definition. We all can agree (I hope) that on the stroke of midnight the 18 yr old is still a resident of that house and enjoys certain protections under the law. A person climbing through the window and crashing on the sofa doesn’t. But between these two extremes, what defines a resident?
The term you’re looking for is occupant.
I agree, that is the crux of it.
Thanks,
That is what I was getting at.
The thing is the OP is proposing an unusual senerio. I would really doubt a child in good standing with his parents would be thrown out.
Landlords generally have to give the person the period of rent as notice, in absence of a lease. For instance, when I lived in Maryland I had a flat that rented week to week. In that case 7 days notice would be all that’s required, because with no rental agreement to the contrary I was in effect leasing week to week.
A landlord also has the right to remove a tenet immediately for criminal behaviour. For instnace, if I see a tenant selling crack out of his flat, I can evict him much faster than under normal circumstances. This also applies to grandma who lets her gang banging grandson sell crack out of her flat.
So in that case, you simply call the cops tell them so and so is selling drugs out of your house and needs to be removed. Cops can’t do anything without evidence, but you’re on record now. The next day you toss everything out and change the locks. Call the cops again and say he’s selling drugs and file a criminal complaint. This will go nowhere, but it WILL give you protection if said, person thrown out tries to sue you.
You simply cannot be expected to let a person doing criminal activites endanger your safety.
:rolleyes: Give us a break!
This is what you said:
Now don’t try to tell us you were saying something else. That is what you said and it was plain wrong. Then you went on to mix examples which had nothing to do with the case being discussed. Why don’t you have the courage to just admit you were mistaken?
That does not answer the question.
I believe in the absence of a written lease the default by law is month to month and the fact that you pay weekly would not matter. I believe you would have to be given 30 days’ notice.
Where do you get this from? I would like to see some legal support for that.
And you are making false accusations you can get in deeper shit than you think. Where do you get all this from?
You really do like to make shit up don’t you? Can we have some support for all this? I bet any lawyer will tell you you’d get into trouble for doing that.
You cannot take the law into your own hands and you can’t make shit up without getting into trouble.
Come on sailor, you are a smart enough guy. I do have the courage to back up everything I said. I am always happy to learn some things which I did in this thread but that still isn’t the whole story even practically or theoretically.
I was trying to imagine if both the house owner and the pseudo-tenant took matters to the extreme and tried to exploit the situation. You could have the makings of a good thriller. One loser decides to hole up their a friend for a week in New Orleans and then refuses to leave. The owner of the house calls the police and the police say he has to be allowed to wander around freely in the house doing god knows what for 30 days. The homeowner finally gets really scared and changes the locks while the freeloader is out. The freeloader tries to force his way into the house and the homeowner shoots and kills him. The court case becomes interesting.
This is about imagination and exploitation that can happen with strange laws. It never had any real-world purpose. I am not sure why you are getting so worked up over it. I will admit to anything and I did learn that some people do have the right of residency under some circumstances even if they don’t pay rent but no one ever established what that was exactly. In the beginning of the thread, it was stated that it could be as little as a one night sleepover.
Step back. Think, think, and imagine. It is an interesting theoretical question and others saw what I was talking about.
No, the fact is that this is GQ and a very precise and factual question was asked and, as happens way too often in GQ, a bunch of people, including yourself, start telling anecdotes and things only very loosely connected to the OP and saying things they imagine are right but which are wrong and if they thought about it for a minute they would know they are not qualified to answer.
People saying you can just kick someone out with no notice or that you can get around it by accusing them of dealing drugs are giving advice that is wrong and dangerous should someone decide to try it.
Factual answers should have some credible support, not just what one would think should be most probable answer. I wish people who decide to answer a GQ question would think twice before just spouting the first ignorant thought that comes to their mind. This thread is a good example of that.
Ok Sailor, I will wait in great anticipation for your analysis on this issue for all 50 states, the U.S. Constitution, and all complications that may arise from it…
That is the only real GQ answer. There was no real-world problem specified in the OP.
You seem to have an unusual affinity and aggression for this subject :dubious: and I am not quite sure why. If you need a place to stay tonight, I am sure that a number of Dopers would be willing to help you out (myself included).
A lot of people do this in GQ, and perhaps I have been guilty of it myself. But I do have to agree with** sailor**, Shagnasty. You pretty much tore into the thread, called me a liar, gave completely different scenarios as your “cites”, then when you were proven wrong, tried to backpedal and say that’s what you were saying all along. If you don’t know the answer to the question, maybe you shouldn’t answer it.
There was no one question in the OP. The U.S. has 50 states with different laws and there was no real-world question involved. I never called you a liar and I never would because I don’t think that way especially about you. I just said that I didn’t believe it and then I learned some more and I found out that parts of it were true which is what this board is all about.
Later posters picked up on what I was saying. I was not looking to win a debate contest. I WAS wondering if someone could exploit this situation on either side to result in absurd consequences like being forced to live in your own house with people you barely know just because you let them sleep over with no practical recourse or being allowed to kill the zombie intruder if you got the upper hand and locked the door once they stepped outside and tried to come back in. It is just a thought exercise.
I need more explanation. I am the occupant of a seat on an airplane. That doesn’t make me a resident.
Simple. Your assertion has no relevance to this thread. You don’t live on that airplane, and your rights to occupy that seat are covered by a very specific (and lengthy) contract of carriage.