California family vexed by fired nanny who refuses to leave
I think people should have the right to kick people out of their own home.
The article I saw on the subject had an update: Nanny has disappeared.
Just left one day and didn’t come back. Left all her stuff behind. Didn’t take anything with her. Just went Poof! and vanished into the ether.
ETA: Cite, from USA Today (“Today” being 6/27), to give just one example from Google.
…or vanished into the pickling vat.
Time to dig up a cellar…
She threatened to sue the wrong folks and got the SDMB treatment!
Change the locks, move her things to storage.
Moral of the story - don’t hire live-in help.
That’s really scary…
If I was that family, I would search the house carefully–attic, cellar or basement or crawlspace, closets, under the beds, you name it. Otherwise you just know she’s hiding in the house somewhere, waiting to come out at night and raid the fridge and maybe creep into people’s bedrooms.
California has really tenant-biases eviction laws. Other states aren’t like that. This probably wouldn’t have happened in another state.
Wait-- I just noticed they gave the nanny room and board, but apparently not a salary. I guess you get what you pay for.
On ABC news, they just showed her living in her car. She wouldn’t talk to reporters. The family has been putting a bike lock on the fridge so she can’t get into it. And the nanny has been served with some kind of papers.
What a nightmare!
So she’s been located now? (Sorry, I’m not actually following the story closely.) Last I read, from various articles as of yesterday, nobody knew what became of her.
[FTYF?: tenant-biases –> tenant-biased ?]
Can somebody give us a TL;DR about that? What about apartment tenants with month-to-month tenancies? All the stories “out there” seem to be evenly divided, that the landlord can evict at will for any reason or no reason (with the usual statutory exceptions); or that they can try but really can’t get away with that.
ETA: In CA, to be specific.
One of the stories said that the cops can’t do anything because such a dispute is a civil matter. I really don’t agree with that but I guess it protects more people than take advantage of it
'Flex ‘Til You’re Famous’? 
Around here I’ve noticed that the areas with more homeless people have stricter eviction laws.
In order to evict a tenant you first have to file a suit against them. In the case of a live in nanny, this has to be done after termination of employment. In the case of a month to month tenancy this has to be done thirty days after agreement has been terminated. The tenant then has five days to respond to the suit. The suit then goes to court. If the court rules against the landlord they have pay court cost and the tenant stays. If the court finds against the tenant, they then have five days to move out.
If the tenant declares bankruptcy the process can be stalled. They are also additional rules for rent-controlled apartments.
I’m not sure I understand this sentiment. I think using the word “people” is too broad and vague apply to this particular situation. People could include persons that have not established legal residency at the address. In this case, the person in question was more or less a tenant, who paid rent via labor. Use of the term “home” is a little misleading as well; in effect, a portion of the dwelling is a rental unit. This would be a civil contract case, just like any other rental/tenant case.
The homeowners are not fulfilling their contractual obligations in the situation, and simply should stay out of the rental business if they feel that the law does not apply to them.
This is not to say the renter isn’t bat shit crazy, but this does not really have any bearing on the statement I quoted.
From CNN’s story:
“CNN discovered that Stretton is on the California’s Vexatious Litigant List, a list of people who continually bring legal action, regardless of merit, against others with the sole intention of harassment. CNN found dozens of lawsuits filed by Stretton in California over the years.”
So probably not the first time the nanny has pulled some kind of shenanigans like this.
I must be missing something. The boy cried wolf, but eventually the wolf actually did come. Either the family acted legally in the situation or not; if it’s going to court, why are so many dopers in this thread making judgements based on media accounts? Why not just wait until the court case commences to make analysis?