Nightmare Nanny` Spotted at Police Station as Plight of Upland Family Goes Viral
The nanny’s greatest trick was convincing people she didn’t exist. Or something.
I don’t know about other states, but NJ does. We bought a house from someone who was building a new house which had gotten delayed. Since all the moves were in the same town and we were on a month to month lease, we didn’t mind them staying until their house was finished. However our lawyer had to be very careful with the contract, since if they paid us more than the mortgage it would be considered a rental and we would not be able to get them out if something happened. He structured it with a penalty after so much time that gave us some extra money without them being considered tenants.
It all worked out fine in the end.
Well, “their” in Johnny’s post is ambiguous, but I’m sure it referred to the family who owned and lived in their home, in which someone else was also present. That is, if you own and live in a home, you should have the right to kick anyone out of it.
I agree with that sentiment.
The family isn’t in the rental business. They hired a nanny, who lived and ate with them. The nanny quit working but refused to leave.
Putting a lock on the refrigerator (and the liquor cabinet) would be my first move too.
I think you’re missing the whole story. Try reading it all again, from the top.
[QUOTE=Learjeff;17508105 That is, if you own and live in a home, you should have the right to kick anyone out of it.[/QUOTE]
If you are renting in out legally, you are giving up that right; it is not a matter of opinion as far as I can see. They chose to enter into a legally binding rental agreement in which a portion of their home became a rental unit in exchange for services.
There are only two possibilities which I can see. One is that the family entered into the rental agreement knowing the applicable rights they were ceding, in which case they chose to disregard the law after the fact to suit their own needs. Or they don’t even know the very basics about renting - which I don’t think is very excusable; we are not talking about some fine point of legal minutia that one needs a lawyer to understand. This is very basic landlord/tenant rights and responsibilities, and a 30 day eviction notice is standard in all 50 states as far as I know.
The family has every right to kick her out of any unrented portion of their home, but does not have a right to disregard the law or their contractual obligations for the rented portions of the home.
The family lost in court, they don’t seem to have much respect for the procedures involved in renting and are running to the media with a story about how crazy this woman is; which certainly may be true - but that does not turn this into a homeowner’s rights issue in my opinion.
What, specifically, am I missing in regards to the legal issues I am discussing?
This where I get confused - has the family "lost in court? " the articles I have read have said it’s a legal process that they have to undertake - I didn’t get the impression the courts had told them tough luck, she is now you’re roomie. Perhaps I misunderstood the situation.
They have to go through the eviction process, like any landlord would.
They first went to court and were told that they had to follow proper procedure to obtain an eviction. Essentially, the family is not happy with the situation and wants to circumvent the legal process to remove the woman from their home. The nanny had a legally binding tenancy for services agreement, and their is no question of this that I have seen. This same situation would happen if any landlord were to try to remove any tenant from any rental unit. The only unusual thing that is happening is that this family wants some sort of exception made for them, but they have no legal basis for removing the woman before completing the eviction process in a legally appropriate manner.
Once the family has gone through the process of obtaining a legal eviction, then, if the nanny has not left, the police have the authority to take action, the locks can be changed etc. The family is in the process of obtaining a legal eviction, and will most likely be granted one; they are just annoyed that they have to follow well established procedure and that it will not happen immediately. There is no legal precedent, no questioning of homeowner rights etc. that I can see in the situation.
How about the moral issue. If you agreed to do a job for room and board, and could not do this job, wouldn’t you feel honor bound not to accept the room and board? Maybe you could ask for some time to find a new place, but you wouldn’t just camp three and use aggressive litigation to make a young family’s life miserable, would you?
“If men were angels, they would not need laws.”
– somebody or other, probably a paraphrase
I just came into the thread to discuss the representation of the legalities and rights involved in the case. I don’t see this situation delving into the realm of morality myself; to me morality is following the law and following the contract. I don’t see either of the sides of the case acting particularly morally from what I have read so to bring morality to this discussion could lead me into a long winding soul crushing spiral reminiscent of my days in south philadelphia[shuddering].
The aggressive litigation is only happening on the side of the family. They are the ones who are trying to circumvent the normal legal process, the nanny is just asserting the rights she has as a tenant. These rights are part of the package she was given.
I never make any moral judgements based upon hearing one side of a story, and that basic condition has not been met for me at the moment. I could go into more detail about what else I think is going on here but I’ll just stop now due to the reasons mentioned above.
It sounds like you haven’t actually read the stories. The family is attempting to use legal procedure to get their house back. I’m not sure what else they should do. Do You have any idea? Or would you say they should just suck it up and live with the crazy woman?
In any event, I certainly don’t want to lead you into a soul-crushing spiral! (really? over a few message board posts?) So I won’t engage with you further. I see that most people have a fairly sane view of this situation, and there is always one person who doesn’t.
Oh I was just being melodramatic about the soul crushing. If you enter into a rental agreement that is the chance you take. I have read the stories. It also says that the woman was paid nothing, she is 64 and claims to be in poor health. So I see the potential for all sorts of mitigating factors.
What is so insane about wanting to hear both sides of the story? What is so insane about expecting the family to follow the law or to wait and see how it plays out in court? If you need to use such such inflammatory language when having a discussion with me I thank you in advance for not engaging with me further.
The nanny was given room and board in exchange for taking care of the kids. She failed to uphold her part of the agreement, and she failed to do it for an extended period of time. The only one I know who can stick around after being fired is Silas Marner. And we know how he ended up.
OK. I see that part, but also their is this that I read from the lawyer of the family:
If they interfere with the nanny’s room, the Bracamontes could face legal repercussions. “She came in as a nanny in exchange for services,” says the Bracamontes’ attorney, Marc Cohen. (The laws regarding the housing agreement are different than those governing the employment arrangement.) “She was given a room. She has a legal right to that room. I don’t think there is a legal obligation to feed her. There would be a legal obligation to ensure that she has lights, running water, things like that.”
[link](If they interfere with the nanny’s room, the Bracamontes could face legal repercussions. “She came in as a nanny in exchange for services,” says the Bracamontes’ attorney, Marc Cohen. (The laws regarding the housing agreement are different than those governing the employment arrangement.) “She was given a room. She has a legal right to that room. I don’t think there is a legal obligation to feed her. There would be a legal obligation to ensure that she has lights, running water, things like that.”
[URL="http://www.people.com/article/nightmare-nanny-diane-stretton-moving-out-bracamonte-home)
Some people in the thread suggest that I have not read the story, but I have read several accounts and I still do not see why the family should be allowed to circumvent the law. Comments like the one above by Johnny LA seem to be conflating the issue. I can be persuaded otherwise if someone show me something different than conflation and extrapolation. FTR I think the nanny is probably very difficult to deal with, but the lesson to be learned is more one of be careful when renting.
What the law is, and what is fair and right are sometimes not the same thing. If I offer any sort of compensation in exchange for services, and those services are not provided, then I have the moral and ethical right to cease providing compensation. The law as it applies here is wrong in my opinion.
Everyone is aware that the law is making it difficult for the family to evict the nanny. That’s what the thread is about. What we are saying is that the law is wrong in this case. And also just marveling at a crazy person and feeling sympathy for the poor family.
I can see how the law might not fit very well in this situation. I don’t feel that I have a clear picture of what the actual facts of the case are. Many of the particulars of the case seem to be only things that the family is saying, and are not independently verified. I see a couple possible scenarios for what happened - one of them certainly is that the nanny is a swindler trying to game the system, I do not find that to be moral. I’m not interested in getting into too much at the moment though.
The only reason I got into the thread was to dispute this extrapolation you made in the OP: “I think people should have the right to kick people out of their own home.” I just don’t see how any reading of the story leads to that. In essence you are saying tenants should not have rights, I find that morally dubious as well.