trespassing (by brenda [CA]) Oct 30, 2011 11:09 AM|
trespassing (by Virden [OH]) Oct 30, 2011 11:48 AM
trespassing (by Jim in O C [CA]) Oct 30, 2011 12:24 PM
trespassing (by Moshe [CA]) Oct 30, 2011 12:25 PM
trespassing (by Moshe [CA]) Oct 30, 2011 12:26 PM
trespassing (by LL [AZ]) Oct 30, 2011 12:29 PM
trespassing (by LL [AZ]) Oct 30, 2011 12:31 PM
trespassing (by Reid [KS]) Oct 30, 2011 1:36 PM
trespassing (by Moshe [CA]) Oct 30, 2011 2:05 PM
trespassing (by LL [AZ]) Oct 30, 2011 2:40 PM
trespassing (by Reid [KS]) Oct 30, 2011 5:10 PM
trespassing (by Moshe [CA]) Oct 30, 2011 8:31 PM
trespassing (by Moshe [CA]) Oct 30, 2011 8:35 PM
trespassing (by Moshe [CA]) Oct 30, 2011 9:06 PM
trespassing (by brenda [CA]) Posted on: Oct 30, 2011 11:09 AM
i have served a tenant with a eviction notice,he moves in a woman and her two kids.we have not gone to court yet,but they are destroying my property.I've taken pictures.Where do i go from here.I help this man when he came out of a medical facilty,because he had know one.Now I no why. What else can I do?
trespassing (by Virden [OH]) Posted on: Oct 30, 2011 11:48 AM
Photo inspect often, remind them this can ruin credit ratings for about 5-7 years. --99.128.xx.xxx
trespassing (by Jim in O C [CA]) Posted on: Oct 30, 2011 12:24 PM
Contact an attorney who specia;izes in evictions. --72.25.xx.xx
trespassing (by Moshe [CA]) Posted on: Oct 30, 2011 12:25 PM
"What else can I do?"
Not much, but to follow eviction procedure.
You say that you served him with an eviction notice. What is that? Who issued it? You?
You will have to sue him for something called UNLAWFUL DETAINER. Before you can do this, you must give him 3 days notice in writing, telling him among other things, why you want to evict them. They had better be good reasons that entitle you under the law to evict him. Then you will have to serve him with a summons & complaint specifying in detail what legal reasons you have to evict him. Are any of these the "eviction notice" that you had in mind?
trespassing (by Moshe [CA]) Posted on: Oct 30, 2011 12:26 PM
P.S., he's not trespassing.
trespassing (by LL [AZ]) Posted on: Oct 30, 2011 12:29 PM
Be sure you are evicting the party and "Does 1-20" or "all unnamed occupants."
Also if the GF wants to add her name to the suit she can make you start over. But that is unlikely at this point.
Just get your eviction through. If you haven't done it hire an attorney. --76.170.xxx.xxx
trespassing (by LL [AZ]) Posted on: Oct 30, 2011 12:31 PM
PS - as a Landlord you are not in the charity business. Don't help people in your property. Rent them a place to live if they can afford it and fit the requirements.
If you want to do charity donate to a shelter or work at a soup kitchen. Don't mix business and pleasure it doesn't work in this business. --76.170.xxx.xxx
trespassing (by Reid [KS]) Posted on: Oct 30, 2011 1:36 PM
The tenant may not be trspassing but his shack mate and kids are :
Trespassing is the act of infringing on someone else's personal property without permission. If you enter someone's home without their knowledge or consent or if you enter someone's yard by jumping over the fence, you are guilty of trespassing. The charge is more severe if there is a threat of harm. Trespassing is usually a misdemeanor, and every state has its own statutes on trespassing and the punishments for committing it. California is no exception.
California defines trespassing under multiple criteria. Some of the more common definitions involve criminal trespass with intent to do harm. If you enter another person's property with intent to disrupt the business operations conducted there, you are guilty of trespassing. Likewise, if you are on another person's property and refuse to leave when asked, a trespass violation has occurred and you can be arrested. If you enter another person's property with intent to damage it, trespass has also occurred. As a result, vandalism and trespassing are frequently charged together when a vandalism case is prosecuted.
California is different from many other states in that trespassing can be registered as an infraction, misdemeanor or a felony, depending on the circumstances. A misdemeanor is the most common charge, and it carries up to 6 months in jail and a maximum fine of $1,000. Additional infractions during the same incident raise the jail time to a year. Aggravated trespass is a felony and occurs if you make a threat and then enter the other person's property within 30 days of that threat with intent to cause harm. A conviction of aggravated trespass can result in up to 3 years in prison and a $2,000 fine.
Read more: California Trespassing Laws | eHow.com www.ehow.com/list_6630244_california-trespassing-laws.html#ixzz1cIcyUa2U
trespassing (by Moshe [CA]) Posted on: Oct 30, 2011 2:05 PM
"Trespassing is the act of infringing on someone else's personal property without permission. If you enter someone's home without their knowledge or consent or if you enter someone's yard by jumping over the fence, you are guilty of trespassing. The charge is more severe if there is a threat of harm. Trespassing is usually a misdemeanor, and every state has its own statutes on trespassing and the punishments for committing it. California is no exception."
Ah Reid, but they HAVE permission. Once you rented to them, its THEIR property for purpose of use (possession) by virtue of their leasehold interest. That possession (and leasehold interest) can be terminated only by a court, and until it is terminated, they are not trespassing, despite what may be written in a book that is addressing a slightly different question.
trespassing (by LL [AZ]) Posted on: Oct 30, 2011 2:40 PM
Hey Moshe - a question since you are pretty knowledgeable on CA legal stuff.
Would a clause like someone back east was recently discussing regarding the LL being able to declare certain guests of a tenant a nuisance and trespass them off the property. If that was part of a lease or a separate amendment or agreement, would it be allowed in court do you think?
In other words say a tenant moves in a party house, and you say no more, "anybody not on the lease get out now or you are tresspassing" - and that was agreed in the contract - would a court uphold it, or would it be considered a right a tenant could not sign away.
Trying to explain that concept to a pre-paid legal lawyer is like talking to a brick. LOL --76.170.xxx.xxx
trespassing (by Reid [KS]) Posted on: Oct 30, 2011 5:10 PM
Give the Woman and her kids notice that they are barred from the property then charge them with tresspasing
The Authority is responsible for policing the buildings that are part of the Whitcomb Court project. In doing so, it has the same power as any landlord. Among other powers, for example, it can exclude people who aren't residents when those people have a history of troublemaking.
That's hardly unusual. In every residential community in America - from apartments and condominium complexes, to co-ops, to gated suburbs - security forces routinely bar from the premises people caught dealing drugs, committing property crimes, harassing residents, or just causing trouble. Public housing projects are - and should be - no different.
Most of these various communities "bar" certain visitors - handing them a written notice stating that they are no longer permitted on the premises. Barring notices usually contain the reason for the bar, and generally carry either the subject's signature (acknowledging he's been notified) or that of a security officer (saying that the subject saw the notice, but refused to sign it).
Subsequently violating a barring notice is usually a basis for criminal prosecution for trespass, unlawful entry, or whatever equivalent crime the relevant criminal code provides.
Different communities impose different triggers for getting a barring notice. Whitcomb Court, for instance, reserved the right to bar nonresidents --99.151.xx.xx
trespassing (by Moshe [CA]) Posted on: Oct 30, 2011 8:31 PM
"LL being able to declare certain guests of a tenant a nuisance and trespass them off the property. If that was part of a lease or a separate amendment or agreement, would it be allowed in court do you think?"
To evaluate this question, keep in mind tenants' Right of Association. Its guaranteed by the US constitution.
The other side of the question is that courts have held that this constitutional right can be limited by ‘freedom to unite for any purpose not involving harm to others’.
So the only way that landlord can limit tenants' right to associate with whomever they please, would be not by a lease clause, but by an injunction in Federal Court that takes on directly the question of this individual's harm to others. Is definitely not a matter of trespass.
trespassing (by Moshe [CA]) Posted on: Oct 30, 2011 8:35 PM
Reid, your sliver of plagiarism would apply to someone on community property without an invitation from a resident.
Right of Association is TENANTS' right to associate with whom they please, not visitor's right to enter property without invitation.
By the way, any clause in a lease agreement would apply only to the parties to the lease, not to the visitor.
trespassing (by Moshe [CA]) Posted on: Oct 30, 2011 9:06 PM
Its always dangerous to take a few sentences out of context to try to make a point that doesn't quite fit your evidence. The case of Virginia vs. Hicks is such an example.
The background is important. Whitcomb Court is a housing project for low-income residents, OWNED AND OPERATED by the Richmond (VA) Redevelopment and Housing Authority (RRHA). In an effort to combat rampant crime and drug dealing in Whitcomb Court--much of it committed and conducted by nonresidents, the Richmond City Council passed an ordinance which conveyed these streets by a recorded deed to the RRHA (which is a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia) and declared that certain streets on which the development is situated to be 'hereby closed to public use and travel and abandoned as streets of the City of Richmond.' So there are no tenants with leasehold interest in the streets.
A guy who was arrested for being on these private streets argues (his lawyer, actually) that this ordinance was both unconstitutionally overbroad and void for vagueness. NOT THAT HE WASN'T GUILTY OF TRESPASS. The case went to the VA Supreme Court who backed down in the face of the constitutional challenge (NOT a challenge of violation of Right of Association). The Court ruled that the RRHA POLICY policy allowed Gloria S. Rogers, the manager of Whitcomb Court, to exercise "unfettered discretion" in determining who may use the RRHA's property. Specifically, the court faulted an "unwritten" rule that persons wishing to hand out flyers on the sidewalks of Whitcomb Court need to obtain Rogers' permission. This unwritten portion of the RRHA policy, the court concluded, unconstitutionally allows Rogers to "prohibit speech that she finds personally distasteful or offensive."
The US Supreme Court decided, not that the VA Supreme Court was right or wrong, but that their logic was not good, so they sent the case back to VA for further proceedings.