I moved to Alabama in April subleting from the person who was on the lease here, living with his other two roommates. And eventually I signed a lease starting August 1st to take over the lease. And I told one of the two roommates that I didn't want him living here a month ago, and that he needed to be out by the 1st. But when I reminded him earlier today he just flat out refused to leave and said he would leave when he was ready! He was never on the lease, and technically was an illegal tenant even with the previous lease holder (though I realize that doesn't matter), but regardless whatever arrangement he had with the previous lease holder shouldn't matter, should it? And I can't see how he can say I've let him live here since my signed lease period doesn't even begin until August 1st. But he flat out refuses to leave!

So I'm wondering if under these circumstances the property manager could have him arrested for tresspass? Because that's the only way I can see to have him out by the 1st. And if I have to go through the courts, I'm supposed to start a grad program in August and I've neither the time or money to deal with this man. And it seems like this was his intention all along, even when he suckered the last lease holder to let him stay here-- first he said he was just going to visit, then a day turned into a few days which turned into a few weeks, all the while he wasn't paying rent or bills. So it seems like he knew the law and took advantage of him knowing that he wouldn't be able to throw him out. Now he's trying to do the same to me, and I'm hoping that because my lease hasn't started yet, and that fortunately I got to see how he was before I took over the lease, that he miscalculated and I will be able to get rid of him tomorrow. Hopefully under these circumstances the apt manager CAN have him arrested for tresspass, I just don't know. But, that seems to be my last quick option. Any advice I could get, as quickly as possible, would be awesome. Thanks!

The police generally won't throw someone out for trespass who has been there 30+ days and who has established some sort of residency, such as by getting mail there. They aren't in a position to know the situation unless it's clear. You can certainly try with the management. But this guy can make it tough too, and he sounds like he knows the law when he tells you that you 'let him live there.' This is true to some extent - you knew he was there when you signed the lease. What you can do is start eviction for nonpayment of rent, or ask the landlord to do it. But it will take time.

... What you can do is start eviction for nonpayment of rent, or ask the landlord to do it. But it will take time.

OP cannot evict, because OP doesn't have privity (law-speak for a contractual arrangement, whether written, oral, or othewise) with this person. The LL would, and should, evict him. OP should not have signed a lease without an eviction already having occurred. At this point, OP can demand that the LL evict the previous tenant.

No he can not be arrested, he will have to be evicted. The owner of the property, the person you rent from will have to evict him, You can't do anything except demand the owner do something

I'm really getting a lot of conflicting advice from all different sources. Someone in the apt office that was there over the weekend keeps on saying I should have any problem getting the police to throw him out, the police are the ones that told me the property owners could have him removed for tresspass, but that they potentially could under the circumstances (I really want to ask another officer to make sure they would do that), and you folks are basically telling me that there is nothing I can do but tell the apt complex to evict him, which could take 40 days. But my real concern is that starting tomorrow I will be the lease holder, and then he can start to claim that we have some sort of tenant-LL relationship. Right now the only person who ever said he could live here is the previous lease holder and he seems to have left his lease, and this crappy roommate with me with absolutely no liability what so ever.

And joypulv, I knew he was here when I signed the lease, but that was back in June and I wasn't aware the current lease holder at that time had not informed them in writing that he was a tenant. My lease began in August, so I didn't think I would have any problem what so ever if I told him to leave before that. And technically yes, that means the person who currently has the lease is in violation of it. But people can only stay 3 days w/o adding them before you become in violation yourself, which means I have a very short window to get anything done. He says I let him live here though, because he is under the impression that I am already the lease holder, which he is quite obviously wrong about. He thinks that because I signed the lease in June, that I took over the apt in June.

... the police are the ones that told me the property owners could have him removed for tresspass, but that they potentially could under the circumstances (I really want to ask another officer to make sure they would do that), ...

You shouldn't rely on "legal advice" from police officers. The only law they are officially trained in is the criminal law of their jurisdiction. They don't know any LL/tenant law except what they pick up serving process and court orders.


... But my real concern is that starting tomorrow I will be the lease holder, and then he can start to claim that we have some sort of tenant-LL relationship. ...
He can claim whatever he wants to claim. But the truth is you never gave him permission to be there and have no legal relationship. That is one way of saying why only your LL, and not you, can sue for eviction.


... the previous lease holder ... seems to have left his lease, and this crappy roommate with me with absolutely no liability what so ever. The previous tenant may have liabliity to you and the LL. The LL more probably has liability to you. But you have to go to court to establish any liability.


... But people can only stay 3 days w/o adding them before you become in violation yourself, which means I have a very short window to get anything done. ...

Huh? You wouldn't be in violation of that lease provision unless you had done something to allow him to be there. You haven't done that.

I've reviewed some of the provisions of AL law. AL subscribes to UCC code so many of the provisions are universal.

Fact one, this person is a resident and has to be removed formally. It does not matter that you have no LL/tenant relationship with him, you inherited one when you took on the lease.
Fact two, Since you are not the leaseholder until 8/1, you have no legal standing until then.
Fact three, you can give him 14 days notice IN WRITING that he needs to vacate. I'm not clear if you can give him such notice prior to 8/1, but since that's tomorrow and I don't think you gave him writing notice before, the point is moot.
Fact four, since he is a resident (see Fact one), there is no issue of trespassing so the police will not get involved.
Fact five, the apt manager cannot do anything either, since this person's never had a relationship with the building owner's but only with the previous tenant, they can't do anything. He's YOUR responsibility.

So here is what you need to do. Give him written notice that he needs to vacate within 14 days because he is not registered occupant of the unit which is a violation of the lease. If he does not leave by the deadline, you have to go to court for an eviction order. Your letting him continue to reside past 8/1 will not give him any additional rights. I don't see any reason for the housing court to not grant you an eviction order. Once you receive the order there will be a deadline by which he has to vacate. If he misses that deadline you can hire a sheriff to physically remove him. But I suspect once he sees you know the law ans are following it, he will get out. By just telling him to leave you showed you didn't know the law. Before you signed the lease, you should have checked the law and you may have been able to avoid this.

http://ali.state.al.us/legislation/landlord_tenant.pdf

Yes I've decided to stop asking police officers, because I asked two now and they each told me something different. I also decided to wait till tomorrow and ask someone else in the apt office, because I decided the person I was talking to doesn't know ANYTHING after he told me I could change the locks and throw his stuff out. I did however, email the sheriffs office dept that specifically deals with these issues, because otherwise I can not find anything on Alabama law other than I could perhaps file an action for possession or something like that, against him. Me and the apt owner both actually. Unfortunately that applies to a tenant and not a legal tenants sublet tenant. The only thing I could find any any law online that specifically addresses my issue was with Maryland, which said: •A squatter or trespasser is someone who enters the premises without the permission of the legal occupant or the owner. This situation comes up primarily when a legal tenant shares the premises by subletting to another tenant. Then the original tenant either leaves voluntarily or is evicted. The subletting tenant, while having had a claim in the legal tenant, has no such claim on the owner of the property. The owner can consider the subtenant a trespasser if the subtenant attempts to stay in the property. The owner may file a Wrongful Detainer action in District Court for repossession of the property stating that the occupant is a trespasser

It exactly covers my situation and tells me exactly what needs to be filed and by who... and it's for the wrong stupid state.

This sort of confusion happens a lot, because the law is rarely clear. You could play his game and pretend you've seen him once in your life and was told he was a guest of the previous tenant, and call the police. It may not work. But when the law is ambiguous I'm all in favor of using the same techniques this deadbeat is using.

I still think you could evict. If the police won't throw him out and the landlord can't be bothered, I'd bet a judge would accept it from you. Good grief.

You could try making the landlord change the locks for you tomorrow, with all the implications that will have. I'd do it, even if I have to pay for the locks.

Scott, sadly I relied on the advice of several of the people who work in the office of my apt office. That was a bad move on my part, and frankly it's something I plan to take up with them when I go in there tomorrow... the fact that so many people who work at one of the largest property owners in town seem to know absolute squat about property law, but have absolutely NO problem telling you wrong info as though they are experts, is absolutely pathetic to me.

So basically I am going to have to go into the apt office tomorrow, try to track down someone who actually knows what they are talking about, and see if there is anything they can do. Mostly because I don't even get a first paycheck until like the end of the month when my GTA starts. I have zero money to spend on this crap.

Frankly, if they end up doing something that can get them sued, I don't care. As long as it's not me and I get my apt back. For such a large company, if they screw up that bad they deserve it.

First the MD law doesn't apply to you because you are not the owner. It would apply only if the owner was reclaiming the property from their tenant. Second, the property managers will not and cannot do anything. If the previous tenant violated the lease by having roommates, they could have taken action evicting the previous tenant and his roommates. They didn't so now its your problem.

I never recommend changing the locks, in most states that constitutes an illegal eviction. All he has to do is show proof of residence like mail addressed to him or an ID with the address. So saying you don't know him won't fly either.

I say forget the property managers, they aren't on your side, they answer to the property owners. I told you what you need to do. If you want to confirm, go see a local real estate attorney. Which is probably your best idea.

I know you did, the problem is I really don't have the money for that at least for another two weeks. And his whole thing was that he at least wanted to stay until September. So with an eviction process that takes ~40 days here, and the 14 it would take to get the money to begin, he would be well in to October before he has to do anything. So it's a frustrating rock and a hard place... with one very smug man sitting in the next room.

It takes NO money to hand him a 14 day notice. The cost of filing for an eviction is generally nominal about $40-$50, So if you hand him the notice tomorrow and he sees you are serious he may decide not to risk an eviction on his record.

Don't people always say that you should send it some special mail so has to sign for it (assuming he hasn't thought of that as well and just not sign for it or not pick it up), otherwise he could just refuse to sign or throw it away couldn't he? I could always try tomorrow, certainly nothing to lose, just wondering.

Though about not wanting to risk an eviction, lol. What I have learned about this man living with him for the past few months is that he spends his life running from creditors. And if he didn't sign the lease, which he certainly had the opportunity to do it before I did, it's either because he really has NO income, is already running from something like that, or perhaps a combination of reasons. Basically he's not the kind of man to run off, more likely he would throw a fit and try to retaliate with his "lawyer friend"

The 14 day notice is not subject to rules of service. If you hand it to him in front of a witness that would be sufficient.

Ok, so maybe he doesn't fear an eviction on his record. But you still need to give him that notice tomorrow. Even if you don't follow up in 14 days, you need to start the process now.