My husband agreed to allow someone to rent a portion of the shop where he stores his semi tractor. My husband rents the shop from a third individual. The "tenant" has a mechanic's business inside that shop, but has not kept his part of the deal. Never pays rent, but has serviced my husband's semi and pickup with no labor costs. He owes much more than he has "traded". Part of the agreement was that he would keep the shop clean. He has also not kept that part of the bargain. There is no written agreement and my husband now wants to change locks and keep the equipment this person has in our rented shop. Can he do this?

First, it is not a good idea to piggyback your question on another thread. So to avoid confusion, your post has been moved to its own thread.

Unless your husband want to get sued, no he can't do that. He needs to go to court, prove the tenant has violated their agreement and get a court order to evict him or seize his assets.

...
Unless your husband want to get sued, no he can't do that. He needs to go to court, prove the tenant has violated their agreement and get a court order to evict him or seize his assets.

You are assuming that a prohibition against self-help "ouster" applies to this commercial (as opposed to residential) renting situation. I believe one would have to refer to the forceable entry and detainer (or whatever they call it) laws pertaining to commercial situations in whatever jurisdiction applies.

Actually I wasn't assuming that. I based my response on it being illegal to seize someone's assets and interfere with their livelihood without a court order.

The OP has no written contract with the subleasee. Therefore, nothing giving them the right to interfere with the subleasee's rights unless granted by a court.

Actually I wasn't assuming that. I based my response on it being illegal to seize someone's assets and interfere with their livelihood without a court order.

The OP has no written contract with the subleasee. Therefore, nothing giving them the right to interfere with the subleasee's rights unless granted by a court.

This is a circularity. It assumes the sub-renter ("subleaseee" would imply a sub-lease, which we are told does not exist.) has rights.

But, as you suggest, keeping the tractor and other equipment is unlawful (unless there is some applicable land-lord's lien under the law of the particular jurisdiction). So, if OP's husband wants to lock-out his sub-tenant, he should afford the sub-tenant the opportunity to get his stuff.

This is a circularity. It assumes the sub-renter ("subleaseee" would imply a sub-lease, which we are told does not exist.) has rights.



I think the subleasee can prove that he occupied the premises and conducted business from that location. That gives him some rights. Absent a contract/lease that gives the leasor the right to seize assets in case of default or lock out the leasee the leasor would need to get a court order to do either or both.