The heirs (10) own this property and one of the heirs has rented it to someone and is keeping all the rent for herself. We took this person to court for our share of the rent and the judge says that the renter does not have a valid lease agreement, since it was not signed by all the heirs/owners, nor is there an agreement with the other owners. The person renting is not considered a tenant at will, tenant, unauthorized occupant, etc. The renter refuse to allow us entrance to inspect the property and show it to prospective buyers or renters. How do we get the person out? What kind of notice do I have to give them?

The heirs (10) own this property and one of the heirs has rented it to someone and is keeping all the rent for herself. We took this person to court for our share of the rent and the judge says that the renter does not have a valid lease agreement, since it was not signed by all the heirs/owners, nor is there an agreement with the other owners. The person renting is not considered a tenant at will, tenant, unauthorized occupant, etc. The renter refuse to allow us entrance to inspect the property and show it to prospective buyers or renters. How do we get the person out? What kind of notice do I have to give them?

The problem with the verb "rent" (and the noun "renter") is the fact that it is unclear whether one means the landlord or the tenant. As I read through your question, I am not sure what the situation is. So let me re-phrase and see if I can make it more clear.

You are one of 10 persons who own the premises in common. All ten of you are heirs. One of you ("so-called landlord", let's call him) claimed to have authority to rent the property to a tenant. You, the other heirs, took "the person" (i.e.: the tenant) to court for the rent. The judge ruled that this tenant doesn't have a valid lease, because while the so-called landlord signed a lease to the tenant, the other heirs did not.

So what did the judge rule?

In some places (such as here in Florida), the statutes and courts seem to have great confusion in cases like this. It is unclear whether it is an action for eviction or for ejectment. I don't think it should matter, but some attorneys and judges believe it does.

I would tell you to give them notice and then sue them to get them out, but as I say, it is not clear what the posture of the already-flied case is.

What state are you in?

If there is no valid lease, I don't know that you can demand the right to enter the premises to show it to potential new tenants.

I live in Virginia and you rephrased the question correctly. I do know that you have to have the police to remove any person, and in most cases a court order. I am asking if I can eject this person, since there is no lease, and we have never received any rent from this "so called tenant". In Virginia, if the person does not have a lease agreement, they are not "tenants".

I live in Virginia and you rephrased the question correctly. I do know that you have to have the police to remove any person, and in most cases a court order. I am asking if I can eject this person, since there is no lease, and we have never received any rent from this "so called tenant". In Virginia, if the person does not have a lease agreement, they are not "tenants".

Yes, I would go for ejectment or, in the alternative, eviction. Did the court dismiss your action for eviction?

In my opinion, the occupant does have a rental agreement (or lease), and the "so-called landlord" would be an apparent agent of the other 9 co-owners, but apparently the judge didn't see it that way.

The law in Virginia does not see her as an agent of the other owners, unless she has an agreement with them to act in their behalf. If she had just rented out a portion of the home, instead of the whole, she would be OK. But the home could not be divided to allow the other owners the quiet enjoyment of their share of their property.

You are leaving out the most important part. What was the case in which the judge rules there was no valid lease and what did the judge rule about the disposition of the case?

Scott, I told you before that I sued for rent profits. The judge asked us to file a Partition suit. I never said I went to court for an eviction, but I do have a complaint for a restraining order and injunction filed. The occupant threatened me, and I fear bodily harm if I return to my property.

Scott, I told you before that I sued for rent profits. The judge asked us to file a Partition suit. I never said I went to court for an eviction, but I do have a complaint for a restraining order and injunction filed. The occupant threatened me, and I fear bodily harm if I return to my property.

I don't see where you told us this before. But you sued the one sibling to share the rental, but not the renter? And the judge said since there was n o valid lease you couldn't prove there was rental received. And the judge's reaction was to dismiss the case and advise the other siblings to file a partition suit? To what end and have you done so? (If you had included these details initially it would have helped us help you)

The problem here, as I see it, is the sibling owns a share. Therefore you can't start the eviction process without that sibling being a part of it. And the sibling is entitled to have a guest living in their part of the house.

So I agree with the judge, the solution is a partition suit.

You have read too much into my comments. The judge did not say "since there was n o valid lease you couldn't prove there was rental received". and the judge did not dismiss the case and advise the other siblings to file a partition suit. The law states that I can file start an eviction process if I have an interest in the property as one heir. The sibling can not rent the whole of the property, as she has done, and the renter is not considered a guest. The law states that I can start the eviction process with/or without the sibling. The issue I had in court had nothing to do with eviction, it was only unjust share of rent.

You have read to much into my comments. The judge did not say "since there was n o valid lease you couldn't prove there was rental received"., and the judge did not dismiss the case and advise the other siblings to file a partition suit. The law states that I can file start an eviction process if I have an interest in the property as one heir. The sibling can not rent the whole of the property, as she has done, and the renter is not considered a guest. The law states that I can start the eviction process with/or without the sibling. The issue I had in court had nothing to do with eviction, it was only unjust share of rent.

I'm sorry, but since you have not supplied enough details, despite our asking for them, I had to make some guesses based on what little you supplied.

Please refer to any law that says a single owner can start an eviction without the agreement of all owners? In my experience that is not the case.

I agree, legally, one owner cannot rent the property without the agreement of the other owners. So I don't quite understand what has happened to that case. If you want our help you have to answer our questions.

I have given you the information. You have misinterpreted and given misinformation. I don't think you can help me.

I have given you the information. You have misinterpreted and given misinformation. I don't think you can help me.

I have given you NO misinformation. I have made some assumptions based on the little you have told us and given correct advice based on those assumptions. If those assumptions were incorrect, then correct them by giving us the full info.

Otherwise, you are right, we can't help you.