I allowed my brother to move into my home as a favor, as he was being released from prison in MI. he was to get a job and help with the expenses of my home. He has been here 9+ month and has done nothing but drink, smoke and not look for work, I have asked him to leave and he refuses, he says I have to evict him. Why ? Pays nothing, has no conract or any legal agreement ? Phoenox,AZ... Gary

Is he on parole?
You may have to evict him because he has established residence by your permission.

The things you mention are not the only criteria for residency. By inviting him to stay, and moreover, allowing him to stay for 9 months, you have allowed him to establish residency, which means you have to evict.

So evict him , what is the issue with doing that

I need this question answered by someone that knows Phoenix,AZ laws regarding removal of my brother from my home after he has been here 9 months. GBS

Costs!

I need this question answered by someone that knows Phoenix,AZ laws regarding removal of my brother from my home after he has been here 9 months. GBS


33-1374. Recovery of possession limited

A landlord may not recover or take possession of the dwelling unit by action or otherwise, including forcible removal of the tenant or his possessions, willful diminution of services to the tenant by interrupting or causing the interruption of electric, gas, water or other essential service to the tenant, except in case of abandonment, surrender or as permitted in this chapter.
Format Document (http://www.azleg.state.az.us/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/33/01374.htm&Title=33&DocType=ARS)
One needs to find the definition of "tenant" in the Arizona Residential Landlord and Tenant Act (http://www.azleg.state.az.us/ArizonaRevisedStatutes.asp?Title=33). I don't see it now, but I will look later (Have to go now).

I need this question answered by someone that knows Phoenix,AZ laws regarding removal of my brother from my home after he has been here 9 months. GBS

And you don't believe the answers you got conform to AZ law? Laws all over the US are very similar in this regard. A resident cannot be summarily thrown out. To get him out you have to evict. You can find out the costs at your local housing court.

No he is not on parole, but he is a double felon and to be considered hostile. He has threatened me several times with examples of what he has done to other people.

Format Document (http://www.azleg.state.az.us/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/33/01374.htm&Title=33&DocType=ARS)
One needs to find the definition of "tenant" in the Arizona Residential Landlord and Tenant Act (http://www.azleg.state.az.us/ArizonaRevisedStatutes.asp?Title=33).. .


6. "Landlord" means the owner, lessor or sublessor of the dwelling unit or the building of which it is a part,
...
12. "Rental agreement" means all agreements, written, oral or implied by law, and valid rules and regulations adopted under section 33-1342 embodying the terms and conditions concerning the use and occupancy of a dwelling unit and premises.

...

16. "Tenant" means a person entitled under a rental agreement to occupy a dwelling unit to the exclusion of others.



Format Document (http://www.azleg.state.az.us/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/33/01310.htm&Title=33&DocType=ARS)

So a tenant is a person entilted to occupy a dwelling uint to the exclusion of others. And although it is arguable that in OP's case, it's not a rental agreement because it's not a contract (because there is no consideration), it seems clear that since the brother is not allowed in "to the exclusion of others" (i.e.: the OP and his family), the brother is not a tenant, and the prohibition against ouster doesn't apply.

But most of the people giving advice on this forum are going to tell you that, regardless of venue, once someone has "established residence" in a dwelling, they cannot be kicked out without a court order. They believe this as a matter of faith, although they usually cannot point to the law, in the specific jurisdiction at issue, to prove their point.

Pursuant to this article of faith, such self-help methods as changing the locks are invariably described as a very bad idea likely to get you in serious legal trouble.

The problem with citing the law as AK has done, is that often there are other portions of the law that mitigate or even contradict one portion. There is also, often case law that expands the interpretation of the statutes.

I remain convinced, from my experience, that one cannot summarily remove someone from a dwelling where that person can prove it is there sole residence. Therefore, the safest course of action is to treat them as a tenant and follow the process for a legal eviction.

First, please do not use the Reply button to ask a follow-up question. We are experimenting with a new interface that has some issues. Use the Answer This Question options at the bottom of the thread.

Go to your County courthouse or check out this site: Arizona Landlord Tenant Law - Evictions (http://www.keytlaw.com/leasinglaw/azevictions.htm)

That should give you the process. If your brother gets violent call the police, have him arrested and take out a restraining order against him. That will speed the process.

Format Document (http://www.azleg.state.az.us/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/33/01310.htm&Title=33&DocType=ARS)

So a tenant is a person entilted to occupy a dwelling uint to the exclusion of others. And although it is arguable that in OP's case, it's not a rental agreement because it's not a contract (because there is no consideration), it seems clear that since the brother is not allowed in "to the exclusion of others" (i.e.: the OP and his family), the brother is not a tenant, and the prohibition against ouster doesn't apply.

But most of the people giving advice on this forum are going to tell you that, regardless of venue, once someone has "established residence" in a dwelling, they cannot be kicked out without a court order. They believe this as a matter of faith, although they usually cannot point to the law, in the specific jurisdiction at issue, to prove their point.

Pursuant to this article of faith, such self-help methods as changing the locks are invariably described as a very bad idea likely to get you in serious legal trouble.

Since you brought it up. By agreement ( oral contract ) the borther allowed them to "live" there. In making lease or rent payments they were doing so in their behalf. Its one of the flaws of helping someone only to get bit by them. So in effect after residency has been established then the normal course of law has to be followed. At this point the payment is a "gift" from one party to the other and this "gift" is in the form of shelter. In effect making one party the main lessor and the other party the sublessor. The difference being that when one party allows someone to stay for a shorter period like a weekend there is no residency requirement being met. So you could toss them out with their effects.

Since you brought it up. By agreement ( oral contract ) the borther allowed them to "live" there. In making lease or rent payments they were doing so in thier behalf. Its one of the flaws of helping someone only to get bit by them. So in effect after residency has been established then the normal course of law has to be followed. At this point the payment is a "gift" from one party to the other and this "gift" is in the form of shelter. In effect making one party the main lessor and the other party the sublessor. The difference being that when one party allows someone to stay for a shorter period like a weekend there is no residency requirement being met. So you could toss them out with thier effects.

As I commented earlier, a contract (or agreement), requires consideration from both parties. Consideration is either doing something, paying something, or a promise to do one or the other. A "gift", unless quid pro quo, is not consideration and thus does not seal a bargain (contract). No contract is formed.

And, again, the Arizona laws don't seem to say anything at all about a tenancy being dependent upon "residency requirements".

Notwithstanding all of this talk about the law and contracts and gifts, etc. there is a very strong likelihood that a court will determine that he is a resident. He has to be evicted. If you change the locks without a court order and he sues then the chances are at least 80-20 that he will win. Then you've performed an illegal eviction and you'll end up owing him money.

Want to know for sure? Call the police and ask them to remove him as a trespasser or "unwelcome guest". If they refuse to do it and tell you that he has to be evicted then you have your answer.