In California, I keep reading that someone can only be considered a lodger when living in the same home as the owner if they are the only other occupant. I live in an owner occupied home but it is a 3 bedroom house with the owner occupying the master while two other adults occupy each of the other two rooms. I pay rent and have lived here for 6 1/2 years. I am the sole occupant of the room and have exclusive use of the room. I receive no other services; I buy my own food, cook my own meals, do my own laundry(yes, I pay for my own laundry soap), clean my own room, have my own cooking utensils, pots, pans - use my own dishes, I even have my own TV cable service with the account in my name, etc. Doesn't this make me a tenant entitled to the same protections such as a 60 day notice if the owner is ending my tenancy? (as opposed to a 30 day notice) The owner is of the belief that I am a lodger only entitled to a 30 day notice and has stated she has even talked with the local police department who has (I feel erroneously) told her they can arrest me for trespassing after 30 days.

I would say you are not a lodger, because, as you note, the law is specific on the issue. The only caveat would be if the other residents were family members not paying rent.

And no you cannot be arrested, but you might be put out in the street. However, that would give you a law suit against the home owner.

You are, I guess, referring to the provisions of California Civil Code sections 1940-1959 (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=66053713398+4+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve).

It appears to be limited in application to only one lodger in the premises:


"1946.5. (a) The hiring of a room by a lodger on a periodic basis
within a dwelling unit occupied by the owner may be terminated by
either party giving written notice to the other of his or her
intention to terminate the hiring, at least as long before the
expiration of the term of the hiring as specified in Section 1946.
The notice shall be given in a manner prescribed in Section 1162 of
the Code of Civil Procedure or by certified or registered mail,
restricted delivery, to the other party, with a return receipt
requested.
(b) Upon expiration of the notice period provided in the notice of
termination given pursuant to subdivision (a), any right of the
lodger to remain in the dwelling unit or any part thereof is
terminated by operation of law. The lodger's removal from the
premises may thereafter be effected pursuant to the provisions of
Section 602.3 of the Penal Code or other applicable provisions of
law.
(c) As used in this section, "lodger" means a person contracting
with the owner of a dwelling unit for a room or room and board within
the dwelling unit personally occupied by the owner, where the owner
retains a right of access to all areas of the dwelling unit occupied
by the lodger and has overall control of the dwelling unit.
(d) This section applies only to owner-occupied dwellings where a
single lodger resides. Nothing in this section shall be construed to
determine or affect in any way the rights of persons residing as
lodgers in an owner-occupied dwelling where more than one lodger
resides."

I have two concerns with this: 1. If the situation does not meet "lodger" criteria, wouldn't the police know this by the civil code section AK Lawyer noted above in that there is more than one other occupant (total of 3) and excuse themselves from removing anyone as a "trespasser" per the civil code section 1946.5 noted above? I am now worried about them not knowing the correct application of this section and 2. Why would the relation of the other occupant to the homeowner matter as long as there is more than one other person living there who also has exclusive access to his room? The other occupant is the homeowner's son & I don't know for sure if he pays anything other than taking care of the owner's dog while she is at work and paying her for his internet service. It seems this is all going to hinge on the definition of a tenant vs. a lodger. Do I need to consult an attorney?

The notice that was dropped on the floor in front of me also was given to me in apparent response to my having submitted receipts to the owner for reimbursement of money she owes me since I sent her the receipts via email as per past practice and she dropped the notice in front of me Monday night. Isn't there something about retaliatory actions?

Yes, I saw this code and that's why I wanted clarification on whether I am a tenant or a lodger? Does the relationship to the owner have any bearing on this? The code doesn't speak to family members but another person answered that "the only caveat would be if the other residents were family members not paying rent." If the other occupant is the homeowner's 39 year old son whose exact arrangement I do not know but I do not he watches the owner's dog while she is at work during the day because he works nights and I know he pays her for things like his internet service but I do not know if he pays her "rent" so-to-speak. She gave us both the same 30 day notice and I use "gave" lightly as she dropped the paper on the ground in front of me. This happened Monday night after I'd submitted receipts to her for money she owes me via email, per past practice, on Saturday. Do I need to find an attorney? She says she can get the police to deal w/me as a trespasser..

Sorry, that should say "...I do KNOW he watches the owner's dog..."

Do I need to consult an attorney?Hello t:

Nahhh... This isn't difficult... YOU need to determine WHAT you are (lodger, tenant, bum), and act accordingly. Give your notice accordingly, move accordingly, and sue accordingly if the landlord doesn't give you back your deposits.

No, you don't need to discuss and/or argue your legal position with your landlord, because it matters NOT what your landlord thinks you are. When and/or IF this case goes to small claims court, there WILL be an attorney sitting in the judges seat who WILL rule on the case, and whatever money is owed to the other party will be awarded... THAT'S the only attorney you need to consult with...

excon

Concerning "dropping the papers in front of you" - I own a process service business. I'm not going to pry your hand open and force the papers between your fingers. I've been known to drop a few papers at the people's feet.

It's legal service, legal notice.

... If the other occupant is the homeowner's 39 year old son whose exact arrangement I do not know but I do not he watches the owner's dog while she is at work during the day because he works nights and I know he pays her for things like his internet service but I do not know if he pays her "rent" so-to-speak. ...

So you probably cannot prove that he is a "lodger" and therefore the "only ... where a single lodger resides" provision I cited probably doesn't apply. That would mean that you can be ejected for trespassing at the end of the 30-day notice period.


"602.3. (a) A lodger who is subject to Section 1946.5 of the Civil
Code and who remains on the premises of an owner-occupied dwelling
unit after receipt of a notice terminating the hiring, and expiration
of the notice period, provided in Section 1946.5 of the Civil Code
is guilty of an infraction and may, pursuant to Section 837, be
arrested for the offense by the owner, or in the event the owner is
represented by a court-appointed conservator, executor, or
administrator, by the owner's representative. Notwithstanding Section
853.5, the requirement of that section for release upon a written
promise to appear shall not preclude an assisting peace officer from
removing the person from the owner-occupied dwelling unit.
(b) The removal of a lodger from a dwelling unit by the owner
pursuant to subdivision (a) is not a forcible entry under the
provisions of Section 1159 of the Code of Civil Procedure and shall
not be a basis for civil liability under that section.
..."



Concerning "dropping the papers in front of you" - I own a process service business. I'm not going to pry your hand open and force the papers between your fingers. I've been known to drop a few papers at the people's feet.

It's legal service, legal notice.

Assuming, of course, she told her what it was that was being dropped.

I have two concerns with this: 1. If the situation does not meet "lodger" criteria, wouldn't the police know this by the civil code section AK Lawyer noted above in that there is more than one other occupant (total of 3) and excuse themselves from removing anyone as a "trespasser" per the civil code section 1946.5 noted above? I am now worried about them not knowing the correct application of this section


Police are generally not that well versed in the law, surprisingly as that sounds. I would definitely NOT trust a police officer's interpretation or knowledge of statutes. I would, therefore have a copy of the statute with me to point it out to any police officer attempting to arrest you.


and 2. Why would the relation of the other occupant to the homeowner matter as long as there is more than one other person living there who also has exclusive access to his room? The other occupant is the homeowner's son & I don't know for sure if he pays anything other than taking care of the owner's dog while she is at work and paying her for his internet service. It seems this is all going to hinge on the definition of a tenant vs. a lodger. Do I need to consult an attorney?

Oh but this matters a great deal. When the statute states owner occupied, that does not mean just the titled owner. I am 99% certain a court would include any members of the owners family in the definition of owner occupied. Therefore, since the other occupants are part of the owner's family, you WOULD be consider a lodger.


The notice that was dropped on the floor in front of me also was given to me in apparent response to my having submitted receipts to the owner for reimbursement of money she owes me since I sent her the receipts via email as per past practice and she dropped the notice in front of me Monday night. Isn't there something about retaliatory actions?

Yes, there are statutes against retaliatory actions, but this is hard to prove. I would suggest you find a new place to live and fast. You can then take the landlord to small claims court for expenses you incurred on her behalf.

P.S. Please don't use the Comments fro followups. Use the Answer options instead.