Ask Me Help Desk - Can I evict my mother-in-law

I think it is posible, nttcar, but you will need a very good attorney.

If you get the wife to sign over her part of the title in the house, then you can tell MIL to get out after going through the proper eviction procedures.

But the title still contain her name. I just continue to pay the mortgage otherwise, she want to to pay her $85K in cash so she can move out the house but if I am going to get divorce, my saving split in half , my 401K split in half. My house split in half. I so not have money buy the house back from her, so the only option I have is continue pay the mortgage and have her and kids to stay in the house and MIL out. I know this is sound weired but if I throw her mother out of the house then she will insist me to sell the house . It is kind of mind game. I need to convice her to stay in the house because it is good for our kids, in the mean time, I need to find a way to have MIL out. Is it possible

Unless you become the sole owner of the house you will need your wife to agree to evicting the MIL. Unless she agrees to it, the MIL stays.

If you are going to go ahead with the divorce, why do you really care if the MIL stays since you will be living elsewhere?

If you go ahead with the divorce, then you will need an attorney to advise you on the distribution of assets. So your attorney can advise the best course of action.

Thank you everyone for your answer !

I understand now, I was incorrect, sorry. Does this suffice?

However, I realize why it's good to feel the way I do about this. Lack of common sense is why the laws are such a mess.

If I owned a home, and had someone live there, and if there were no contractual agreement or rent paid, regardless whether they have lived their for five minutes or fifty years, as the owner I should have the power to have them removed.

This law as you have illustrated does not protect the homeowner; it is sympathy for a tenant and nothing more.

The law isn't finite. If it was, there'd be no lawyers.

XenoSapien

Quote:

Originally Posted by XenoSapien

I understand now, I was incorrect, sorry. Does this suffice?

However, I realize why it's good to feel the way I do about this. Lack of common sense is why the laws are such a mess.

If I owned a home, and had someone live there, and if there were no contractual agreement or rent paid, regardless whether or not they have lived their for five minutes or fifty years, as the owner I should have the power to have them removed.

This law as you have illustrated does not protect the homeowner; it is sympathy for a tenant and nothing more.

The law isn't finite. If it was, there'd be no lawyers.

XenoSapien

Clearly the law was meant to protect the tenant. It was also meant to protect the taxpayer. Because if people were allowed to be thrown out on the street at the whim of a homeowner, they might be a drain on the taxpayer.

But there is another aspect you are missing. When a homeowner decides to allow someone into their home, they are taking on a responsibility. If they allow them to move in their belongings and establish residency, they are taking on the role of landlord. This is not a situation where some stranger just walks into your home and you want t remove them.

Finally, no one has said the homeowner does not have the power to remove such a person. They most certainly do, but they have to go through legal channels to do so.

"When a homeowner decides to allow someone into their home, they are taking on a responsibility. If they allow them to move in their belongings and establish residency, they are taking on the role of landlord."

Agreed. But my point then, despite belongings, mail and anything else, where is the written document that proves they are to be there at all? How can a person be a 'landlord' to someone who has not signed document one to say as much? Where are reciepts showing rent paid; all of which are required of a real landlord?

If there is no document to prove this (the court loves what you can prove, not what you know), then they have no right to technically be there, and should be able to have the person removed via trespass (the person has been entering the private property multiple times); that is my position on that, and why I feel most strongly in my belief of it.

XenoSapien

Ok! People, submit all of your reds now! I got the point! READ EVERYTHING THAT IS WRITTEN. I GET THE FREAKIN POINT! Even an apology for being wrong doesn't mean @!#%$&! (Not a surprise. The result of no common sense).

XenoSapien

Quote:

Originally Posted by XenoSapien

But my point then, despite belongings, mail and anything else, where is the written document that proves they are to be there at all? How can a person be a 'landlord' to someone who has not signed document one to say as much? Where are reciepts showing rent paid; all of which are required of a real landlord?

I don't want to belabor the point, but this requires answering. Where do you get the idea that all those things are required of a real landlord? The only thing that makes a landlord is to provide living quarters for someone not in their immediate family (restricited to minor children). There have been many posts here from people who have been tenants for years without ever having signed anything. Not every landlord/tenant relationship is formalized.

Legally a contract exists when one party provides services to another for compensation. Not only when the exchange is formalized in writing. A court can and will take circumstantial and implied evidence to show that a contract exists.