How can I have my 25 year old son removed from my home? He's disrespectful to me and does not contribute in any way to the home.. he sometimes brings home stray girls and sneaks them into his r0om to stay overnight. He drinks heavily and smokes pot and I've asked him to not bring pot into my home yet I often smell it throughout the home... but he just denies he's been smoking it... he uses vulgar street talk and tries to act like a thug or gang banger to try and intimidate me and his younger sister who also lives at home but is nothing like him.

You have him evicted from the home according to your State's laws.

He is treated the same as any other tenant.

Throw him out of the house. Tell him to leave. If he doesn't leave call the police and they will remove him from your home.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 9110024

Throw him out of the house. Tell him to leave. If he doesn't leave call the police and they will remove him from your home.

---

No they won't. Please stop posting incorrect information on a legal board.

Many states (like California) allow you to treat him just like a boarder (notice I'm not saying "tenant") and just kick him out without resort to any legal process. It would be akin to coming home and finding a stranger living in your house. If you tell someone to go who otherwise has no legal right to live in your home and there person doesn't leave, thats' criminal trespass.

Or imagine a hotel guest who won't pay. No one would expect the hotel to go through some three month long eviction process to get someone out. You just tell your son to leave and if he doesn't change the locks, call the police, that sort of thing. Most of the time the police won't get involved (not so much because they can't as they don't want to). Worst case scenario you could file an unlawful detainer action (treating him like a tenant and evicting him) to obtain a court order making him go.

Another angle might be a domestic violence restraining order with an order he move out. You need harassment or domestic violence or threats but that might be easier.

In any event, this is not a family law question. It belongs on the "real estate law" board (it's more of a landlord-tenant type situation).

Even a boarder has some rights to not be thrown out in the street. Hotels are a different story because they deal in transient occupancy. But if someone can establish residency, show ID establishing their address, show their belongings there etc. then they will generally be treated like a tenant.

A boader without a tenacy agreement, in cases where there are a limited number of boarders in a household (I think in California it's 4), can in fact be kicked out without any notice at the will of the owner. The owner changes the locks and throws the person's stuff on the street. I know NOBODY believes it because it is counterintuitive. But it is perfectly legal. Again, that is 1) assuming no written tenancy agreement to the contrary, and 2) a limited number of boarders in the home. I've looked into this before and it is true.

It makes sense. How would like any house guest who refuses to leave for whatever reason to be able to claim he's a tenant and refuse to leave forcing you to go through an expensive and time-consuming eviction process?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cadillac59

A boader without a tenacy agreement, in cases where there are a limited number of boarders in a household (I think in California it's 4), can in fact be kicked out without any notice at the will of the owner. The owner changes the locks and throws the person's stuff on the street. I know NOBODY believes it because it is counterintuitive. But it is perfectly legal. Again, that is 1) assuming no written tenancy agreement to the contrary, and 2) a limited number of boarders in the home. I've looked into this before and it is true.

It makes sense. How would like any house guest who refuses to leave for whatever reason to be able to claim he's a tenant and refuse to leave forcing you to go through an expensive and time-consuming eviction process?

---

And here is what I posted on this thread right off the top: "You have him evicted from the home according to your State's laws. He is treated the same as any other tenant."

I don't see that that information is incorrect. The son is treated the same as any other tenant according to the LAWS OF THAT STATE (as long as you are shouting, so will I).

The whole World is not California. Let's find out where the OP lives and THEN give advice.

Maybe this makes sense to you but it is NOT NY law. A house guest who refuses to leave is likely to argue residency and the Courts are NOT pro-landlord. Please don't argue the laws in other States based on California law.

So - again - evict the person according to State Law.

Or hire an Attorney to do it for you. Perhaps someone who is particularly brilliant can argue that having a guest refuse to leave is the same as having someone break into your house and refuse to leave. I don't see it happening IN NY (or, really, anyplace BUT California), but apparently this is sound legal advice.

As far as the harassment, restraining order IN NY I have seen restraining orders issued for a period of time, the time expires and the "harasser" move right back in because the landlord NEVER filed to have the person evicted and they are NOT the same thing.

And, again, this is according to STATE LAW WHERE THE OP RESIDES. I do realize the World does not consist of California and NY. Unfortunately.

OK, first lets calm down a bit people. There is NO need for fighting here. What we are trying to do is provide info for the OP.

While I an sure that Cadillac is correct on what the letter of the law is in CA. And there may even be similar laws in other states, I think this is one time where we need to go more by the practices rather than the letter of the law.

From a practical point of view the govt does not want to see someone summarily kicked out on the street. That's why eviction processes are very structured. So its my opinion that courts will tend to side with the occupant to prevent an arbitrary ouster.

If one does try to simply throw an occupant out on the street, especially if they change the locks, there is the possibility that the occupant can sue for an unlawful eviction. So, to avoid that eventuality, I will always recommend, if there is ANY question that someone has established residency, that the formal eviction process be followed.

From my research there are three tests for residency:
1) receiving mail at the address
2) having ones belongings (including furniture) at the address
3) having ID showing the address

If any one or more of those tests are met I would definitely consider the person a resident.

I understand that California's law on the subject may or may not be similar to the laws elsewhere, but there are surprising similarities now and again across state lines.

The reason I feel relatively confident about this is I had to research the issue many years ago for someone I knew. Also, we have a call-in radio talk show in SF with an attorney who answers general legal questions on air and has a research assistant helping him. This question has been asked many times on his program and my answer is the one the radio guy consistently gives. Now, he's not always right about everything but his answers are not bad for the most part. If I get some time this afternoon I might look into it just to be 100% sure.

Since the question is out of my practice field my opinion is a little less emphatic that it would be if it were a family law question, but I still think I'm right: a limited number of boarders in your house (that you reside in), no written tenancy agreement providing otherwise= eviction at will without legal process.

It kind of makes sense to have a rule like this, doesn't it? Imagine how awful it would be if anytime you had a house guest visiting that person could refuse to leave by merely claiming to be a tenant and having "squatters rights", forcing you to go through a UD process in court just to get rid of them. If the law always required a lawsuit to evict anyone staying in your home who refused to leave, I'd say you better be very careful whom you allow to visit! :-)

In case anyone is interested, and in case the OP is in California, I did some quick legal research and found the following. A single lodger in a home occupied by the homeowner is subject to special summary kick out procedures that do not require resort to court process. In fact, after being given notice, which can consist of any period by which rent is paid, or if no rent is paid, by any period of notice, the lodger must leave and can even be arrested for not leaving. Of course the law is limited to a single lodger in a dwelling that is owner-occupied.

The law reads:

CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE

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.[emphasis added]

Termination by operation of law means you don't have to go to court to kick the lodger out. By law the person has to go just exactly like he would if you had already gone to court and gotten a kick out order.

The Penal Code section that section 1946.5 refers to states:

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.
(c) Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 1980) of Title 5 of Part 4 of Division 3 of the Civil Code applies to any personal property of the lodger which remains on the premises following the lodger's removal from the premises pursuant to this section.
(d) Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the owner' s right to have a lodger removed under other provisions of law.
(e) Except as provided in subdivision (b), nothing in this section shall be construed to limit or affect in any way any cause of action an owner or lodger may have for damages for any breach of the contract of the parties respecting the lodging.
(f) 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.


So you can see the law is somewhat limited in its application, but if the OP is in CA, she needn't go to court to get the son out. All she would have to do is hand the son a written notice that he has to leave and, since he is not paying rent, he would have to leave immediately (if he had been paying rent say weekly, then he would be entitled to at least a week's notice, as I read the statute). Now, do other states have special laws for boarders like this one? I really don't know but I wouldn't be surprised if they did.

I agree that that there needs to be some protection for the homeowner from having a guest come and stay a week or two and then claim to be a tenant. But I don't think such a person establishes residency.

So that's where I differ. There is also another issue of income. In a situation like this the homeowner is not losing revenue because the occupant won't leave. So making sure one avoids an unlawful eviction seems more important to me.

Sorry, Scott - I get aggravated when a non-generic (no State) question is answered with State-specific law.

I own a process service company, blah, blah, blah. I serve a LOT of eviction papers, many of them on adult children. I simply cannot believe that there is a law in NY which addresses this and does NOT require eviction. If so the NY Attorneys either aren't using the law (hopefully for a reason), are making a great big fee generating deal out of nothing - or are stupid.

I owned apartments; I evicted people; I helped my tenants evict people - I never once called the Police nor did any of my tenants call the Police and the Police came and removed anyone. They will tell you it's not a criminal matter - you opened the door, they are living there; you can't throw them into the street without notice; evict them.

Obviously if they break in - and without going back I think that was referenced - it's a different story.

And a restraining order does NOT keep the "unwanted" tenant out of the property - maybe some people just don't try to come back. I've had people who did come back and then had to be evicted.

That's all I'm saying.

I'm not at all "pro-landlord" in any respect, but I've heard of cases where it only makes sense to have a summary kick-out procedure.
I had a guy consult with me a few years ago who allowed a homeless woman and her dog into his house because he felt sorry for her. He assumed she would only stay a day and move on. Unfortunately when he approached her and told her it was time to leave she said no, she liked in there, and had decided to stay. I don't know what became of the case because he only consulted with me, but I felt sorry for the guy. I think he had every right to throw her out on the street with the help of the police. In fact, I think the police should have arrested her for trespass for not going when told. Now if this guy had been in the business of renting rooms and so on it would have been a different matter. But come on. In cases like that we need a summary procedure; you know, the case of the sole lodger in the family residence which the CA statute appears to address.

This is less about legal info and more a legal debate - could moderator move to discussion thread?

OP is getting absolutely no benefit from any of this.

I think all opinions have been expressed so lets just drop it. I don't want to close if the OP needs more help.

The OP needs to indicate where she lives. If she lives in CA, she's got her answer. If elsewhere, it's still up in the air.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ScottGem

I think all opinions have been expressed so lets just drop it. I don't want to close if the OP needs more help.

---

Consider it dropped from this side.