I have a hostile lodger in my personal residence (In California) and don't have a written agreement/lease. He occupied the home as of late February. I gave him 30 days written notice on the door to the bedroom he is renting, sent him the notice through the USPS, and emailed the notice to him. He paid his rent on time (within the first 5 days of the month) and always paid his portion of the utilities as agreed. In the notice I sent to him, I stated, "If you elect to vacate the premises prior to that date (which is July 14, 2010), any rent and utilities will be pro-rated to the date of vacancy." I never collected a security deposit. If he leaves prior to June 30 and the utility bills have not arrived, can I hold the unused portion of the rent until I prorate the utility bills as agreed and then give him a refund? Or, do I prorate the rent, refund the unused portion, and ask him to cover his portion of utilities as agreed after he leaves? Also, if he stays after June 30 and doesn't pay rent, what are my rights?

You need a lease to inforce any binding agreements. You are going to lose all rent and any unpaid utlities because they can vacate the residence. You have no rights so I suggest you evict him if you are the legal property owner. Change the locks and don't allow this person access to your dwelling.

NEVER change the locks without a court order!!

Yes, you are allowed to hold the unused portion of the rent until you've received the utility bills.

If he stays after June 30 and doesn't pay rent then you can sue him. If he doesn't move out by July 14, as stated in the notice, then you should immediately file a lawsuit for eviction. Once you obtain a judgment you can request that the sheriff or constable perform the eviction. At that point the locks can be changed.

To Lisa B4657 This is the a personal residence and apparently the tennent is disruptive. She can evict the tennent and replace locks without court order with order of protection

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jonledin

to Lisa B4657 This is the a personal residence and apparently the tennent is disruptive. She can evict the tennent and replace locks without court order with order of protection

---

If that's your position then don't you think you should tell the OP that they have to obtain an order of protection before they can change the locks?

It doesn't matter if it's a personal residence and it doesn't matter if there's no existing lease. YOU CANNOT CHANGE THE LOCKS WITHOUT SOME TYPE OF COURT ORDER.

Lockout

Landlords may change the locks on the tenant's rental unit for nonpayment of rent. Laws permit lockouts if the landlord follows certain procedures. Most often, the landlord must:

•notify the tenant in advance that the locks are going to be changed;
•leave a notice telling the tenant where the new keys may be accessed; and
•make the new keys accessible 24 hours a day.

The tenant can still occupy the premises; however, she does not have possession of a key. Obviously, the inconvenience to the tenant is the landlord's bargaining chip to get the tenant to pay the rent she owes.

My landlord has changed the locks to my apartment. Have I been evicted?
No. A lockout is not an eviction. You are still allowed to enter your apartment, and the landlord has to give you the new key as well. The landlord's motive is to get you to pay delinquent rent rather than evict you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jonledin

to Lisa B4657 This is the a personal residence and apparently the tennent is disruptive. She can evict the tennent and replace locks without court order with order of protection

---

First, an order of protection IS a court order. So you are contradicting yourself. Second, it's great that you can copy and paste, but how about giving a cite or link to where you copied and pasted from. Just copying and pasting is not allowed here. Finally, I don't know where you found that info, but in my experience, a lockout constitutes an illegal eviction and can get the landlord sued. So your advice is potentially dangerous.

Here is more info:

However, in the case of a single lodger in a house where there are no other lodgers, the owner can evict the lodger without using formal eviction proceedings. The owner can give the lodger written notice that the lodger cannot continue to use the room. The amount of notice must be the same as the number of days between rent payments (for example, 30 days). (see “landlord's notice to end a periodic tenancy,� page 50.) When the owner has given the lodger proper notice and the time has expired, the lodger has no further right to remain in the owner's house and may be removed as a trespasser. Comes from California Tenaants - A Guide to ResidentiAl tenants And Landlord Rights And Responsibilities

Also see California Civil Code Section 1946.5, and Penal Code Section 602.3.

(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.


Section: Previous 1942.6 1943 1944 1945 1945.5 1946 1946.1 1946.5 1946.7 1947 1947.3 1947.7 1947.8 1947.10 1947.11

Well, at least you gave cites this time so we could check it. Sorry, but you didn't read far enough. Penal code 602.3 provides that failure to vacate becomes a criminal offense where a LEO can be used to enforce the eviction. Nowhere does it allow for a lockout. In fact, on page 86 of the guide you cited it states:

Lockout—when a landlord locks a tenant out of the rental unit with the intent of terminating the tenancy. Lockouts, and all other self-help eviction remedies, are illegal. (72)

Bottom line your advice was incorrect and potentially illegal. It could have gotten the OP in trouble. While it appears the OP does not have to get an eviction order from a court, he does have to get legal help to enforce the vacate notice.

Please read again, legal owner can evict without using formal eviction procedures and I did say that owner gives tennet notice of lock change and under Penal Code 602.3 (b) they cannot be held liable:

(a) A lodger who is subject to Section 1946.5

Basis of law should protect homeowner from liability under California Penal Code 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. (Emphasis added)

(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.

Section: Previous 600 600.2 600.5 601 602 602.1 602.2 602.3 602.4 602.5 602.6 602.7 602.8 602.9 602.10 Next

jonledin : Please read again, legal owner can evict without using formal eviction procedures and I did say that owner gives tennet notice of lock change and under Penal Code 602.3 (b) they cannot be held liable: (a) A lodger who is subject to Section 1946.5

Sorry YOU are the one who needs to read it again. You clearly don't fully understand what you are reading. You are looking for support for your incorrect position and ignoring what doesn't support it.

Yes, I agree that CA law does allow the residential owner to remove a lodger (if they are the only lodger) without a court order. But by criminalizing the lodger ignoring the vacate notice, the law requires that law enforcement do the physical removal, NOT the homeowner! This is the piece you are ignoring. And, again, there is nothing here to support a lockout, just the opposite. PC 602 protects the homeowner from damage to the lodger's property, not from an illegal lockout.

Give it up, you were wrong, just admit it and move on. Oh, and its tenant not tennet.

Remove the bedroom door for repairs, set alarm clocks in general vicinity of bedroom, disrupt use of utilities, and take pictures in case of vandalism.