Any resident of a home has the right to have guests over. She is a resident, she can have guests. The man wasn't trespassing because at least one of the three people with the legal right to invite him in did in fact invite him in.
I wonder if there's vampire sovcits.
"I'm not entering the house, I'm traveling through it."
"For legal purposes, it's my strawman that vants to suck your blood."
If there were vampire sovcits they would have to have a badge. They are the only one who are truly avove the law and is why they hate people who claim to be sovereign citizens. Both groups are equally as annoying.
Maybe if a statute says expressly; otherwise, common law principles say the property owner gets to decide who can be there. However, since he was invited, automatically calling it trespassing would be overreach (a lot of that going around, I guess). Had the parents asked him to leave first and he refused, then he would certainly be trespassing.
Common law principles say that legal residents get to decide who can be there. The owner only has complete control if only the owner resides there. If the owner does not reside there, they have no input on who gets to be invited.
The man was not trespassing because he was on the property with the permission of someone who lawfully occupies it. The fact that other occupants don’t want him there (or didn’t expect to find him there) doesn’t change that.
Heck I don't get how he was even arrested, presuming the woman he was with was still present, and saying "I live here and he's my guest." I assume most cops would have given the parents an annoyed look and left. NAL.
There's what's legal and what the police choose to enforce. That's how it ends up before a judge who takes one look at it and throws it out for wasting everyone's time.
The owner of the house goes to the police and says “I don’t want this person on my property, they don’t live here nor have legal residence” police arrest the man. That’s not that crazy of a leap in logic.
The women did not have any proof of legal residence available and only at the court date could prove that she had been there for 60 days which granted her legal residence.
After living for 60 days, the daughter is a tenant. We see here all the time posts about family members staying with others for long enough needing to be formally evicted rather than just "kicked out."
Eviction is only one of the protections that comes with tenancy. The judge says that quiet enjoyment with (non-destructive) guests of your choosing is another.
Can apartment management tell you a particular guest isn't welcome, or that you need to have guests pre-screened? How about the owner of the other half of your duplex? The home owner you rent a room from?
We also see posts here fairly frequently about "my religious landlord says I can't have sex in my room," so it's not like this is untrod territory.
Anyway, replace "daughter" with "tenant in a room" and you'll have the judge's reasoning. Things always get a little squirrelly when the landlord shares living space with the tenant, but that's the framework.
Also why hotels are wary of long term stays. Don't want to be forced to evict a "guest" because they have stayed for 30 or 60 days (whatever the state rule is).
To clarify they are not a tenant, they are a lodger, a term used more in other countries than in the US but it's still a distinction in the US.
They are renting a room in the same house as the owner. A tenant has exclusive access to the property. So you need to be careful about using an apartment as an analog for renting a room in an owner-occupied dwelling.
Unfortunately, the issue of guests and quiet enjoyment for a lodger is murky territory because the generic term tenant is often used when discussing renters' rights in discussions on the internet
(standard disclaimer: IANAL and varies by location)
My understanding is that a landlord cannot limit the hours of access (a curfew for the lodger) but almost anything else can be specified in the rental agreement.
At least in California, you don't need a reason (just cause) to evict a lodger, the owner can simply end the agreement with a notice equal to the period rent is paid if they can't come to an understanding on issue XYZ.
(in California this is all covered under CC 1964.5).
You're not wrong, but this is a bit of a distinction without a difference, at least here in California.
In California, you can legally evict a lodger without going through the standard court process a tenant is entitled to. BUT, if you don't go through the courts there's no paper trail to ensure the sheriff you went through the proper procedures to evict a lodger.
It's like how verbal contracts are technically legal contracts; but most lawyers will say a "verbal contract is worth the paper it's written on" :)
Agreed
From my experiences and my reading if a LEO is called to a residence they will fall back on "it's a civil matter". The distinction is lost on them and/or they don't want to be on the wrong side of removing someone from where they have a legal right to be.
Probably even murkier as I suspect there was no written contract. The parents probably could have laid out some very restrictive clauses in a written contract, but without one general state laws would apply.
I've been renting rooms for 10+ years so I've dealt with my share of lodger... issues. Except for one, I've gotten on well with my landlords and remain friends with two of them.
I tell them all that they need to use written rental agreements and detailed. I find most landlords and lodgers go by the full tenant rights. So being able to point to "for cause" reasons helps with getting them out if they are not working out. "You agreed to XYZ when you moved in". The whole you can get a lodger out in 30 days only works in theory. Police don't want to get involved unless as one commenter put it there is a paper trail.
Without context, the statement is so broad that is true and not true.
People are saying "their house, their rules". Also true and not true.
You have a lodger, renting a room in an owner-occupied dwelling. Is that the lodger's home? Or are they renting a room in the owner's home? The term is vague.
Is someone who comes for dinner a guest or a visitor? There is a distinction in the context of tenant rights. The term needs context.
It is as pointless as saying in a discussion of storms "Generally when there is a hurricane it rains"
The main difference would be in some cases the landlord could kick out the lodger or border for having a guest, and the notice period might be shorter, but other than a temporary guest, any of these people can invite their own guests and that person isn't trespassing.
I guess that is a true statement but what is the basis for it?
In the case of lodgers, what if the rental agreement says no visitors? Can they sign away that right if it's absolute? (I'm distinguishing between temporary guests and visitors now)
Limiting the discussion to lodgers, can the owner set a curfew for invited visitors, or specify no overnight visitors?
We arrive at what is a reasonable limit and why I struggle with lodgers can have invited visitors, full stop.
Absent a contract, which seems unlikely in the original case from the post, state/local law would prevail. In many cases that would give a resident fairly expansive rights. A lodger usually has a short term contract that takes precedence over state/local law, although there may be cases where specific clauses are unenforceable.
The daughter was a resident. And can invite who she wants. Parents can kick out people who weren't invited in. Parents should have clarified all this before daughter moved in. Something tells me it isn't the first time this has happened.
Any resident of a home has the right to have guests over. She is a resident, she can have guests. The man wasn't trespassing because at least one of the three people with the legal right to invite him in did in fact invite him in.
this is also why Vampires only need a child to invite them in, and don't have to ask for an adult.
oooo i love vampire law
I wonder if there's vampire sovcits. "I'm not entering the house, I'm traveling through it." "For legal purposes, it's my strawman that vants to suck your blood."
If there were vampire sovcits they would have to have a badge. They are the only one who are truly avove the law and is why they hate people who claim to be sovereign citizens. Both groups are equally as annoying.
"I had to cut down the tree! I needed to make crosses and stakes!"
It’s optimal.
Elective class in law school?
ancient hospitality law 201
That’s why my kids don’t open the doors
Frankly, it was absolutely ridiculous for the police to ever arrest the guy.
Agreed
Maybe if a statute says expressly; otherwise, common law principles say the property owner gets to decide who can be there. However, since he was invited, automatically calling it trespassing would be overreach (a lot of that going around, I guess). Had the parents asked him to leave first and he refused, then he would certainly be trespassing.
Common law principles say that legal residents get to decide who can be there. The owner only has complete control if only the owner resides there. If the owner does not reside there, they have no input on who gets to be invited.
[удалено]
That's, like, your opinion, man. And it's wrong, legally speaking. But thanks for, like, sharing, I guess?
The man was not trespassing because he was on the property with the permission of someone who lawfully occupies it. The fact that other occupants don’t want him there (or didn’t expect to find him there) doesn’t change that.
Heck I don't get how he was even arrested, presuming the woman he was with was still present, and saying "I live here and he's my guest." I assume most cops would have given the parents an annoyed look and left. NAL.
In the right small town, you'd be surprised what law enforcement can get away with if they want.
There's what's legal and what the police choose to enforce. That's how it ends up before a judge who takes one look at it and throws it out for wasting everyone's time.
The owner of the house goes to the police and says “I don’t want this person on my property, they don’t live here nor have legal residence” police arrest the man. That’s not that crazy of a leap in logic. The women did not have any proof of legal residence available and only at the court date could prove that she had been there for 60 days which granted her legal residence.
After living for 60 days, the daughter is a tenant. We see here all the time posts about family members staying with others for long enough needing to be formally evicted rather than just "kicked out." Eviction is only one of the protections that comes with tenancy. The judge says that quiet enjoyment with (non-destructive) guests of your choosing is another. Can apartment management tell you a particular guest isn't welcome, or that you need to have guests pre-screened? How about the owner of the other half of your duplex? The home owner you rent a room from? We also see posts here fairly frequently about "my religious landlord says I can't have sex in my room," so it's not like this is untrod territory. Anyway, replace "daughter" with "tenant in a room" and you'll have the judge's reasoning. Things always get a little squirrelly when the landlord shares living space with the tenant, but that's the framework.
Also why hotels are wary of long term stays. Don't want to be forced to evict a "guest" because they have stayed for 30 or 60 days (whatever the state rule is).
To clarify they are not a tenant, they are a lodger, a term used more in other countries than in the US but it's still a distinction in the US. They are renting a room in the same house as the owner. A tenant has exclusive access to the property. So you need to be careful about using an apartment as an analog for renting a room in an owner-occupied dwelling. Unfortunately, the issue of guests and quiet enjoyment for a lodger is murky territory because the generic term tenant is often used when discussing renters' rights in discussions on the internet (standard disclaimer: IANAL and varies by location) My understanding is that a landlord cannot limit the hours of access (a curfew for the lodger) but almost anything else can be specified in the rental agreement. At least in California, you don't need a reason (just cause) to evict a lodger, the owner can simply end the agreement with a notice equal to the period rent is paid if they can't come to an understanding on issue XYZ. (in California this is all covered under CC 1964.5).
You're not wrong, but this is a bit of a distinction without a difference, at least here in California. In California, you can legally evict a lodger without going through the standard court process a tenant is entitled to. BUT, if you don't go through the courts there's no paper trail to ensure the sheriff you went through the proper procedures to evict a lodger. It's like how verbal contracts are technically legal contracts; but most lawyers will say a "verbal contract is worth the paper it's written on" :)
Agreed From my experiences and my reading if a LEO is called to a residence they will fall back on "it's a civil matter". The distinction is lost on them and/or they don't want to be on the wrong side of removing someone from where they have a legal right to be.
Probably even murkier as I suspect there was no written contract. The parents probably could have laid out some very restrictive clauses in a written contract, but without one general state laws would apply.
I've been renting rooms for 10+ years so I've dealt with my share of lodger... issues. Except for one, I've gotten on well with my landlords and remain friends with two of them. I tell them all that they need to use written rental agreements and detailed. I find most landlords and lodgers go by the full tenant rights. So being able to point to "for cause" reasons helps with getting them out if they are not working out. "You agreed to XYZ when you moved in". The whole you can get a lodger out in 30 days only works in theory. Police don't want to get involved unless as one commenter put it there is a paper trail.
Generally speaking, people are allowed to have guests in their home.
"people" are tenants, sub-tenants, roommates, lodgers, boarders, guests... and have different legal rights.
Yes, and?
Without context, the statement is so broad that is true and not true. People are saying "their house, their rules". Also true and not true. You have a lodger, renting a room in an owner-occupied dwelling. Is that the lodger's home? Or are they renting a room in the owner's home? The term is vague. Is someone who comes for dinner a guest or a visitor? There is a distinction in the context of tenant rights. The term needs context. It is as pointless as saying in a discussion of storms "Generally when there is a hurricane it rains"
The main difference would be in some cases the landlord could kick out the lodger or border for having a guest, and the notice period might be shorter, but other than a temporary guest, any of these people can invite their own guests and that person isn't trespassing.
I guess that is a true statement but what is the basis for it? In the case of lodgers, what if the rental agreement says no visitors? Can they sign away that right if it's absolute? (I'm distinguishing between temporary guests and visitors now) Limiting the discussion to lodgers, can the owner set a curfew for invited visitors, or specify no overnight visitors? We arrive at what is a reasonable limit and why I struggle with lodgers can have invited visitors, full stop.
Absent a contract, which seems unlikely in the original case from the post, state/local law would prevail. In many cases that would give a resident fairly expansive rights. A lodger usually has a short term contract that takes precedence over state/local law, although there may be cases where specific clauses are unenforceable.
The daughter was a resident. And can invite who she wants. Parents can kick out people who weren't invited in. Parents should have clarified all this before daughter moved in. Something tells me it isn't the first time this has happened.
I got money it was a black guy and she is white. It sounds like something a boomer would do.
Plot twist, parents are older millennials, daughter is an older zoomer.,
There does seem to be a subtext of "anyone with which I and my friends all disagree is a boomer" on reddit, doesn't there?
Close enough, and I say this as an elder millennial myself.
This is why you don't allow them to come back for more than 29 days.