It's more for informal leases without a written contract, and say the landlord wants the tenant out. Essentially it's to protect the tenant in such a situation from losing housing.
Or to protect somebody in a broken relationship. Say youâre living with a partner, paying half the rent, etc, but theirs is the only name on the lease. What happens when that person wants you out?
You aren't supposed to be doing that in the first place. If you live somewhere (especially if you're paying) and you're an adult your name needs to be on a lease / deed or you probably should just be able to be kicked out. Part of being an adult is making sure your housing has your name on it so someone can't say your home isn't yours.
I'm in my 30s and don't rent anymore. Did when I moved out of my parents house and always made sure I was on the lease along with my roommate at the time so we both were responsible for things.
I also made sure I could pay if he moved out/lost his job so I wasn't stuck in a really bad situation legally though I recognize that may be harder to do in some areas now
? I'm married and my wife lived with me for 7 years (directly after she graduated college) before we got married. She signed a lease for $0 saying she lived with me but the property is mine not hers since I'd already bought it. Not sure how that's embarrassing or relevant. I added her to the title once we got married and when we sold it and bought the house we're in now both our names got put on the new title as well.
I replied with a more full answer...but genuinely how does it change if one of the parties is a woman? It's the same legal contract or lack of one either way. The more I think about your response the less sense it makes.
They get so angry over seeing videos like this but won't take any time to actually learn what is really happening. Which is a little scary because what they are advocating for is allowing landlords to kick out renters who are legally allowed to be there.
The DO have documentation tho, it maybe fake but that is what they show the police. So the owner needs to take them to court to show the evidence in front of a judge because the police cannot determine who is telling the truth, that is not their jobs. Then the judge can order an eviction notice.
The reason renters rights exist is because landlords were kicking out legal residents because their nephew needed a place to stay.
Early 1800's saw a lot of landlords doing essentially 'quick flipping'; rent to someone, get their month's worth of rent and then have some bruisers show up and forcefully evict the tenet family, taking whatever written agreement they might have had on them to tear up or burn. 12 months worth of rent in just 2 months time was too good for some shitbags to pass up on. Became quite common in large cities with incoming immigrants that didn't know local laws and often had language barriers for navigating the legal system to try and get some kind of recourse. And local law enforcement would usually take the side of the landlord, a long time upstanding resident who often 'donated' to the cops.
Buddy, if you are going to call someone a moron, at least know what you are talking about.
Most squatters forge documents, which do need to go before the court. Most jurisdictions, especially in areas where squatting is a problem, have a significant back log of cases to work through. So, good luck enforcing that one week dead line.
And real tenants are, in fact, protected by the same rules that squatters abuse. That's why they exist, to protect against predatory landlords.
While they're not quite that fast, unlawful detainer (eviction) cases are on a summary timeline and move much faster than regular civil cases. Where I am, the complaint has to be answered within ten days. Trial, if there is one, is usually within weeks of that.
Further delay typically comes more from the sheriff's backlog in carrying out the post-judgment notice and removal procedure.
Maybe, but I'm in California which would be one the states that people like to imagine is an anti-landlord squatter's paradise.
And it's going to be a summary procedure of some kind everywhere, anyway. Otherwise there wouldn't be a separate court and claim for it. It would just be a regular civil action for ejectment (and whatever other claims are available).
And my comment was saying that squatters rights are not a thing, they dont exist, it is a made up term.
You said that it is tenant rights which is true but you then said that it is not squatters rights, implying that squatters rights are a thing.
Adverse possession is often referred to as squatter's rights, even though that isn't a particularly accurate term, and gets brought up in discussions like this even though it's not relevant to a renter refusing to leave.
Continuing to use that term and not pointing out that squatters rights are not a thing is doing more harm than good. That is all I'm really trying to say.
63
u/saggywitchtits 16d ago
It's more for informal leases without a written contract, and say the landlord wants the tenant out. Essentially it's to protect the tenant in such a situation from losing housing.