I made a big mistake - Posted by Celeste

Giving permission? - Posted by John Corey

Posted by John Corey on June 15, 2006 at 18:30:08:

Joe,

Note this is the reason that a seasoned investors who buy a property in foreclosure always wants the prior owner out with the keys handed over and everything moved before you put out any money to solve THEIR problem. As one short sale guy says, stuff on the Uhaul with the pad lock closed on the truck before money changes hands for leaving. Locksmith in second vehicle with the new locks waiting.

Two stories.

Illegal immigrant enters the country. Tells his cousin to join him. Second person is picked up by boarder patrol after entering the country. Says he has a right to be here because his illegal cousin invited him.

Seems pretty dumb, right?

Second story…

Person enters property illegally. Invites in second person. You ask second person why they are there. They say they were invited. How does the invitation from the person who has entered illegally make it legal for the second person to be there? They are trespassing. Rather black and white. If you tell them that they are there illegally and the police arrive to remove them they should get the point that something is not right.

It is correct to file an eviction to ensure that anyone who might claim to have a right to be there is flushed out and such rights are clarified or terminated.

I would still call the police on the second person as their position only works if they can prove that their relative is legally still able to be there. The police are not able to determine residency. They would certainly make the person in the closet come out or they would haul away the guy in the door. You could easily state that you do not know the guy and have no reason to believe anything he says about why he is in your property with out permission. Rattle him so that he recognizes that this is getting real messy and not worth his time.

You do not know if anyone is related. You do not know if anyone is hiding behind the door, etc. Hence there is no reason to believe what you are being told. You do know that know one should be there legally. Hence it is reasonable to suspect the new stranger.

Hiding in closets as if being hidden makes it go away!

John Corey

do - Posted by Nike

Posted by Nike on June 15, 2006 at 14:01:44:

Now we have the elements of a crime.

“Beat them like dogs”–a hold-over seller? A tough guy who uses smiley-faces-- That’s strange.

permission? - Posted by Nike

Posted by Nike on June 15, 2006 at 19:59:32:

What’re you babbling about? Your examples are off point–if you can’t see that then you’re more clueless than I thought. I challenged your claim that you could have the brother arrested for breaking and entering. You can’t. Yes, he’s a trespasser and you have a legal remedy available–but at this point having him arrested is not a remedy. If you think it is then lay out the elements of the crime and make your case.

Do you understand the issue–hold-over seller (hold-over seller that was given permission to remain for a limited time)? Apparently not as you’re now trying to draw an analogy involving illegal immigrants? Well at least you’re serving-up gruel to the Yahoos–I’m sure some joker will use this opportunity to launch some anti-immigration diatribe.

It’s called a joke - Posted by Rob Ricker

Posted by Rob Ricker on June 15, 2006 at 14:38:42:

lighten up dude …just enjoying life over here.

Your attitude sucks Nike - Posted by Rob Ricker

Posted by Rob Ricker on June 15, 2006 at 23:29:28:

and you need to be welcomed to the real world. You go ahead and file your eviction and John will call the police AND file an eviction. If you see a big difference in the end result of either choice, then something ain’t clicking up top. If anything, John’s method will put a quicker scare in the THIEVES who are stealing time in his property. It may or may not get them out quicker, but it sure won’t hurt.

p.s. the illegal immigration example by Mr. Corey was a good one and on point. You’d just have to get the spur out of your rear to be able to appreciate it. I suggest you start picking out spurs as fast as possible. Life’s too short to get so rattled.

Your attitude sucks Nike - Posted by Nike

Posted by Nike on June 16, 2006 at 07:05:40:

You can choose to conflate the issues, however the issue I challenged Corey on was the claim that the brother could be arrested for breaking and entering. Permission/consent is at the heart of the issue and his example involving illegal immigrants is off point.

Who is rattled? Surveying this thread it looks like you’ve worked yourself into quite a lather. I like your conspicuous entry addressed to me–I bet you think you’ve raised hell. You’re the man Robbie.

Re: Your attitude sucks Nike - Posted by Jim V

Posted by Jim V on June 16, 2006 at 03:06:03:

Rob,

Nike loves to ask questions and often expresses opinions.

Maybe Nike really knows his/her stuff, it’s hard to judge when there really isn’t anythng substantial to form an opinion from.

Re: Your attitude sucks Nike - Posted by michaela-FL

Posted by michaela-FL on June 16, 2006 at 08:28:48:

Jim,

I know you’ve dealt with these issues more than me, since I chose to stop being a landlord, but unless I’m mistaken Nike’s comments are correct.

When the seller was told that it’s ok to stay another day they became ‘tenants at will’, which would require an eviction. SO, even though they’re were breaking the agreement by staying longer, I don’t think that’s equal to illegal immigrants.

I’ve also had a situation were a tenant had her boyfriend stay at the house, after she had moved out.
They had broken up and out of spite he stayed at the house. I was told that I’d have to get a normal evition, even though he wasn’t the one on the lease,
because the tenant initially allowed him to stay.

Michaela

Re: Your attitude sucks Nike - Posted by Jim V

Posted by Jim V on June 17, 2006 at 24:47:18:

Michaela,

I didn’t re-read through the thread, so I’m doing this from memory.

If I go to a house I own and someone I don’t know answers the door, red flags will be raised. The scenario, as presented, was that there were previous owners to a property, when the new owner went to the property, someone they didn’t know answered the door.

At that point, I’m probably calling the police. I don’t know the person, I have no idea what status they may have, but I’d like someone who has the authority, and likelihood to get, ID and information on why they are in the property.

I actually agree with Nike’s information about eviction, but that’s not the only aspect. A “good” eviction will have a positive benefit to the “tenant” if they leave early, with the knowledge that the legal process will force the issue sometime later.

I sort of went in a sidetracked fashion here, the intended point being you often want to both call the police, and begin legal eviction.

Boards are intended for discussion and while it’s inevitable that people disagree, some people appear to think there must be a “winner” in a discussion.

Re: Your attitude sucks Nike - Posted by michaela-FL

Posted by michaela-FL on June 17, 2006 at 17:30:02:

Jim,
actually, she did know the person that opened the door.
It was the seller’s brother, so there’s of course thelogical assumption, that the sellers allowed him to stay. In my experience that would mean he would have to be part of the eviction and couldn’t just get arrested, unless she were to lie to the cops.

But I don’t want to keep badgering on this topic. I just feel, that Nike had a point.

Michaela

Re: Your attitude sucks Nike - Posted by Jim V

Posted by Jim V on June 18, 2006 at 24:34:26:

Michaela,

I read it that the person who answered the door stated they were the brother.

I stated Nike had validity regarding one aspect of the situation, I’m not going to contradict that.

Having a point, and being an a**, aren’t apparently exclusionary.

That’s just an opinion, having nothing to do with the conversation between you and I. I hope things are going well for you after your move.