|
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|
|
OT Sometimes, ya just gotta hold a HARD LINE!!
On 7/25/2017 7:28 AM, Sqwertz wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Jul 2017 05:32:34 -0700, Taxed and Spent wrote:
>
>> On 7/24/2017 8:41 PM, Sqwertz wrote:
>>> On Mon, 24 Jul 2017 22:08:18 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 7/24/2017 9:39 PM, wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, July 24, 2017 at 4:53:29 PM UTC-5, Sheldon wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> John can't evict anyone for any reason, the *owner* or the owner's
>>>>>> legal agent would need to go through the courts.... and even for non
>>>>>> payment of rent the judge would very likely give her a court date some
>>>>>> 30 days out from the time of filing and then very likely after a court
>>>>>> hearing the judge would give her 60 days to pay all the due rent or
>>>>>> to leave before the sheriff would be ordered to toss her and her stuff
>>>>>> to the curb... I've had enough people evicted to know the process.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> I don't know anything about where he lives but here after a tenant has
>>>>> been served with eviction papers they have 90 days to move out. After
>>>>> the sheriff comes and sets them out on the street. HOWEVER, it can
>>>>> take the sheriff up to a year to show up and make them leave.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What state is that?
>>>>
>>>> For non payment of rent here in CT there is a 9 day grace period and you
>>>> can then serve a 3 day notice to quit.
>>>
>>> In Texas and California it's a 3 day notice to pay or forfeit. Then
>>> the landlord has to get a judgment from the county court and they have
>>> 30 days after that. In no case can you dispose of belongings of the
>>> tenant until you get a court order. The legal status of this property
>>> is unknown. I think the courts would view this as the tenant has not
>>> fully vacated the premises (and taken her friend with her). Most
>>> states don't allow to chuck the shit outside. Fortunately for John
>>> she's probably very Chinese and probably doesn't know her rights.
>>
>> But this wasn't a tenant.
>>
>> And the tenant left, so these belongings were abandoned.
>
> They are the result of tenant living there. Obviously this person
> spent time at the house while the tenant was living there. The law
> would not consider this as some random person coming in off the street
> and storing her stuff there, but rather as part of the previous
> tenants occupancy.
>
> Anyway - no sense arguing about it as this is all third-hand
> information from kooky John. And who knows what thaws there are in
> John's hamlet.
>
> -sw
>
That guest of a past tenant won't have much luck in court, and landlords
need to play the odds.
|