Getting kicked out of my house

[PottedMeat]

Then, assuming this was a lawful contract, this would superceed his "60 day resident" rights since he would be specifically waiving these in the contract.



Well if there was a lawful pre-existing contract that Ed was a guest only then he has expressly waived his rights. In all other circumstances, where a person has not expressly waived their right to these protections a formal eviction must be undertaken. Now if Ed was a juvenile (a minor is a person under 21) this makes it a little more complicated. If Ed (mis)represented himself to be over the age of majority then the contract would most likely be valid, since courts have held that juveniles can be held to most contracts if they have willfully ommitted the fact that they are a juvenile for the purpose of entering into a contract. However, if Ed was a juvenile and John entered into the contract knowing this then the contract would not be valid.

About stealing, regardless of whether or not Ed is stealing from John, John cannot evict him without a formal eviction. John certainly has the right to pursue criminal action against Ed for the felonies (burglary, petty/grand theft) but this does not entitle him to kick out Ed without affording him due process.


X

1. An "explicit agreement" does not necessarily rise to the level of a "contract". As you know, one of the foundational elements of a contract is that both parties bring some form of "consideration" to the party.
I do not see the consideration Ed contributes.

2. You stated earlier, that under Cal. code section 1941, the law requires the lessee to notify the lessor of "any" changes in the ["residents"]. Hence, John's failure to notify the lessor of the fact that he was allowing a "new" resident to reside with him could be considered as a "material" omission" with regards to any contract between the two of them. Thereby, resulting in the failure to create a legal contract.

3. Having no legal contract, Ed would have no legal rights under the landlord/tenant laws.

4. I was under the impression that the denial of "due process" was applicable in matters dealing with the government or a governmental agency.

 

[Adam X]

1. An "explicit agreement" does not necessarily rise to the level of a "contract". As you know, one of the foundational elements of a contract is that both parties bring some form of "consideration" to the party.
I do not see the consideration Ed contributes.

If John has Ed sign an "explicit agreement" that his residence is temporary and that Ed is waiving all rights to claim tenancy at the property then this should suffice, so long as the agreement is otherwise lawful.

2. You stated earlier, that under Cal. code section 1941, the law requires the lessee to notify the lessor of "any" changes in the ["residents"]. Hence, John's failure to notify the lessor of the fact that he was allowing a "new" resident to reside with him could be considered as a "material" omission" with regards to any contract between the two of them. Thereby, resulting in the failure to create a legal contract.

Yes, this is true. I'm not suggesting that there is not a good deal of gray area.

3. Having no legal contract, Ed would have no legal rights under the landlord/tenant laws.

Ed would still be entitled to the protections afforded persons who have lawfully (as opposed to a "squatter") resided at a property for more than 60 days.

4. I was under the impression that the denial of "due process" was applicable in matters dealing with the government or a governmental agency.

I think you know what I meant. Due process as in waiting for the decision of the court in the matter of the eviction.


X