Girl Acting Strange After I got her to pay half the rent

[backbreaker]

i have to side with iqqi again that's not how tennant rights worked, at least in arknasas they didn't. my mother owns 2 small houses that she rents out and i've seen this **** play out first hand, tennants have to basically not pay bills for at least a month to get kicked out and if someone has been living somewhre for 6 months they have squatters rights.

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/evictions-renters-tenants-rights-29824.html

while technically you are correct, they would get to court to even determine if she is or is not a legal tennant, and we know she isn't, but still it has to go out that way he just can't kick her out or she can file a lawsuit against the actual legal owner of the property for being kicked out the house without due process and she'd win.

i think it was even you that posted it, or bible belt one of the 2, but tenant **** like this gets really really sticky really really quick. all i'm ashing is, this is not worth it for a girl you are ****ing. a future wife sure. a girl who you are ****ing and is over your house all the time, hell no.

 

[iqqi]

^^ backbreaker, your mom had a landlord tenant relationship with the tenants who lived in her house. This is similar to the relationship that OP has with his landlord.

However, the relationship your mom had with her tenants is different from the relationship OP has with his gf:

In this situation, because the gf is not on the lease and is not even a subleasee, she would be considered a boarder or a licensee and thus, would have very few rights to stay in the apartment.

The most she would get out of taking this to court is, if say she paid $500 for the month of December, and OP kicked her out December 15th. Then, the gf would be allowed back half her money, considered she paid half the months rent. In other words, she would only get back the money that she paid for rent.

As for squatters, for them to lay legitimate claim to land they generally have to meet these requirements:

they possess the land;
they intended to possess the land;
the possession of the land has been without the consent of the owner of the land;
and they have possessed the land for the required time period, whatever that is.

So squatter`s rights would not apply to the OP`s situation either.

The girlfriend lives there and pays half of the rent, and she does not need a lease to be a legal resident. What she has is considered a month to month lease at this point. Which is probably a violation of the boyfriends lease with his landlord.

Since you can practice law in NY, Brad, maybe you should read up. http://www.lawny.org/index.php/housing-self-help-141/housing-and-eviction-self-help-142/48-general-eviction-information

Some basic definitions: http://www.nycourts.gov/courthelp/faqs/housing.html

Another link: http://www.expertlaw.com/forums/showthread.php?t=41100

You can try and find all of the loopholes that you want, and a lease should stand for something, however tenant's rights usurp almost anything you would think to be common sense.

 

[Burroughs]

Brad you're dropping mad knowledge as usual keep up the good work

I had a question however could a crusading feminazi judge combined with a less than ideal lawyer (who doesn't comprehend loopholes for instance) use a more liberal use of the word 'tenant' than the strict letter of the law and give the woman rights as a 'defacto' tenant?

I only ask because sadly crusading judges do exist and 9 out 10 times this hurts the man.

 

[iqqi]

aww iqqi you`re so cute when you talk law

please allow me to introduce you to New York State`s definition of a tenant, taken from N.Y. RPP. LAW § 235-f : NY Code - Section 235-F: Unlawful restrictions on occupancy:

(a) "Tenant" means a person occupying or entitled to occupy a
residential rental premises who is either a party to the lease or rental
agreement for such premises or is a statutory tenant pursuant to the
emergency housing rent control law or the city rent and rehabilitation
law or article seven-c of the multiple dwelling law.

(b) "Occupant" means a person, other than a tenant or a member of a
tenant's immediate family, occupying a premises with the consent of the
tenant or tenants.

So as you can see, she`s not a tenant, she`s a licensee. And when the OP withdraws his permission, or license, for her to be there, she must go.

Oh, so is she an occupant, or a licensee?

And I already introduced you to that law, didn't you read my links?

Q. What can a landlord do if there is a person living in the premises who was invited to stay by the former tenant before the tenant moved out?

A. If there is someone living in the premises who started living there with the tenant's permission before the tenant moved out, that person is a licensee. A landlord can start a licensee holdover case. First, the landlord must serve the licensee with a notice to quit. If the licensee doesn't move out, the landlord can start a case in court. Small landlords can use the free DIY (Do-It-Yourself) Form program to make a written notice to quit or the papers needed to start a licensee holdover. For landlords in New York City, for landlords outside New York City.

See also

THE RIGHTS OF TENANTS UNDER THE UNLAWFUL EVICTIONS LAW

In 1982, the City Council of New York passed the Unlawful Evictions Law, a local ordinance making it illegal for any person without a court order to evict, or attempt to evict, a tenant who either has a lease or has lawfully occupied a dwelling unit for thirty or more consecutive days. The law also applies to tenants protected under the hotel stabilization provisions of the rent stabilization law where the tenant has made a request for a lease.

Subtenants, roommates and relatives are also protected by the Unlawful Eviction Law. These occupants do not have to be on the lease or have made direct payments to the landlord to be protected. He or she, however, must have lived there for at least thirty consecutive days.

Of course you are going to argue, you are a lawyer. Just obviously one that doesn't know much about tenant law. If you went to court you'd lose. I'm pretty good at arguing too, it was one of the things I almost went to school for until I decided I didn't want to spend my whole life in school just to spend my whole life working.

 

[iqqi]

If anyone wants to really find out what is up, maybe actually call a lawyer who works with tenant law, which I am sure now is not Brad's specialty here, and tell them you want your girlfriend who has been living with you and paying rent to move out, and can you just throw her stuff out. See what they say.

 

[Boilermaker]

It's not Bradd's specialty who is a licensed lawyer, but because you know how to c/p stuff from google in 10 minutes that makes you qualified to question his expertise, eh?

 

[iqqi]

It's not Bradd's specialty who is a licensed lawyer, but because you know how to c/p stuff from google in 10 minutes that makes you qualified to question his expertise, eh?

Oh dear...

I think I may have mentioned that I have been through this personally so I am speaking from experience? Also google is your friend, just make sure that you are gaining your knowledge from reputable sources and not yahoo answers.

If lawyers were gods then we wouldn't have courts.

Here is another definition for you, Brad.

Tenants who do not have leases and pay rent on a monthly
basis are called “month-to-month” tenants. In localities without rent regulation, tenants who stay past the end of a lease
are treated as month-to-month tenants if the landlord accepts
their rent. Real Property Law § 232-c.
A month-to-month tenancy outside New York City may be
terminated by either party by giving at least one month’s notice before the expiration of the tenancy. For example, if the
landlord wants the tenant to move out by November 1 and the
rent is due on the first of each month, the landlord must give
notice by September 30. In New York City, 30 days’ notice is
required, rather than one month.​

Source is taken directly from the state of New York's guidebook for tenant's rights. you should read this...

Since she is paying rent. She is a tenant.

 

[iqqi]

iqqi, according to that link, which you got on an internet forum thread, anybody in new york city who has been living in a place for more than 30 days - whether or not they have paid rent - is considered a tenant.

I doubt New York law would read the law this broadly. And if it is true, and coming from an internet discussion forum i doubt it is, then the OP`s gf here would be considered a tenant anyway, so she might as well pay rent while she`s there lol

Besides, always remember that what is written in a statute is often very different from the way the rule is actually applied in real life.
.

Only one link is from a forum, a forum that has lawyers like you giving advice. The rest are directly from the state's website on their laws. The last link and post I made was directly from the tenant's guide book published by the state of New York.

Since the GF is paying half of the rent, if it came down to it, the boyfriend would be screwed if the GF decided to screw him. That's the bottom line. Even if she were not paying rent, he could still be screwed. It's the paying of half of the rent that really cements her status as a tenant.

I'm also so well versed in tenant law due to having roommates. At any moment, a roommate can totally F you over. Whether they are on the lease or not. All it takes is a person living solely in your home for a certain time frame, and BAM. They have rights.

These are things you want to avoid if you want to avoid a legal battle:
1. Do not let your GF receive mail at your house.
2. Do not let your GF move in. (duh lol)
3. Do not split the rent with your GF.

These things will just set you up for a loss if it comes down to it. You know most times it will not. You get into a big fight, and tell her to get the hell out. So she goes. But if you get one that wants to cause problems, now she legally can.

Seriously, check out the law in your state. Make some phone calls. Or learn the hard way when you go to court.

And may the force be with you.

 

[Beowolf]

I've actually called the police to cart this psycho***** out, and they asked to speak to my landlady first to make sure she was'nt on the lease.. They talked to my landlady right in front of me while they looked at the lease, and the landlady told them she was not on the lease, and Then they carted her a** out.

 

[Aristippus]

If a woman was living with me, I'd be fair. Even if we had our differences and I felt she needed to move out, I would be fair and give her time to find a place. BUT, if she did something like cheat on me or started participating in illegal activities, according to "THE RIGHTS OF TENANTS LIVING UNDER MY ROOF ACT", I'd put her stuff outside, either in the yard or bring her stuff to a storage unit, change the locks and tell her to get out. Legal consequences be d@mned.

Good luck getting back in my house. Case Closed........ It doesn't feel the same when I say it. Where's Judge Nismo when you need him?

 

[Boilermaker]

I think I may have mentioned that I have been through this personally so I am speaking from experience? Also google is your friend, just make sure that you are gaining your knowledge from reputable sources and not yahoo answers.

Yes, google is your friend. But when you start using google to argue with lawyers on law or doctors on medicine, without having any qualifications on both of them whatsoever,

I don't know ...

You run the risk of looking naive and feeble to say the least?

Use google to educate yourself instead of trying to save face on an argument long lost ...

iqqi,

 

[Harvey_Poon]

Doesn't anyone else see the irony here?

All the people screaming "make her pay half" don't seem to realize that, that is exactly what she wanted in the first place. She WANTS to move in OFFICIALLY.

No, that is not what she exactly wanted to do in the first place. The only reason she was asked to pay half the rent in the first place is because she was causing problems for this man with her demands. She wanted the upgraded cable TV that this man didn't want. She was *****ing at him for not forking over more money for groceries that she was buying. She wasn't paying any rent or utilities that she was using. He was footing the bill for her. She was saving her money except for a few groceries she bought and had free room and board. She never once came to him and said "Delly, how about I pay for half the rent since I'm here all the time and using up all your stuff." If he didn't ask her to fork over her share she still would continue to mooch and make demands. She had his place and her mom's both where she lived for free and was able to save her money. She had it really good until she was *****ing and demanding more from him.

She's not going to stay at her Mom's forever. Shes not going to go get her own place if she has a serious relationship with Delly.

No, she just wanted to stay at the mom's and Delly's for free because she is a moocher. She never had any intentions of getting a place of her own to begin with. That is why she moved herself in with him. She wanted a free place to live instead of the mom's.

The OP indicates that she happily agreed to pay her share almost right away. She wants the relationship to proceed to the next level and b!tching about sharing expenses pressed the issue and now she got HER way.

She only agreed because she had no choice in the matter. It was either going back to the mom's place where she didn't want or to stay or with him paying for half of the rent. She didn't get her way. Her way was to stay there rent free. Only until Delly put his foot down and got tired of her bull**** is when she had to pay up. Otherwise she would still be mooching a free room and board off him. If she was happy she wouldn't be down on the dumps and this man wouldn't be bringing his problem for us on this forum. She would be on Cloud 9 because she "got her way" and would be happy. She didn't get her way and now that she has to pay she is upset for not keeping her mouth shut.

I've been in this exact situation many times. First they start spending all their time at your place. Then slowly her stuff starts migrating over. It starts with clothes and bathroom stuff. Then one day you come home to a nice dinner prepared for you and notice that she's been grocery shopping and filled the fridge. Seems great at first. More and more of her stuff comes over. She starts paying for random things that the place might need. She's making your place better so you can't really complain. She has her own key and comes and goes as she pleases. Next thing you know it's ALMOST like she really is living there!

She wasn't paying for random things. she was paying only for her groceries and *****ed that he wasn't paying for them too. You would think that since she had a free place and free utilities that she would shut up and pay at least for something she was using instead of making Delly fork over more money. Talk about being ungrateful. She was living there and she was causing him the problems that made him ask her to pay up half.

Sooner or later a discussion about money arises because YOU feel it's not fair. It's a stressful conversation to have. The teary eyes, the argument over money. The relationship is being put to the test because now you aren't just "playing house" anymore. You are essentially getting MARRIED. (Depending where you live, common law marriages may be in effect as well). Oddly (or not) the moment that you decide to live together the tears quickly dry up and happiness ensues. Talk about manipulation. I've fallen for this scam more than once when I was young and dumb.!

Your logic is what is dumb. They didn't decide to live together. She moved herself in because she didn't want to stay at the mom's. Maybe Delly doesn't want her at his place all the time? Would be nice to hear from him on how he feels about that.

I've lived with many different women. No one can argue that once she starts paying rent that things don't change. Looking back if I could work a situation where I paid the rent and got to keep MY place while she paid for groceries, that sounds pretty good to me!

I'm pretty sure all those women took advantage of you too.

You are missing the point here along with the rest of the others. She never had any intentions of paying the rent until he told her to. She didn't pay for the groceries. She still wanted him to pay for them as well. That is what this problem is about. Her actions and behavior of not contributing her fair share. She had free utilities, a free place to live at, upgraded cable tv. The least she could of done was pay for groceries. But no, as a moocher she wasn't satisified and wanted more. If she kept her mouth shut and paid for the groceries in the first place without demanding Delly to pay for her food then this problem wouldn't have taken place. She still would of been living there rent free. It was only because Delly got fed up with her actions is when she had to pay and things changed.

I'm not sure why any single guy would willingly give up his place and freedom unless he was planning on marriage in the very near future.

Weak men with no backbone allow women to take over, move in, run the show, make demands, mooch off them, walk all over them, while the guy puts up with it just for the sake of saying he has a girlfriend and somebody to sleep with at night. Women do this all the time and weak men allow it to happen because they don't want to lose their one and only.

Posters like myself, Backbreaker, and Iqqi are trying to pass on some wisdom here. It's interesting to see how people's perspectives get clouded when they let their emotions get in the way.

I haven't seen any wisdom from those posters or from you. Just a bias towards the moocher. You guys don't even get the real point of this man's problem. You only assume what this woman is thinking with your own crazy and clouded prespective. You give her the benefit of the doubt when it is HIS place that she is taking over not HER'S. She was just staying there, mooching, expecting more out of the man, wanting what SHE wants. That is how some of these women are and you condone this behavior. It starts with something small like the cable TV, then the groceries, then they get their claws into them expecting more and more, then and suck the guy dry. Then when he has nothing more to offer them, they dump him and move on to another sucker. Some men allow this to happen because they are weak and afraid to stand up to a woman.

It's almost comical to read all the insults getting chucked around. :crackup: :crackup: :crackup: Please, please explain to me again why an unmarried man should give up his place and freedom? Oh yeah, that's right, so he doesn't get taken advantage of by a woman! :crazy:

Never insulted anyone. But you still don't get what the problem is and that is sad.

 

[Aristippus]

Danger,

I don't lean either way. I don't believe there should be any political parties. Let each individual think for himself and do his own research. And anyone who votes on a bill should have to read the bill in it's entirety and then they should each have to take a test on it. If they take the test and score less than a 90% on it, they shouldn't be allowed to vote on the bill.

The problem is we have a bunch of ignorant politicians voting on bills they know nothing or little about. And you have people who are too lazy to research things for themselves, but they have strong opinions based on ignorance. The political "party" allows people to form strong opinions without actually READING the laws. It perpetuates the habit of not researching and questioning things, yet forming strong opinions about laws and ideologies people know little to nothing about.

A no-party system would force people to think for themselves. And the requirement to pass a test (an essay question test, NOT multiple choice) would require that the politicians actually know what it is they are voting into law. I also think that if you're voting on a law that regulates scientific research, you have to pass 2 tests with a 90% grade or better. A test on scientific theory, application, and practice for the particular science that law would affect AND a test on the bill, it's contents, and the consequences of voting such a bill into law. You'd have less stupid, destructive laws being made. The process would also take a lot longer, which is a good thing. And the politicians would be FORCED to be smarter, because it's built into the system.

This would be ideal. The lesser of evils would be a system that requires a minimum of 3 major parties. But I'd say 5 to 7 major parties would be even better. I prefer the idea of a no-party system though.

 

[zekko]

And anyone who votes on a bill should have to read the bill in it's entirety and then they should each have to take a test on it. If they take the test and score less than a 90% on it, they shouldn't be allowed to vote on the bill.

Lol, what a great idea.
More than likely they would just cheat, but I say bury the legislators in the same red tape and BS they bury us with.

 

[scrouds]

Brad,

You're embarrassing yourself man. The whole internet lawyer routine isn't working and you're getting schooled in your stated profession by a girl.

The OP has a lease with his landlord. The gf will have a lease from the bf. Its called a sub lease. Just because it isn't written doesn't mean it isn't a valid lease under the law.

And yes, this is true in all 50 states, even NY with its rather strange lease / tenant laws.

 

[Bible_Belt]

But if you choose to believe iqqi on the law then go ahead be my guest.

My law school professors taught me the same thing that Iqqi is saying, in fact to even more of an extent. They said that as soon as someone spends the night on your couch, then they can say they live there. My county state's attorney spoke as a guest speaker and said the same thing. He said that he tells police who are asked to throw somebody out to ask them the question "where did you sleep last night?" If the answer is the house they're being thrown out of, the police will tell the property owner that they have to go through a formal eviction process to get rid of the person. Usually that only takes about six weeks, and it costs $85 in my county. The judge will ask her to prove she paid rent and look for evidence of an agreement. Typically that will be the end of it.

However, in some areas of the country, they have what I call "evil landlord" statutes designed to protect poor people. I have had landlord friends who had a tenant not pay rent for over a year, because she knew the statute. She had six kids and would quit her job before every court date. It was illegal to evict a woman with six kids and no job. Statutes like that are typically found in urban areas with a lot of poor people.

As to what the police actually do when they arrive - that is anybody's guess and often has very little to do with the actual law. If it's two male cops who arrive and the woman is attractive, then good luck getting them to take your side and not hers. I've known more than one cop who had that job mostly to get laid.

 

[jammer]

My law school professors taught me the same thing that Iqqi is saying, in fact to even more of an extent. They said that as soon as someone spends the night on your couch, then they can say they live there.

So do you actually believe that? Do you have any idea how much of a problem that would cause in the court system, if all a person had to do to prove he or she was a tenant would be that they slept in the same place twice? This is why, when people need to go to court, they hire practicing lawyers and not law professors.

i think iqqi owes bradd80 an apology here. Just like the girlfriend of the Original Poster, she is acting mean and entitled and when she was proven wrong by an actual example, she doesn’t even say sorry.

Why am I not surprised.

 

[Bible_Belt]

So do you actually believe that?

It is what my current state's attorney and my criminal procedure professor told me. They were standing next to each other at the time and agreeing. The professor was a DA himself for 25 years.

Do you have any idea how much of a problem that would cause in the court system?

In the scenario I described, the trial is over in about thirty seconds. The process server gets paid, so does the county. Most people don't know enough to press the issue anyway, so it rarely happens.

your accusation that the cops just make decisions because they want pvssy would lead them to tell the girl to stay and the guy to leave. But they know, due to instructions from the prosecutor’s office of their jurisdiction, that this would be unlawful.

Apparently I have a much more skeptical view of the police than you do. I do know some good guys who are cops, and I know they're not all bad. But I've also seen a lot of dirt bags who single out attractive girls in a small town and then pull them over constantly just to get a chance to hit on them. And if a hot woman gets in a fender bender, every guy cop in town will show up - just in case she's a badge wh0re (a cop taught me that phrase). I once dated a girl who was a waitress at a restaurant and another waitress there would have sex with just about any uniformed cop in the back room during her shift. She got great tips.