1

My wife is an assistant manager at an "affordable housing" complex (places that are not designated as such apparently admitting they are unaffordable, but that's a snide side note).

A tenant recently allowed someone to move into his apartment as his caregiver.

This woman then invited a man to move into her room with her, and they changed the lock on their bedroom door so the tenant cannot enter their room. The tenant wants them gone, and so does management. When they refused to leave, the police were called (this is in northern California, Monterey Bay area)

The police say they can do nothing, as these people are squatters and must be given an official eviction notice before they can be forced to vacate the premises, and even then only after 30 days have elapsed.

This seems crazy to me. Isn't what they are doing trespassing—at least on the part of the man? Could a burglar enter your home while you're gone, take over one of your rooms, and then be deemed a squatter? I don't see how this situation is much different.

The police, when called, who came when the couple were out, found drug paraphernalia in their room, but as they cannot prove it belongs to the couple, said they could do nothing about that, either.

Now they have even added another man to their room, so the tenant (who is handicapped—that's why he needed a live-in caretaker) now has two men and a woman living in his apartment who he doesn't want there. Can it really be so that he is legally bound to allow these strangers to share his apartment with him because of a technicality that classifies them as "squatters"?

Say it ain't so!

1
  • California, as most democrat run cities and states, are considered heavily anti-landlord and pro-tenant. Good luck getting out this tenant.
    – paulj
    Oct 13, 2022 at 15:25

1 Answer 1

7

The difference is that the person was originally invited to live there, so they do have a claim of residency.

A tenant recently allowed someone to move into his apartment as his caregiver.

This is the problem here, the person was invited to live in there in exchange for a service. This person now has a legal right to occupy the property and the eviction process must be followed.

If the person broke into the house and occupied a room, that is trespassing since there was no original legal right to occupy the property. The trespasser cannot claim any legal right to the property and therefore is trespassing.

Can it really be so that he is legally bound to allow these strangers to share his apartment with him because of a technicality that classifies them as "squatters"?

Unfortunately yes. This should be a lesson to the tenant that they need to properly run background checks and have solid contracts with live-in caregivers/roommates. Unfortunately this is not only inconvenient, but will probably be an expensive lesson as well.

2
  • Even though other people are there who were not invited by the tenant? Jan 21, 2022 at 16:10
  • 4
    @B.ClayShannon-B.CrowRaven They are invited by a tenant... the tenant of the tenant...
    – Ron Beyer
    Jan 21, 2022 at 16:54

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .