How do they decide who lives in the house?

[Hoosiermomof4]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? IN

We rent from my uncle, my name only is on the lease. We are filing for divorce but haven't heard from my pro bono laywer yet. ;(
I want him to move out b/c there are 4 kids here. 2 are ours and 2 from previous marriage who I have custody of.

 

[Farfalla]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? IN

We rent from my uncle, my name only is on the lease. We are filing for divorce but haven't heard from my pro bono laywer yet. ;(
I want him to move out b/c there are 4 kids here. 2 are ours and 2 from previous marriage who I have custody of.

Until the divorce is final, no one has to move out. From what you wrote you are assuming that you will get custody of the two children from this marriage. He has equal claim, so that's not decided as of yet.

 

[nextwife]

However, the landlord may have the right to give the non-leasee occupant standard 30 day notice to vacate, IF you never had the lease reflect that he would be a resident there as well. A LL does NOT have a duty to allow any adult parties who are not covered by the rental agreement to remain as an occupant of his rental

 

[LdiJ]

Until the divorce is final, no one has to move out. From what you wrote you are assuming that you will get custody of the two children from this marriage. He has equal claim, so that's not decided as of yet.

Correction: No one has to move out until the divorce is final or a judge says so.

OP, since your name is the only name on the lease, odds are that if you ask for sole temporary sole possession of the marital home, it will be awared to you.

 

[Ohiogal]

However, the landlord may have the right to give the non-leasee occupant standard 30 day notice to vacate, IF you never had the lease reflect that he would be a resident there as well. A LL does NOT have a duty to allow any adult parties who are not covered by the rental agreement to remain as an occupant of his rental

A LL cannot however just evict the hubby. The landlord would also have to evict wifey for breaking the terms of the lease by having an adult not listed living there. Unless of course LL wants sued.

 

[LdiJ]

A LL cannot however just evict the hubby. The landlord would also have to evict wifey for breaking the terms of the lease by having an adult not listed living there. Unless of course LL wants sued.

Well, this is Indiana, and I know that in Indiana a landlord can evict people not on the lease, while still holding the lessee reponsible for the lease and still allowing the lessee to occupy the home or apartment. I have a couple of different friends who manage apartment complexes, and they talk about that kind of thing all the time.

 

[MTHRaye]

A LL cannot however just evict the hubby. The landlord would also have to evict wifey for breaking the terms of the lease by having an adult not listed living there. Unless of course LL wants sued.

Not to butt in and I know is not family law, but real estate law in a standard lease will have a clause that states that the person on the lease be given a notice to remove "other party" and if other party is not removed within the time period predetermined in the lease THEN landlord could IF DESIRED attempt to evict the tenant for breaking the terms of the lease OR ask judge to have person not on the lease removed allowing the leasee to stay. What a mess that would be, but could be done on the real estate side of things. Just like NCP having the option of taking visits or not. The landlord has the option of enforcing certain parts of the lease. Currently he is not using his right to remove hubby, but could at any time by giving leasee the appropriate notice to have "other party not on lease" removed if that is indeed a clause in their lease.

HOWEVER, and I am giving a HUGE however; the fact that uncle is related, parties are married, mom obviously consented to dad/hubby moving in, uncle has been fully aware of the situation all along and they (OP and uncle) together are trying to use this to evict hubby from marital residence removing him from children; well thats a different story and courtroom where I can not image that the custody judge would look to kindly on. Do not use personal or technical loopholes in your lease to have dad removed. Go to court and do it the right way.

BTW: Can I guess that this was a set-up? Did you and uncle know when signing the lease that you and hubby were not getting along, possibly going to split and only put the lease in your name intentionally? When you signed the lease hubby became financially responsible for it. Why did he not "get" to have his name on it in the first place making sure that if anything (God forbid) happen to you AND your uncle there would be something in place making sure the estate did not kick him and your kiddo's out on the street?

 

[Ohiogal]

Not to butt in and I know is not family law, but real estate law in a standard lease will have a clause that states that the person on the lease be given a notice to remove "other party" and if other party is not removed within the time period predetermined in the lease THEN landlord could IF DESIRED attempt to evict the tenant for breaking the terms of the lease OR ask judge to have person not on the lease removed allowing the leasee to stay. What a mess that would be, but could be done on the real estate side of things. Just like NCP having the option of taking visits or not. The landlord has the option of enforcing certain parts of the lease. Currently he is not using his right to remove hubby, but could at any time by giving leasee the appropriate notice to have "other party not on lease" removed if that is indeed a clause in their lease.

HOWEVER, and I am giving a HUGE however; the fact that uncle is related, parties are married, mom obviously consented to dad/hubby moving in, uncle has been fully aware of the situation all along and they (OP and uncle) together are trying to use this to evict hubby from marital residence removing him from children; well thats a different story and courtroom where I can not image that the custody judge would look to kindly on. Do not use personal or technical loopholes in your lease to have dad removed. Go to court and do it the right way.

BTW: Can I guess that this was a set-up? Did you and uncle know when signing the lease that you and hubby were not getting along, possibly going to split and only put the lease in your name intentionally? When you signed the lease hubby became financially responsible for it. Why did he not "get" to have his name on it in the first place making sure that if anything (God forbid) happen to you AND your uncle there would be something in place making sure the estate did not kick him and your kiddo's out on the street?

Actually the problem is that this is a marital residence. As such the wife cannot have hubby removed or force hubby out without a court order stating that she gets sole possession of the marital home. She cannot correct this problem WITHOUT a court order. Hence the LL would have to evict her -- the tenant who is contractually bound by the lease -- for not rectifying the issue. At which point hubby would also be evicted. But both would have to be.

 

[Ohiogal]

Well, this is Indiana, and I know that in Indiana a landlord can evict people not on the lease, while still holding the lessee reponsible for the lease and still allowing the lessee to occupy the home or apartment. I have a couple of different friends who manage apartment complexes, and they talk about that kind of thing all the time.

And the LL CAN be sued for doing so in the case of a married couple however. If they haven't been then they have been lucky.

 

[LdiJ]

And the LL CAN be sued for doing so in the case of a married couple however. If they haven't been then they have been lucky.

Come on OG...you know, and I know, that a landlord is bound only by the lease, just as a credit card company, mortgage company or any other creditor is bound only by the contracts. The landlord is not a party to the marriage or the divorce.

To imply that a landlord has any liabilty towards someone who did NOT sign a lease with that landlord is irresponsible. To imply that a landlord is bound by anything other than the lease is completely inaccurate.

To imply that a landlord can be sued for evicting someone who is not a party to the lease, just because that person happens to be married to someone who is a party to the lease, is in direct conflict with landlord/tenant law.

Yes, I understand that under family law we want this OP to understand that her spouse has just as much right to the marital home as she does, but to imply to people who may be landlords that they cannot evict non-tenants, is irresponsible.

 

[Ohiogal]

Come on OG...you know, and I know, that a landlord is bound only by the lease, just as a credit card company, mortgage company or any other creditor is bound only by the contracts. The landlord is not a party to the marriage or the divorce.

To imply that a landlord has any liabilty towards someone who did NOT sign a lease with that landlord is irresponsible. To imply that a landlord is bound by anything other than the lease is completely inaccurate.

To imply that a landlord can be sued for evicting someone who is not a party to the lease, just because that person happens to be married to someone who is a party to the lease, is in direct conflict with landlord/tenant law.

Yes, I understand that under family law we want this OP to understand that her spouse has just as much right to the marital home as she does, but to imply to people who may be landlords that they cannot evict non-tenants, is irresponsible.

No it is not. A landlord cannot evict people because of family relations residing there. And they cannot evict someone who is NOT on the lease. They can only evict people on the lease as that is who they have a contract with. YOU are the ONE BEING IRRESPONSIBLE. You throw that word around quite a bit by the way.

Start looking at Moore V. East Cleveland in which the UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT stated quite clearly:

Ours is by no means a tradition limited to respect for the bondsuniting the members of the nuclear family. The tradition of uncles, aunts, cousins, and especially grandparents sharing a household along with parents and children has roots equally venerable and equally deserving of constitutional recognition.

A landlord would LOSE for evicting one member of the family and NOT the others. You can't do it. Deal with it. YOU are irresponsible. I can find more case law if the US SUPREME COURT is not good enough for you.

 

[Ohiogal]

Oh and by the way the Landlords are bound by the zoning regulations, state law, and federal law. Not just what is in the lease or who is on the lease.

 

[LdiJ]

Oh and by the way the Landlords are bound by the zoning regulations, state law, and federal law. Not just what is in the lease or who is on the lease.

OG, you are going to have to admit that you are wrong for Indiana, at least. I won't presume to know anything about landlord/tenant law for Ohio, but I talked to one of my friends who is an apartment complex manager last night (one of a chain of apartment complexes) and she verified that in Indiana they can evict any adult staying in the apartment, who is not on the lease. She said that has been verified many times, by the company's attorney.

 

[LdiJ]

Also, this case is hardly on point. It had to do with a city regulating that people could not live in multigenerational or multi family households.

Start looking at Moore V. East Cleveland in which the UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT stated quite clearly:

Argument: Tuesday, November 2, 1976
Decision: Tuesday, May 31, 1977
Issues: Economic Activity, Zoning
Categories: criminal, freedom of association, property, takings clause
Advocates

Not available


Facts of the Case

East Cleveland's housing ordinance limited occupancy of a dwelling unit to members of a single family. Part of the ordinance was a strict definition of "family" which excluded Mrs. Inez Moore who lived with her son and two grandsons.

Question

Did the housing ordinance violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

Conclusion

The four justices in the plurality held that the ordinance violated Moore's rights as it constituted "intrusive regulation of the family" without accruing some tangible state interest. Justice Stevens joined in the judgment and argued that the ordinance was invalid because, by regulating who could live with Moore, it constituted a taking of property without just compensation

 

[Ohiogal]

And I am telling you you are wrong. And I will admit that YOU are wrong. Because they would lose if they evicted a husband and NOT the wife. The Supreme Court has repeated several times the importance and recognition of family.