A
Arcadis
Guest
This is regarding trying to remove a roomate w/ 30 days (previous messages have been posted here) in San Francisco, CA :
After checking with the SF Rent Board, a person there (not a lawyer) said that since he pays rent to the landlord (even though not on lease) he is a tenant and does need just cause for removal. Tracey said that since he isn't on the lease he is on a m-to-m agreement and doesn't require just cause for removal. How can he have protection of the lease (by requiring just cause) yet not the liability of the lease (having to pay for rent,damages,etc.) - I don't believe it can be both ways. Please help.
Still no reply from the freeadvice.com group - please let me know if the landlord needs just cause in this situation.....Thank you.
[This message has been edited by Arcadis (edited July 12, 2000).]
After checking with the SF Rent Board, a person there (not a lawyer) said that since he pays rent to the landlord (even though not on lease) he is a tenant and does need just cause for removal. Tracey said that since he isn't on the lease he is on a m-to-m agreement and doesn't require just cause for removal. How can he have protection of the lease (by requiring just cause) yet not the liability of the lease (having to pay for rent,damages,etc.) - I don't believe it can be both ways. Please help.
Still no reply from the freeadvice.com group - please let me know if the landlord needs just cause in this situation.....Thank you.
[This message has been edited by Arcadis (edited July 12, 2000).]