City Ordinance

[Felix422]

I'm running into an issue in a home I currently reside in

The scenario is my friend invited me to live with her in her home, and I was helping out on bills in exchange. As she was drastically upside down on her house, she went through bankruptcy proceedings. She has since moved out, leaving the house to me until the bank comes to claim it.

The issue I now run into is with the city. The City states that any property occupied by anyone other than the home owner must be licensed as a rental property. The home owner still has belongings here, and still stops by, still stays here a few times a month, but any attempts to communicate this to the city official responsible for the ordinance ignores all voice mails, emails, etc.

Today it has reached a head, where the city has now posted a bright yellow sign on the front door that is subject to fines if it is removed. The sign simply states the property is not licensed for occupancy, and it is against city code to reside there.

The sheriff sale is scheduled to take place early in September. At that time the plans are for the home owner to officially move out completely, and I will remain in the house until March as the bank themselves requested.

The question is: How to deal with the city with the looming change of the deed?

 

[Felix422]

Oops, I omitted an important part here. The city is stating that citations will be issued for the property being used as an "illegal rental" - again we are failing to be able to speak with the official responsible for rental properties to attempt to clear this up.

 

[Zigner]

Oops, I omitted an important part here. The city is stating that citations will be issued for the property being used as an "illegal rental" - again we are failing to be able to speak with the official responsible for rental properties to attempt to clear this up.

Since the house is not licensed as a rental, you should move.

ETA: Oh yeah. US LAW ONLY!

 

[NC Aggie]

Well it's pretty clear that you are in violation of a City ordinance. Unless the bank plans to make the property a rental and have you listed an authorized renter (which I doubt), then you should vacate the property. You do not have any legal rights to occupancy of the property.

 

[Felix422]

Understandable; the owner is willing to submit for the rental license, but it seems incorrect as it is still a residence of her own as well; granted, not her primary residence.

Right now, the homeowner still resides there on occasion, yet even that is being deemed by the city as ünlawful.

I'm ready to rip my hair out.

 

[Zigner]

Understandable; the owner is willing to submit for the rental license, but it seems incorrect as it is still a residence of her own as well; granted, not her primary residence.

Right now, the homeowner still resides there on occasion, yet even that is being deemed by the city as ünlawful.

I'm ready to rip my hair out.

Yes, trying to find ways to circumvent the law can be very stressful.

 

[HomeGuru]

I'm running into an issue in a home I currently reside in

The scenario is my friend invited me to live with her in her home, and I was helping out on bills in exchange. As she was drastically upside down on her house, she went through bankruptcy proceedings. She has since moved out, leaving the house to me until the bank comes to claim it.

The issue I now run into is with the city. The City states that any property occupied by anyone other than the home owner must be licensed as a rental property. The home owner still has belongings here, and still stops by, still stays here a few times a month, but any attempts to communicate this to the city official responsible for the ordinance ignores all voice mails, emails, etc.

Today it has reached a head, where the city has now posted a bright yellow sign on the front door that is subject to fines if it is removed. The sign simply states the property is not licensed for occupancy, and it is against city code to reside there.

The sheriff sale is scheduled to take place early in September. At that time the plans are for the home owner to officially move out completely, and I will remain in the house until March as the bank themselves requested.

The question is: How to deal with the city with the looming change of the deed?

**A: confusing post. Sheriff sale in Sept. but you will remain in the house until March?

 

[Felix422]

Following the Sherrif sale, there is a 6 month period that the home remains in the original homeowner's name. (My statement above about the deed being in the bank's name was incorrect)

Circumventing the law? Not exactly, but I can understand that take. The home owner still resides there on occasion when she is back in the state. The city is stepping into a private residence to attempt to get a property licensed as a rental.

I'd walk if not for the fact that the home owner is counting on me to a) maintain the property when she is gone, and b) me saving money.

I understand there's not much advice that can even be had out of this as the primary point of frustration is identifying how to prove this to the city while the city remains unresponsive.

 

[tranquility]

The City states that any property occupied by anyone other than the home owner must be licensed as a rental property.

I don't think that is the law. Can you point out the ordinance? Otherwise, any house with kids or who has a visitor would fall under the rubric stated, so I'm thinking the code is quite different. Rental licenses are usually under the business license section of the code. Sharing with a roommate is possibly not under the code. Repayment of expenses is different from rent.

 

[Felix422]

I don't think that is the law. Can you point out the ordinance? Otherwise, any house with kids or who has a visitor would fall under the rubric stated, so I'm thinking the code is quite different. Rental licenses are usually under the business license section of the code. Sharing with a roommate is possibly not under the code. Repayment of expenses is different from rent.

Here is the specific city code documentation: http://www.ci.crystal.mn.us/docs/_DE24BFCD_3805_44DA_9FDE_F1750BF7E706_.pdf


425.17. Licensing of rental units. Subdivision 1. General rule. It is unlawful to operate a rental dwelling without first having obtained a license. The license is issued each year and expires on the anniversary date of issuance.

“Rental dwelling” means any apartment or general housing unit let for occupancy, or any apartment or general housing unit occupied by someone other than the owner of record regardless of familial relationship or whether rent or other compensation is paid to the owner.


Taken literally, it seems to me this code about says you would have to attain a rental license just for having your significant other move in with you, or for having a child. Am I interpreting this wrong?

 

[NC Aggie]

Here is the specific city code documentation: http://www.ci.crystal.mn.us/docs/_DE24BFCD_3805_44DA_9FDE_F1750BF7E706_.pdf


425.17. Licensing of rental units. Subdivision 1. General rule. It is unlawful to operate a rental dwelling without first having obtained a license. The license is issued each year and expires on the anniversary date of issuance.

“Rental dwelling” means any apartment or general housing unit let for occupancy, or any apartment or general housing unit occupied by someone other than the owner of record regardless of familial relationship or whether rent or other compensation is paid to the owner.


Taken literally, it seems to me this code about says you would have to attain a rental license just for having your significant other move in with you, or for having a child. Am I interpreting this wrong?

Ordinances like this are very common, especially in smaller communities. And I don't think it can be interpreted that you have to obtain a rental license in order to share the residence...the clear distinction is that the owner has to occupy the property as well and in your case it can be argued that she does not. Generally for cities to act upon code enforcement violations such as this, they have to have sufficient evidence to support their claim and that could come in many forms. Does the property owner have any of the utilities (presently) in her name? Have you or the property owner directly or indirectly indicated to any City personnel that the property owner does not reside there full time?

As far as the Foreclosure/Sheriff sale and the rights of the previous owner to remain in the property, you are either misinformed or making an inaccurate assumption. First I assume the property has already been foreclosed on if a Sheriff sale is pending? Which means the house is technically (presently) owned by the bank. If that's the case, this may be evidence enough for the City to issue the violation notice. Secondly, upon the Sheriff sale, the buyer has the right to take possession right away regardless how long it takes for all the paperwork to be processed and filed in the local county office or court. I would personally advise you to prepare to vacate the premises ASAP because you don't want to be charged with trespassing.