Does Women's Use of restraining order constitute an ouster

[CdwJava]

No case agrees with you. Again, I ask where is the case? BTW, the Court order never mentions the address of the home, just stay away from the GF, her place of residence and place of work.

And if she resides in the house, then you need to stay away from it! No matter the ownership issues!

Here's a hint: PC 273.6 (violation of a DV TRO/CPO) is the only mandatory arrest section under CA law. The cops are not going to care who owns what, who has filed what, or what he Civil Code has to say - they will make the arrest, the DA will file it, and you will be prosecuted.

If this is a TRO that she sought in court, then you have (or already HAD) a chance to argue your side and situation before a judge. If the order was upheld to include a kickout order and a stay away order, then you violate it at your own risk.

 

[ProperProPer]

Right, a DV-RO can let a protected party assert exclusive control over property, though this is not the intent of the order.

Imagine a man owns a house outright. He invites his GF to live with him. GF obtains DV-RO against him but won't leave the house. What's the man to do? She is legally there. Does that woman now own the house? Did the Family Court DV-RO change the real property rights of unmarried individuals?

Of course not. The man now has the burden of going through the unlawful detained process and arguably has a claim for damages under a theory of abuse of process.

Isn't this obvious?

 

[CdwJava]

But, until a COURT reverses the DV TRO, he MUST abide by it or go to jail. It is legally irrelevant whether he, I, or anyone else considers it to be unfair.

 

[quincy]

Right, a DV-RO can let a protected party assert exclusive control over property, though this is not the intent of the order.

Imagine a man owns a house outright. He invites his GF to live with him. GF obtains DV-RO against him but won't leave the house. What's the man to do? She is legally there. Does that woman now own the house? Did the Family Court DV-RO change the real property rights of unmarried individuals?

Of course not. The man now has the burden of going through the unlawful detained process and arguably has a claim for damages under a theory of abuse of process.

Isn't this obvious?

I recommend you seek the help of an attorney in your area. You apparently are not going to get the answers you are looking for here - and, even though you are not going to get the answers you are looking for from an attorney in your area either, at least the attorney in your area will be getting paid to listen to your arguments.

If the BF hadn't abused his GF, he would not now be ordered to stay away. There is a lesson there. If you are the BF, I suggest you learn the lesson.

 

[Silverplum]

Right, a DV-RO can let a protected party assert exclusive control over property, though this is not the intent of the order.

Imagine a man owns a house outright. He invites his GF to live with him. GF obtains DV-RO against him but won't leave the house. What's the man to do? She is legally there. Does that woman now own the house? Did the Family Court DV-RO change the real property rights of unmarried individuals?

Of course not. The man now has the burden of going through the unlawful detained process and arguably has a claim for damages under a theory of abuse of process.

Isn't this obvious?

Apples and oranges. You are changing facts in this latest silly post.

 

[ProperProPer]

Not apples and oranges.

The key question is whether a family court DV-RO affects the property rights of unmarried individuals? I believe the answer is no, though the published case law is silent, at least in CA.

 

[Silverplum]

Not apples and oranges.

Yes, they are nothing but those two fruits. Your latest "imagine-this" changed a key fact.

 

[quincy]

Not apples and oranges.

The key question is whether a family court DV-RO affects the property rights of unmarried individuals? I believe the answer is no, though the published case law is silent, at least in CA.

Yes. Apples and oranges.

A domestic violence restraining order does not change the OWNERSHIP of property jointly held (or the obligations of the joint owners to pay the loan on the property that they both signed). A domestic violence restraining order CAN change the rights of one property owner in that it can prevent access to the property by the one restrained while the order is in effect.

Now I recommend you find help in your area of California.

 

[ProperProPer]

What published case in CA addresses whether a family law DV-RO affects the property rights of unmarried individuals?

 

[ProperProPer]

What quincy describes is a per se taking and is unconstitutional.

BF had a reasonable expectation that his mortgage payments would cover his living expenses.

BTW unpublished CA case law agrees with BF (McNeil v Coulter)

 

[quincy]

What quincy describes is a per se taking and is unconstitutional.

I will humor you one last time and then I am going to leave you to your fantasies.

See California Family Code §6321.

 

[TigerD]

It's good to see that WillyJo pays us a visit every now and then.

TD

 

[CdwJava]

Not apples and oranges.

The key question is whether a family court DV-RO affects the property rights of unmarried individuals? I believe the answer is no, though the published case law is silent, at least in CA.

Of course the DV TRO would not address property rights, it only the actions of the restrained party. Heck, even if the restrained party was the SOLE owner of the property, the court could lawfully order him out of the house! He could go to court and seek to evict the other party if he wanted, but, that would not change the conditions of the TRO so far as they affect his actions.

 

[CdwJava]

What published case in CA addresses whether a family law DV-RO affects the property rights of unmarried individuals?

As repeatedly stated, the TRO does NOT have an effect on property rights. None. What the order does is restrict the ACTIONS of the restrained party. In other words, if it prohibits the restrained party from coming within 100 yards of the protected party, their residence, their school, or their place of business, then the restrained party MUST adhere to that regardless of ownership or legal status to the property. He can still OWN the property, he simply cannot come within 100 yards of it until such time as the court decides otherwise.

 

[quincy]

It's good to see that WillyJo pays us a visit every now and then.

TD

Hahaha. This poster does share some notable similarities, huh?