Ex-girlfriend left all her furniture in my apartment and wants it back after a month of abandoning

[Litigator22]

After a 7-day notice to remove the property has been given, the property can be considered abandoned if not removed. In Chicago.

I must respectfully disagree, Q. There isn't an iota of evidence in the OP's posting evincing that a landlord/tenant relationship ever existed between OP and his erstwhile girlfriend! A legal relationship which clearly must exist in order for subsection (f) of Section 5-12-130 of Chicago's Municipal Code and its "seven day abandonment period" to apply.

The pertinent portions of that Municipal Code particularly apply to "property of a tenant" as one obligated under a "rental agreement" whom either "having abandoned the rental unit fails to remove his personal property", or fails to do so "after the termination of a rental agreement". Clearly it addresses the remedial rights of a landlord as to property of a tenant, not those of a tenant playing host to an invitee.

Notably no where is the OP contending that he sublet the unit to the girl. No where has he stated that any rent was paid during her brief and sporadic presence in the unit; nor is OP claiming that unpaid rent is due and owing. No where has he referred to her as a tenant or a subtenant.

Also of note is the fact that this seven-day-expedited remedy afforded to a Chicago landlord was not one permitted under common law. Consequently, the enabling code section must be strictly and literally construed and applied.
__________________

Unless otherwise declared by legislation, personal property is regarded to have been abandoned where there is a clear showing of the owner's intention to relinquish rights of ownership coupled with a physical or outward act by the owner demonstrating that intent.

Here we have the physical or external act of relinquishing physical possession and control of the goods. The remaining issue is whether or not the required element of intent to abandon has been effectively demonstrated and demonstrated in spite of the latest communication between the parties. However, no unheeded- seven-day-notice - as you have proffered - will suffice in substitution for that needed element.

Interesting topic as the subject of the abandonment of personal property seems to be forever marked with discord. Something Chicago's City Council attempted to alleviate, but only as between landlords and tenants; not tenants and their guests.
_____________________

Personally I think the evidence of intent to abandon has been shown by the owner's failure to retrieve her goods within the past two months. But to solidify it I would have the OP formerly demand that the goods be reclaimed within thirty-days from date of demand or he will consider them as having been legally abandoned and at his disposal. (And if possible under a letterhead of an attorney at law.)

 

[quincy]

I must respectfully disagree, Q. There isn't an iota of evidence in the OP's posting evincing that a landlord/tenant relationship ever existed between OP and his erstwhile girlfriend! A legal relationship which clearly must exist in order for subsection (f) of Section 5-12-130 of Chicago's Municipal Code and its "seven day abandonment period" to apply.

The pertinent portions of that Municipal Code particularly apply to "property of a tenant" as one obligated under a "rental agreement" whom either "having abandoned the rental unit fails to remove his personal property", or fails to do so "after the termination of a rental agreement". Clearly it addresses the remedial rights of a landlord as to property of a tenant, not those of a tenant playing host to an invitee.

Notably no where is the OP contending that he sublet the unit to the girl. No where has he stated that any rent was paid during her brief and sporadic presence in the unit; nor is OP claiming that unpaid rent is due and owing. No where has he referred to her as a tenant or a subtenant.

Also of note is the fact that this seven-day-expedited remedy afforded to a Chicago landlord was not one permitted under common law. Consequently, the enabling code section must be strictly and literally construed and applied.
__________________

Unless otherwise declared by legislation, personal property is regarded to have been abandoned where there is a clear showing of the owner's intention to relinquish rights of ownership coupled with a physical or outward act by the owner demonstrating that intent.

Here we have the physical or external act of relinquishing physical possession and control of the goods. The remaining issue is whether or not the required element of intent to abandon has been effectively demonstrated and demonstrated in spite of the latest communication between the parties. However, no unheeded- seven-day-notice - as you have proffered - will suffice in substitution for that needed element.

Interesting topic as the subject of the abandonment of personal property seems to be forever marked with discord. Something Chicago's City Council attempted to alleviate, but only as between landlords and tenants; not tenants and their guests.
_____________________

Personally I think the evidence of intent to abandon has been shown by the owner's failure to retrieve her goods within the past two months. But to solidify it I would have the OP formerly demand that the goods be reclaimed within thirty-days from date of demand or he will consider them as having been legally abandoned and at his disposal. (And if possible under a letterhead of an attorney at law.)

There does not have to be a lease or rent for a person to become a tenant.

 

[FarmerJ]

Cub do Keep in mind in order for her to sue you she would have to not only have the filing fee but she will have to travel to Chicago to sue you and would have to have the money to go home and then return for the hearing. Now with that out of the way i suggest you keep your communications with her to written on real paper letters sent say via confirmed mail delivery if you have not done so already ( keep your copy stapled to your USPS receipt for your records)

 

[quincy]

Cub do Keep in mind in order for her to sue you she would have to not only have the filing fee but she will have to travel to Chicago to sue you and would have to have the money to go home and then return for the hearing. Now with that out of the way i suggest you keep your communications with her to written on real paper letters sent say via confirmed mail delivery if you have not done so already ( keep your copy stapled to your USPS receipt for your records)

Chicago Cub mentioned on July 1 (the last time he visited the forum) that his ex-girlfriend/her friend were planning on picking up the remaining property “next weekend.”

Next weekend would either have been the holiday weekend (4th/5th) or this weekend (tomorrow/Sunday).

It could be a little late at this point to send any letters certified mail - although that would have been a smart way to provide the 7-day notice originally.

Perhaps Chicago Cub will return with an update, to let us know what happened. I hope the property retrieval went smoothly (or goes smoothly).

 

[Litigator22]

It could be a little late at this point to send any letters certified mail - although that would have been a smart way to provide the 7-day notice (?) .

Excuse me, but what "7 day notice"; by whom, to whom and for what purpose?

The Chicago Ordinance does speak of the giving of any notice in this regard. If personal property of a tenant remains in a rental unit after the tenant has abandoned the unit or the rental agreement is terminated , the landlord's remedies with respect to disposing of the goods are self acting requiring the giving of no notice whatsoever!

Furthermore, the OP does not fit the description of a Landlord as defined by the Ordinance; nor has his erstwhile girlfriend ever obtained the status of a Tenant under that enactment.

In sum, no rental agreement ever existed between these individuals. Hence the OP is denied any remedies under the Ordinance.

This is not to say that the OP or even the owner of the dwelling unit could not ultimately claim ownership of the goods under principles of common law. But that is an entirely different topic apart from your misinterpretation of Chicago's Residential Landlord and Tenant Ordinance.

 

[quincy]

Excuse me, but what "7 day notice"; by whom, to whom and for what purpose?

The Chicago Ordinance does speak of the giving of any notice in this regard. If personal property of a tenant remains in a rental unit after the tenant has abandoned the unit or the rental agreement is terminated , the landlord's remedies with respect to disposing of the goods are self acting requiring the giving of no notice whatsoever!

Furthermore, the OP does not fit the description of a Landlord as defined by the Ordinance; nor has his erstwhile girlfriend ever obtained the status of a Tenant under that enactment.

In sum, no rental agreement ever existed between these individuals. Hence the OP is denied any remedies under the Ordinance.

This is not to say that the OP or even the owner of the dwelling unit could not ultimately claim ownership of the goods under principles of common law. But that is an entirely different topic apart from your misinterpretation of Chicago's Residential Landlord and Tenant Ordinance.

http://library.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/Illinois/chicago_il/title5housingandeconomicdevelopment/chapter5-12residentiallandlordsandtenant?f=templates$fn=altmain-nf.htm$q=[field folio-destination-name:'5-12-190']$x=Advanced#JD_5-12-190

See section 5-12-030 of the Chicago Residential Landlords and
Tenants Ordinance, definition of “Tenant.”

See section 5-12-130(f) of the same ordinance, on Disposition of Abandoned Property.

 

[commentator]

How long would Chicagocub want to keep this stuff going for the sake of, lets see, a bed, a tv, some decorations and such? He made a serious mistake by letting her move in. Key learning here. If a person wants to move in with you, that does not mean they're really serious about you, it means they're HOMELESS, and looking for a place to stay. And during that long distance relationship he thought they were in, she was probably living with the other guy, and she was using him to hold over the head of the other guy, as in, "I'll move to Illinois if you don't...….."

Now it sounds like they're ginning up excitement by repeatedly trying to claim her stuff, calling and threatening to sue, etc. I hope he talked to the police, asked for a supervised move out, let them come and get this stuff once and for all, and that he now can completely forget this woman. She sounds like a very bad piece of work. Some people are always trying to make drama. Away from them, with or without the stuff is the best place to be.

 

[quincy]

How long would Chicagocub want to keep this stuff going for the sake of, lets see, a bed, a tv, some decorations and such? He made a serious mistake by letting her move in. Key learning here. If a person wants to move in with you, that does not mean they're really serious about you, it means they're HOMELESS, and looking for a place to stay. And during that long distance relationship he thought they were in, she was probably living with the other guy, and she was using him to hold over the head of the other guy, as in, "I'll move to Illinois if you don't...….."

Now it sounds like they're ginning up excitement by repeatedly trying to claim her stuff, calling and threatening to sue, etc. I hope he talked to the police, asked for a supervised move out, let them come and get this stuff once and for all, and that he now can completely forget this woman. She sounds like a very back piece of work. Some people are always trying to make drama. Away from them, with or without the stuff is the best place to be.

I agree that mistakes were made.

With luck, all has now been resolved, the property retrieved, the ex-girlfriend gone forever, and Chicago Cub left alone and wiser for the experience.

 

[not2cleverRed]

Excuse me, but what "7 day notice"; by whom, to whom and for what purpose?

The Chicago Ordinance does speak of the giving of any notice in this regard. If personal property of a tenant remains in a rental unit after the tenant has abandoned the unit or the rental agreement is terminated , the landlord's remedies with respect to disposing of the goods are self acting requiring the giving of no notice whatsoever!

Furthermore, the OP does not fit the description of a Landlord as defined by the Ordinance; nor has his erstwhile girlfriend ever obtained the status of a Tenant under that enactment.

In sum, no rental agreement ever existed between these individuals. Hence the OP is denied any remedies under the Ordinance.

This is not to say that the OP or even the owner of the dwelling unit could not ultimately claim ownership of the goods under principles of common law. But that is an entirely different topic apart from your misinterpretation of Chicago's Residential Landlord and Tenant Ordinance.

Acting like there is a tenancy, whether or not there is an actual tenancy, is in Cub's best interest - both legally and practically.

Legally, because if Cub has documentation that he tried to give her an opportunity to pick up her stuff, and she still tries to cause legal trouble, Cub comes off as attempting to be reasonable.

And, in practice, it is better to not antagonize scary chicks with even scarier friend(s).

 

[Litigator22]

I agree that mistakes (?) were made.

What's with this plural business? If you're comfortable with attempting to spread the blame of placing the OP in an indefensible position (via your imagined 7-day notice and the goods are his) should he be sued in replevin, or prosecuted for conversion of the property, then so be it. But just to clarity:

The subject ordinance (Section 5-12-130 (f) has nothing whatsoever to do with the abandonment of personal property. It's a forfeiture law!

The city fathers weren't trying to mess with established common law principles. What they wisely did was to enact a legal means whereby a landlord burden with the junk commonly left in a rental dwelling can safely discard it. Hence, granting them immunity from spurious lawsuits claiming guilt for the destruction or misappropriation of "precious heirlooms and antiques".

Fini

 

[quincy]

... Fini

“Fini?” Can we count on that, Litigator?

The property belonging to the ex-girlfriend probably has already been retrieved by now and all is right once again in Chicago Cub’s world.

 

[not2cleverRed]

“Fini?” Can we count on that, Litigator?

The property belonging to the ex-girlfriend probably has already been retrieved by now and all is right once again in Chicago Cub’s world.

If only...