My roommate and I have a lease with the landlord. His child is unexpectedly living here.

[Just Blue]

What I do know is that I have a lease with the landlord and the roommate has the same lease.
The child is not on the lease. Lets keep it to the law and the facts.

Perhaps you should take your demanding self to an attorney and ask your questions there.

 

[travistee2]

Stephan;

Thats an interesting idea. The landlord and the two of us sharing the apartment signed the same lease at the same time. All three signatures are on the three copies of the lease.
Are you saying he can change his lease even if he doesn't change mine?

 

[Ohiogal]

What I do know is that I have a lease with the landlord and the roommate has the same lease.
The child is not on the lease. Lets keep it to the law and the facts.

The landlord does not have to change anything if the roommate's daughter is there. A supreme court case covers that. So that is the law. GROW UP and deal with it.
Start with East Cleveland vs. Moore. You might be surprised at your own ignorance.

 

[travistee2]

@Ohiogal

Well excuse me if I don't know every obscure case that the supreme court decided. Seems no one else here but you heard of it either.
Why don't you post what the court said so everyone interested doesn't have to look it up.

" Moore v. City of East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494 (1977), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that an East Cleveland, Ohio zoning ordinance that prohibited a grandmother from living with her grandchild was unconstitutional. Writing for a plurality of the Court, Justice Lewis F. Powell, Jr. "

You must be a lawyer so that must be why I can't understand how a zoning ordinance in that jurisdiction is in any way connected to what my question is.
Perhaps I missed it but I don't see what that has to do with a lease signed by two adults that did not mention a third occupant.

That's really why I like this site. It has great entertainment value.

 

[stealth2]

Well excuse me if I don't know every obscure case that the supreme court decided. Seems no one else here but you heard of it either.
Why don't you post what the court said so everyone interested doesn't have to look it up.

Would you like us to wipe your tushie, too?

Go pay a lawyer.

 

[travistee2]

I didn't say it was a porn movie. I found the movie I was watching.

https://www.google.com/search?q=the+weather+man+movie&rlz=1CAEAQE_enUS864&oq=the+weather+man+&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j0l6j69i60.6832j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

It's a good movie. You can see it on pluto.tv for free.
It has a short scene where he has a dream that he is having sex with a topless woman who is apparently enjoying it based on her Female copulatory vocalizations
If people here would stick to the facts they actually know and not bother to post when they can't stay on topic this would be a lot easier.

For your information: Female copulatory vocalizations. Female copulatory vocalizations, also called female copulation calls or coital vocalizations, are produced by female primates, including human females, and female non-primates. Copulatory vocalizations usually occur during sexual intercourse and are hence related to sexual activity.

 

[stealth2]

If people here would stick to the facts they actually know and not bother to post when they can't stay on topic this would be a lot easier.

I'm sure the lawyer you pay will be happy to do so.

 

[travistee2]

The name of this site is "freeadvice" its not "free lawyer".
Some of the advice here is useful and some is not.

 

[stealth2]

The name of this site is "freeadvice" its not "free lawyer".
Some of the advice here is useful and some is not.

Which also leaves the *volunteers* here free to respond or not. You don't have to like the responses you get.