When a roommate defaults?

[Buckets]

My friend, "Bob" is one of three people who signed a one-year lease for a house in Pinole, CA (SF Bay Area) about six months ago.

One of these three guys, "Pete," was 17 years old when he signed the lease (he's now 18). Pete's parents did not co-sign because their credit was bad.

At the time the lease was signed, the landlord asked that all roommates pay Bob and for Bob to pay the landlord in one check because the landlord did not want to recieve rent in three checks.

Last month, Pete's check to Bob for rent and utilities bounced. Pete then went to visit his parents and never returned. Today, Pete called to say that he's moving back with his parents and he says he's not going to pay this month's rent or repay Bob for last month's bounced check.

Pete's parents have since called to say that Pete is giving 30-days' notice and are arriving this weekend to "pick up Pete's stuff."

Bob, upon learning this, changed the locks on the house and asked me if I thought it was legal to prevent Pete from entering the house to collect his stuff. I said I didn't think it was, but I wasn't sure.

Questions:
- Does Pete have right to enter the house and remove his stuff if he hasn't paid last month's rent and has made it clear he doesn't intend to pay it or this month's rent?
- Does the fact that Pete said he's giving 30-days' notice mean that Bob can't look for a new roommate, even though Pete says he doesn't intend to pay rent for last month or next month?
- Because Pete was under the age of 18 when he signed the lease (but was over 18 when he defaulted), who should be sued in small claims, Pete or his parents?
- Can Bob file for a 3-day failure-of-payment eviction notice to prevent Pete from picking up his stuff?

 

[divgradcurl]

- Does Pete have right to enter the house and remove his stuff if he hasn't paid last month's rent and has made it clear he doesn't intend to pay it or this month's rent?

Yes. This sort of self-help is not legal. If Pete owes money, the proper remedy is to sue Pete.

- Does the fact that Pete said he's giving 30-days' notice mean that Bob can't look for a new roommate, even though Pete says he doesn't intend to pay rent for last month or next month?

The 30-day notice is really meaningless. Bob can look for a new roommate immediately.

- Because Pete was under the age of 18 when he signed the lease (but was over 18 when he defaulted), who should be sued in small claims, Pete or his parents?

Pete. Two reasons. First, he is over 18 now, and when a minor signs a contract, then continues to use the service or pay on the debt after he or she turns 18, the minor "ratifies" the contract and is bound to the contract. Second, minors CAN be bound to contracts the involve "the necessities of life" -- food, shelter, etc. Even if Pete were still a minor, he would be bound by this contract.

But you can name the parents anyway in your suit.

- Can Bob file for a 3-day failure-of-payment eviction notice to prevent Pete from picking up his stuff?

Of course not. Bob is a cotenant, not a landlord. Just because Bob sends the check in doesn't make him a landlord. Unless Pete subletted the apartment from Bob, they are just cotenants.

 

[Buckets]

Just as I thought. And thank you.

But this does open an interesting question.

Question:
-- I would assume that the only recourse Bob has is to sue Pete in small-claims court, right?

If so, Pete has no money -- because he's dependent on his parents -- and he's over 18. And winning is very different from collecting. I pretty much figure that Bob will never again see the $1,200 he's paid and will have to pay next month for Pete's default.

Pretty much it strikes me as strange that the responsiblilty to pay rent can fall on a single co-tenant at the demand of a landlord, but the co-tenant has no legal standing to collect the rent and has no recourse to evict for non-payment normally allowed a landlord. In other words, as in this case, Bob was requried to be the landlord's fiduciary agent, but he doesn't have the rights to collect afforded a landlord.

In other words, doesn't that mean that deadbeats with no money can rent homes, bail on their leases, leave the whole mess to be cleaned up by roommates (who are forced to pay the rent) and get free storage of stuff?

Question:
-- What are the reprocussions of not paying a small-claims judgement? What exactly happens to Pete if, as I suspect, he doesn't pay the judgement? Is this something that would affect credit rating? Wage garnishment? Or does he just recieve a Get Into Hell Free card while the good people of the world get shafted?

 

[divgradcurl]

Question:
-- I would assume that the only recourse Bob has is to sue Pete in small-claims court, right?

If so, Pete has no money -- because he's dependent on his parents -- and he's over 18. And winning is very different from collecting. I pretty much figure that Bob will never again see the $1,200 he's paid and will have to pay next month for Pete's default.

It's irrelevant from a liability perspective whether or not Pete can pay the judgment -- he's the only one liable for the judgment.

Pretty much it strikes me as strange that the responsiblilty to pay rent can fall on a single co-tenant at the demand of a landlord, but the co-tenant has no legal standing to collect the rent and has no recourse to evict for non-payment normally allowed a landlord. In other words, as in this case, Bob was requried to be the landlord's fiduciary agent, but he doesn't have the rights to collect afforded a landlord.

In other words, doesn't that mean that deadbeats with no money can rent homes, bail on their leases, leave the whole mess to be cleaned up by roommates (who are forced to pay the rent) and get free storage of stuff?

You are missing the point. It doesn't matter that the landlord only wanted one check -- even if he did accept checks from all three parties, each one of the three parties is completely liable for the ENTIRE rent. In other words, it's not like each party is only responsible for 1/3 of the rent -- the total amount of rent is due every month, period, and someone has to pay it. It may not seem fair, but that's the way the law is -- and that's why if you are going to have roomates, pick good ones.

Question:
-- What are the reprocussions of not paying a small-claims judgement? What exactly happens to Pete if, as I suspect, he doesn't pay the judgement? Is this something that would affect credit rating? Wage garnishment? Or does he just recieve a Get Into Hell Free card while the good people of the world get shafted?

Small claims judgments can be collected for up to 10 years, and can be renewed at the end of that 10 year period. If Pete get's a judgment against him, it can go on his credit report, and will follow him around until it gets paid, or he declares bankruptcy, or Bob loses interest. Bob will likely have to hire someone to help him enforce the judgment, but the judgment can be collected on if Pete ever gets a job or assets, and Bob can get interest on the unpaid judgment.

 

[john123456]

"Second, minors CAN be bound to contracts the involve "the necessities of life" -- food, shelter, etc. Even if Pete were still a minor, he would be bound by this contract."

divgradcurl:

Is it a necessity if Pete voluntarily leaves home, rents an apartment, and then refuses to pay rent to move back home?

 

[divgradcurl]

"Second, minors CAN be bound to contracts the involve "the necessities of life" -- food, shelter, etc. Even if Pete were still a minor, he would be bound by this contract."

divgradcurl:

Is it a necessity if Pete voluntarily leaves home, rents an apartment, and then refuses to pay rent to move back home?

Yes. "Necessity of life" means that it's necessary in the abstract, not that this particular individual couldn't find another place to obtain the necessities.

 

[Buckets]

Divgradcurl,

You answers actually make perfect sense. Thank you so much for clarifying it for me. Your explanation of the entire amount of the rent being the responsiblity of each co-tenant actually sets it in a completely different light.

But it does seem to me there's a gaping hole in the law as far as the rights of co-tenants with regard to each other. Sounds like an entry into the "There Oughta Be a Law" contest down in the South Bay.

 

[john123456]

Yes. "Necessity of life" means that it's necessary in the abstract, not that this particular individual couldn't find another place to obtain the necessities.

Divgradcurl:

Thank you.