- Jurisdiction
- California
I rented a room in my condo at a very discounted rate to a handyman and his wife in exchange for his services. He did not deliver anything he promised and caused about $2400 in damages. I terminated his services 5 months ago but he will not leave (or pay rent) so I must evict him. (To make matters worse, his daughter is a paralegal who is helping him find ways to disqualify my case and extend his stay.)
Originally, when he first moved in, it was based on an oral agreement. When I put the terms in writing, he did not sign and return the document to me. When filling out the Complaint form (UD-100), I must check 6f because I don't have a written copy of the agreement. The form then tells me to choose 1 of the 2 options below for why this is so; either:
1. the Agreement is not in my possession; or
2. this action is for non-payment of rent only.
Since the written Agreement doesn't really exist because it wasn't signed, I believe I must check No. 2 above. Does this option restrict me from asking for statutory and actual damages? Even worse, if I ask for damages and am not entitled to do so because "this action is for non-payment of rent only", could this be deemed a technical error in my filing that would get the case thrown out, forcing me to start over from the beginning?
Any clarification here would be greatly appreciated.
Originally, when he first moved in, it was based on an oral agreement. When I put the terms in writing, he did not sign and return the document to me. When filling out the Complaint form (UD-100), I must check 6f because I don't have a written copy of the agreement. The form then tells me to choose 1 of the 2 options below for why this is so; either:
1. the Agreement is not in my possession; or
2. this action is for non-payment of rent only.
Since the written Agreement doesn't really exist because it wasn't signed, I believe I must check No. 2 above. Does this option restrict me from asking for statutory and actual damages? Even worse, if I ask for damages and am not entitled to do so because "this action is for non-payment of rent only", could this be deemed a technical error in my filing that would get the case thrown out, forcing me to start over from the beginning?
Any clarification here would be greatly appreciated.