Elderly mother needs help removing adult son from her home.

[lawquestions]

A homeowner allowing someone to occupy a single room in their home should find it easier to remove the lodger than the typical tenant.

If a homeowner allows a single "lodger" access to their dwelling, the homeowner can remove the lodger without having to go through formal eviction proceedings.

In California under Civil Code § 1946.5, a "lodger" is defined as a person contracting with a homeowner for a room within a dwelling unit that is personally occupied by the homeowner.
(Civ. C. § 1946.5.)

In order to classify a person as a lodger, the homeowner must retain access to all areas of the dwelling unit and have overall control of the dwelling unit.

If it becomes necessary to have the lodger removed, the homeowner must give the lodger a written termination notice.

The homeowner must provide notice to the person that is at least as long as the days between rent payments, not to exceed 30 days. (Civ. C. §§ 1946, 1946.5.)

Once the notice period expires, the homeowner can then treat the lodger as a trespasser and have the lodger removed accordingly by law enforcement personnel. (Civ. C. § 1946.5; See Penal C. § 602.3.)

This CA attorney comments on lodgers in CA:

Similar commentary:

lodger's vs. tenant's rights (rent, lawyer, house) - San Diego - California (CA) - City-Data Forum

The official State of CA commentary:

http://www.hcd.ca.gov/manufactured-mobile-home/mobile-home-ombudsman/docs/Tenant-Landlord.pdf

Thank you army judge. This is the same information that I read which lead me to believe that my brother is a lodger instead of a tenant. But, on this post people are saying that he is a not a lodger but a tenant just because my uncle lives there as well. This is why I am asking if it would be okay to to put 'lodger and/or tenant' in the 60-day eviction notice in order to cover all basis?

 

[justblue]

Thank you army judge. This is the same information that I read which lead me to believe that my brother is a lodger instead of a tenant. But, on this post people are saying that he is a not a lodger but a tenant just because my uncle lives there as well. This is why I am asking if it would be okay to to put 'lodger and/or tenant' in the 60-day eviction notice in order to cover all basis?

sigh...Why not just spend $50.00 to get a consult with a local attorney?

 

[army judge]

Thank you army judge. This is the same information that I read which lead me to believe that my brother is a lodger instead of a tenant. But, on this post people are saying that he is a not a lodger but a tenant just because my uncle lives there as well. This is why I am asking if it would be okay to to put 'lodger and/or tenant' in the 60-day eviction notice in order to cover all basis?

It would be much easier to pursue the emergency order of protection because the 50 year old bully is said to be abusing TWO elderly, disabled, ailing people.

Our Mighty Moose is CORRECT, that for a person to be a LODGER, there must only be ONE person living in the owner/occupied premise in California.

None of that matters, IF THE DEADBEAT IS BULLYING AND ABUSING TWO ELDERLY PEOPLE; no get out notice, no 30/60 day waiting period, more waiting to go to court, no court nonsense, then a little more waiting before the sheriff arrives to set the moocher's junk on the curb and make him get!

Just put tenant, and prepare to wait 30/60 days before an eviction case can be filed, then another 30-60 days for the trial, then 72 hours (I THINK, maybe a few more hours) until the sheriff arrives to get the bum gone.

With any luck, it'll take until after New Year, maybe longer, depending on where your mother resides.

 

[mightymoose]

This is why I am asking if it would be okay to to put 'lodger and/or tenant' in the 60-day eviction notice in order to cover all basis?

You could put the Pledge of Allegiance on it if you wanted. The exact wording is not important. What matters is that the notice is given.

I agree your best route is to pursue a restraining order and involve Adult Protective Services. If there is abuse taking place they will end it in a hurry. No eviction needed.

 

[Zigner]

A little clarification: The law for expedited removal of lodgers (1946.5) only applies when there is a single lodger. Since there is more than one lodger, mom can't use 1946.5 to get one of them out. To be clear, in CA law, lodgers and tenants have the same rights (except as outlined in 1946.5), so, whatever you want to call them, mom still has to formally evict.

From California Code, Civil Code - CIV § 1940 | FindLaw
(a) Except as provided in subdivision (b), this chapter shall apply to all persons who hire dwelling units located within this state including tenants, lessees, boarders, lodgers, and others, however denominated.

From California Code, Civil Code - CIV § 1946.5 | FindLaw:
(d) This section applies only to owner-occupied dwellings where a single lodger resides. Nothing in this section shall be construed to determine or affect in any way the rights of persons residing as lodgers in an owner-occupied dwelling where more than one lodger resides.

(emphasis added in both)