Illegal subtenant won't move out and is being a menace

[pinklotus]

This situation is in Los Angeles California.

Basically an apartment complex located in Los Angeles has a subtenant who never signed an contracts with the complex. He pays rent to the legal tenant and they have some sort of verbal agreement. The legal tenant did sign a contract and part of the contract stated that any other person cannot stay with them for more than 14 days or else they have to sign a contract and pay directly to the apartment in which the illegal subtenant never did.

Apparently this illegal subtenant has been a menace to the apartment tenants as well as the apartment manager. No one has taken legal action or filed any official complaints about him yet. They have served him an eviction notice but he won't move out and is actually trying to sue the apartment. In addition, after they tried to evict him, he started reporting trivial things to the housing authorities (peeling paint, broken heater) rather than directly telling the apartment manager.

This situation regarding this subtenant has barely risen because the ownership of the complex recently changed (about a year or two ago).

Basically, is there any way we can get him out without evicting the legal tenant as well? Also, can he actually sue the apartment for trying to kick him out or for anything at all?

Thank you in advance for any replies.

 

[army judge]

The only LEGAL way to get a person out of an apartment (or living abode) is by court process.
You know it as eviction.

You could OFFER the person cash to move.
Sometimes they'll leave if you pay them cash.
I've seen people vacate for $500, 600, 700 cash.

Otherwise, the safest way is to evict them.
The entire process takes 6-10 weeks, on average!

 

[fredrikklaw]

Bees, honey, and baseball bats!

It would immensely help your collective cause if you (all) first and foremost acknowledged the reality that the person referred to here is in fact very much a legal subtenant and NOT an illegal one, and proceed from there. Because there is a huge difference between attempting to evict a person who is after all a tenant in good standing and merely terminating his tenancy, and while the first option is impractical and will open you up to a few (and I must say justified) liabilities, the second option is par for the course and leaves no room for a come-back.

The second your master tenant accepted rent from the aforementioned person, he made him a bona fide (sub) tenant and the 14-day provision in the master lease will not do a thing to invalidate it. If anything, the master tenant is the one who should be evicted for materially and comprehensively breaching the terms of the original agreement by subleasing.

In any event, you may want to stop the eviction process and instead serve the subtenant with a 30-day notice to VACATE (if tenancy has been less than a year) or a 60-day notice to VACATE (if tenancy has been longer than one year). Because as things stand, the subtenant has a very good cause to counterclaim for Retaliatory Eviction in his answer and the good money will be on the judge to agree with him and slap you all with admonishment, fines, and then go on to order the reinstatement of his lease.

Finally, look at it this way; this person is not going to budge and will ignore come what way whether you move to evict him or merely terminate his tenancy, forcing you to ultimately commence the common remedy of an Unlawful Detainer action. But where in one action you will surely come across looking like the proverbial aggressive slum landlords and be punished for it, in the other, you will feature as the good guys and prevail.

How does that famous adage go? You can catch more bees with honey than attempt to beat them into submission with a baseball bat. And I paraphrase!

fredrikklaw

 

[pinklotus]

Thank you for your replies. I do apologize for my improper use of terms since I am not all too familiar with all this. We (the people who want him out including the owner and apartment manager) all assumed he was an illegal subtenant since he has never signed any contract or agreement with the complex nor has he ever paid the complex any money directly. I do understand the actual tenant who is receiving money (in cash) from him is the one at fault for this correct? And also, I guess I used the term "evict" incorrectly as well since the only thing that has happened so far is a lawyer who gave him a notice to vacate in which as stated, he has not left and is now reporting trivial things to the housing authorities when he could have directly told the apartment manager to fix.

The real problem with this subtenant is that he has always been a menace, before being served the notice. He is often drunk, he would yell and be disruptive, he would be disrespectful to people including the apartment manager, and he verbally harasses other tenants. This is the main reason the owner wants him out, not because he is there without a contract, I am sure no one actually minded that part if he wasn't a disruptive person. The thing is, since he is a disruptive person, and has always been, they also realized that he has been staying there without a contract and we all assumed (our lack of knowledge leads us to do a lot of assuming) that would be reason enough to get him out. All the other tenants want him gone as well but no one has taken any action including the apartment manager.

Btw, I am a family friend of the owner of the apartment complex but I help her out with paperwork and translation since her English is not that good. She wanted me to look around online to see if there are any ideas on her situation so here I am.

 

[pinklotus]

Because as things stand, the subtenant has a very good cause to counterclaim for Retaliatory Eviction in his answer and the good money will be on the judge to agree with him and slap you all with admonishment, fines, and then go on to order the reinstatement of his lease.

Thats the thing though, he doesn't have a lease. He is just there (and paying the real tenant in cash). Will what you said still stand even if this were the situation?

 

[army judge]

Thats the thing though, he doesn't have a lease. He is just there (and paying the real tenant in cash). Will what you said still stand even if this were the situation?

I suggest you advise your friend to hire an attorney.

You guys are going to hinder your own cause.

You don't have a clue about remedying this matter.

Pay an attorney to eradicate (legally) this pest, as you would pay an exterminator to remove vermin!!!!