Subtenant in possession or arrested for tresspassing?

[Laterdaze]

There seems to be 2 schools of thought in Calif. about subtenant (ST) possession of room after primary tenant (PT) has been evicted. Original PT lease forbids subletting rooms of house, but PT failed to read the lease and has sublet for years (with verbal agreements). PT (ST1 & ST2 also) fail to pay the rent for 4 months and PT is asked to leave (no lawsuit filed). ST2 is not mentioned (because subletting is forbidden in lease). PT and ST1 move out and ST2 remains in his room in the house. Landlord (real estate company) is shocked to find ST2 in possession (?) of a room in the house.

Question 1. Does ST2 actually have possession of room after PT moves out (and therefore must be evicted just as any tenant in possession of a room)? Or does ST2 lose any rights to possession when PT moves out, and if ST2 tries to claim possession of a room after PT moves out, the property owner can have ST2 arrested for trespassing?

Question 2. PG&E was in ST1's name and had a balance of $1200. So ST1 had power turned off to the house. Local code enforcement was tipped off and house was declared sub standard. Not suitable for LIVING in without electricity. But can ST2 still have property in his room because he has not been evicted according to California law, and still has possession of the room?

 

[mightymoose]

The subtenant is still legally present and the landlord must evict the subtenant the same as anyone else. The landlord can sue the primary tenant for any expenses involved with getting rid of the subtenant who remained. It does not matter that the subtenant is not on the lease or that the landlord did not know about the subtenant... what matters is that the subtenant has been present long enough to establish residency. It isn't really fair for the landlord, but that's the way it goes. The subtenant is NOT trespassing on the property and won't be arrested. In fact, if the landlord should change the locks or otherwise force the subtenant out, the subtenant could sue the landlord for an illegal eviction.

A portion of the outstanding PG&E bill could possibly fall on the remaining subtenant as there is surely a fair share, regardless of who's name it is in... however it would be up to the account holder to get payment from the other tenants.

If PG&E is notified that the residence is still occupied they will probably have to turn the power back on.

Yes, the remaining subtenant may still occupy the residence until legally evicted- but that does not mean that there won't be a LOT of conflict with the landlord who wants you out and many calls to the police... but the police will not force the subtenant out without the eviction order.

All in all, the subtenant needs to find somewhere else to go very quickly. Staying in the residence is just going to make things difficult, and the subtenant can't rel on the landlord taking the time to evict properly. Most likely, even if evicted illegally, the subtenant won't have the means or the know-how to go about addressing the issue and will be out on the street minus a lot of property.

The subtenant should not wait for eviction but promptly move out. A reasonable landlord might even be patient enough to wait a week or two if he believes there is a legitimate intent to vacate as soon as possible. If there is any resistance or signs of trouble... expect police and expect court.

 

[CdwJava]

If the original eviction was done right it would have included the tenant and all occupants, then no additional eviction is likely needed. All that the landlord might have to do is obtain the so-called "kick out" order and then ST2 can be removed.

As for the PG&E bill, he's on his own. Unless ST2 is able to get the utilities in his name (good luck, under the circumstances) the power is going to remain off. As for it being substandard for living without power, that's one of those local codes that tends to fall flat on appeal so I would doubt the city will attempt to enforce that as a way to forcibly remove ST2.

As was stated, the subtenant had best find a new place to live, quickly.

 

[army judge]

If you do nothing about the presence of someone in a rental property (that is not named in the lease), a constructive tenacy is created.

The person in question is in adverse posssession (or tenancy).

The law strives for order and not conflict.

A person in adverse possession must be evicted by legal process.

They are entitled to all rights a leasehold would otherwise convey.

The person's presence and adverse possession can only be cured legally by an eviction and subsequent order of a court.

The easier cure is to have them removed, lawfully, via self help or the police; prior to their obtaining adverse possession status!!!