Using Blackmail to Force Eviction?

[sandyclaus]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? California

I have a friend who is in a peculiar situation. She rents a guest house, and the lot also has a main house that is occupied by individual room tenants as well. My friend became unemployed recently has been unable to pay her rent in full. She had anticipated moving out by Aug 31st, but her finances have not allowed that to happen, and she told the LL she would try to be out by the 15th, but could not guarantee it.

Herein lies the situation for which she is asking advice.

The LL has decided to try and enlist the OTHER tenants assistance in urging my friend to move out. In doing so, the LL has turned off the satellite TV service and has said that if the other tenants can get my friend to sign an agreement to move out on the 15th of this month, she will turn it back on. Essentially, she is depriving the OTHER tenants of a service that they have already paid for in order to blackmail them into encouraging this other person to move out.

The specific wording of that agreement is as follows:

(TENANT NAME) has sworn to me and promise and agree to vacate the premises located at (RENTAL ADDRESS) on or before September 15, 2010. And agree to hold this document legally binding.

SIGNED: __________________ (tenant name)

SIGNED: __________________ (landlord name)

WITNESS: _____________________ (witness name)

I am not a lawyer, and I do not know if this kind of agreement would be legally enforceable. How would signing such an agreement affect
my friend's right to possession? Would the LL now have the right to remove her on the 15th if she is unable to vacate by that date, or would she still be entitled to a court eviction process before being forcibly evicted from the premises?

Don't get me wrong - I'm not trying to say she DESERVES to stay without paying, just wondering about preserving her rights to NOT be forcibly evicted and removed from the house involuntarily without due process through the courts in the event should we get to that point.

Thank you in advance for your responses.

 

[Banned_Princess]

Not paying the rent is what is jeopardizing her right to possession.

As it stands your friend can begin being evicted tomorrow. She will have no defense and she will be forced out within 60 days.

Satellite TV is not essential service and can be cut.

 

[sandyclaus]

Not paying the rent is what is jeopardizing her right to possession.

As it stands your friend can begin being evicted tomorrow. She will have no defense and she will be forced out within 60 days.

Satellite TV is not essential service and can be cut.

Thank you for stating the obvious, but that was NOT the question.

Of course her not paying the rent is threatening her right to possession, but I also know that right does not go away unless she voluntarily gives it up or she loses it through a court-ordered eviction process. I have already informed my friend that she is subject to an eviction action anyway if she doesn't move out by the 15th, a fact of which she is well aware.

The question also had nothing to do with some assumption that she has the right to satellite TV. She never made such an assumption - and the issue is not with HER keeping the service but with the OTHER tenants in the home no longer getting their satellite TV either unless they are able to convince my friend to "do the right thing" and move out by the 15th.

The question I asked was whether or not her signing the above-referenced agreement would waive her right to possession in any way BEFORE that court-ordered eviction order could be issued. That's the ONLY question I need answered for her.

 

[Banned_Princess]

Oh, I'm sorry, I had not realized it was your question.

Cheers

 

[atomizer]

The document she signed has little or no bearing on anything. It is about as valid as the lease terms of the lease that she is not abiding by. If she does not meet the terms of the second agreement, she will be evicted according to state law.

 

[atomizer]

the issue is not with HER keeping the service but with the OTHER tenants in the home no longer getting their satellite TV either unless they are able to convince my friend to "do the right thing" and move out by the 15th.

If the satellite service was included in the lease agreement, then the LL is in breach of the lease agreement. If it is not included, but the tenants have paid for the service, the tenants in would still be able to collectively sue and recover their monies. Though it may not be worthwhile. You can however research FCC regulations for the legality of the LL's act.

Tell your friend to get a spine and stop letting her BF control her.

 

[sandyclaus]

If the satellite service was included in the lease agreement, then the LL is in breach of the lease agreement. If it is not included, but the tenants have paid for the service, the tenants in would still be able to collectively sue and recover their monies. Though it may not be worthwhile. You can however research FCC regulations for the legality of the LL's act.

Probably not going to happen. The tenants collectively pay for the service. There are no written lease agreements, only individual verbal agreement with the LL that they will pay for an equal share of the utilities and satellite service in addition to their rent for the month. No satellite service for them means they won't be paying for it, but there are a couple of them who might balk at having to live in a home with no satellite or cable service available, especially since the only reason they no longer have it is because the LL wants to play hardball with my friend.

Tell your friend to get a spine and stop letting her BF control her.

Where did you get the idea a BF was even in the picture here? There was and is no BF that is part of this situation.

 

[atomizer]

Where did you get the idea a BF was even in the picture here? There was and is no BF that is part of this situation.

I need to wipe my glasses. I mistook finances for fiance'e. My first thought was what a jerk!

 

[sandyclaus]

I need to wipe my glasses. I mistook finances for fiance'e. My first thought was what a jerk!

LoL...

Actually, I personally think it's kind of a low-ball thing for the LL to do. To penalize the other housemates by taking away a service that they have been faithfully paying for and basically blackmailing them into turning on my friend and doing the LL's job for them. That's certainly not fair to them, either.

 

[aldaron]

Does your friend realize an eviction on her record will bar her from renting anything short of a crackhouse for years to come?

 

[sandyclaus]

New development:

The LL acknowledged that she could not legally turn off the utility services to the house in her letter to the tenants. But what she HAS done is removed the fuses to the air conditioner electrical unit that operates solely for my friend's guest house. She tampered with the equipment in order to deprive her of air conditioning, which was definitely part of their rental contract.

Luckily, the fuses are easily replaceable and there is a keyhole by which one can add a lock to the electrical box to prevent this from happening again. But this is a BLATANT attempt by the LL to force her out.

What are the legal ramifications of this bold move on LL's part?

 

[atomizer]

I don't blame the LL since your friend is not paying rent. Why should the LL foot the bill for her comfort level.

Jude to LL: Did you pull the fuse to the electric box?

Landlord: No, your honor.

 

[cyjeff]

Are you saying your friend locked the electrical box that didn't belong to her?

Are you saying that your friend intentionally is stealing money from her landlord by illegally hacking the electrical box?

Are you saying that your friend somehow believes it is her right to run up someone else's electrical bills without paying for them?

Are you saying that your friend intends to live rent free/utility free until she can get her finances back together?

Great. Landlords love to sponsor deadbeats until they can get together enough money to live somewhere else.

If your friend puts a lock on that box, I would have the police come out to take it off.

Why don't you house your "friend" and let her live rent free/utility free in YOUR home if you believe so strongly in her right to a place to live?