Owner seeks to evict tenant at sufferance
Full Question:
Answer:
Several legal remedies exist to remove someone from real property that the possessor doesn't own. Ejectment is one such remedy.
Ejectment Law & Legal Definition. An action for ejectment is a lawsuit brought to remove a party who is occupying real property under a claim that the possessor owns the real property. This is not the same as an unlawful detainer (eviction) suit against a non-paying or unsatisfactory tenant. It is a suit against someone who has tried to claim title to the property. As the grandson appears not to claim title, ejectment is not the proper remedy.
Eviction Law & Legal Definition. Eviction is the process by which a landlord removes a tenant from physical possession of the rented property. The legal action brought to obtain an eviction is called an unlawful detainer. Most frequently eviction consists of ousting a tenant who has breached the terms of a lease or rental agreement by not paying rent or a tenant who has stayed (held over) after the term of the lease has expired or only had a month-to-month tenancy. The law of most states requires notice of eviction to be made within a certain time period.
Assuming that your description would go unchallaged, the grandson appears to be a trespasser. Trespassing is a legal term that can refer to a wide variety of offenses against property. Trespassing as it relates to real estate law means entering onto land without consent of the landowner. There are both criminal and civil trespass laws. Criminal trespass law is enforced by police, sheriffs, or park rangers. Civil trespass requires that the landowner initiate a private enforcement action in court to collect any damages for which the trespasser may be responsible, regardless of whether a crime has been committed. Traditionally, for either type of trespass, some level of intent is required. Thus, the trespasser must not simply unwittingly traverse another's land but must knowingly go onto the property without permission. Knowledge may be inferred when the owner tells the trespasser not to go on the land, when the land is fenced, or when a "no trespassing" sign in posted. A trespasser would probably not be prosecuted if the land was open, the trespasser's conduct did not substantially interfere with the owner's use of the property, and the trespasser left immediately on request.
In this situation, the grandson has expressed no interest in or intention of leaving. I see no alternative to the daughter's initiating, through an attorney, a legal action in court against the grandson for unlawful detainer. Any self-help attempt to force him out without going to court could create legal liability for the daughter (the attorney-in-fact) or any person involved in extra-legal efforts to get the grandson off the property. An aggreived person should never try to "take the law into their own hands." To do so risks both a breach of the peace (that is, criminal liability) as well as civil liability.
For free legal information on Washington State Law, please see the website of the Marian Gould Gallagher Library at the University of Washington School of Law, namely: http://lib.law.washington.edu/ref/legalinfo.html.
This is an area of law that can quickly become complex; it is an area where a one-size-fits-all remedy simply does not exist. For example, whether the grandson is solely a trespasser and not a holdover tenant makes a difference under the laws of some states.
For a reference to Washington lawyers, please see: http://lawyers.uslegal.com/; http://lawyers.uslegal.com/real-estate/; and, http://lawyers.uslegal.com/real-estate/washington/.
Please see the information at the following links:
http://lib.law.washington.edu/ref/legalinfo.html
http://www.thelpa.com/lpa/forms/ef-term.html
