Another rental thread.

[djunkie]

After reading about peoples issues with renters I was wondering what you think about this.
If an unmarried guy buys a house, lets his girlfriend move in, and has her pay him rent, would she have any legal rights to the house if the relationship doesn't work out? Like can she go to court and try to say that she was helping make house payments or something?

[Mrs. HOOTER SLED]

After reading about peoples issues with renters I was wondering what you think about this.
If an unmarried guy buys a house, lets his girlfriend move in, and has her pay him rent, would she have any legal rights to the house if the relationship doesn't work out? Like can she go to court and try to say that she was helping make house payments or something?
BUSSSSSTED!!!!!! Finally movin huh????? :rollside: :rollside:

[topless]

After reading about peoples issues with renters I was wondering what you think about this.
If an unmarried guy buys a house, lets his girlfriend move in, and has her pay him rent, would she have any legal rights to the house if the relationship doesn't work out? Like can she go to court and try to say that she was helping make house payments or something?I don't think so but if she writes checks for rent, have her make them out to you and write rent on the bottom.

[HOOTER SLED-]

After reading about peoples issues with renters I was wondering what you think about this.
If an unmarried guy buys a house, lets his girlfriend move in, and has her pay him rent, would she have any legal rights to the house if the relationship doesn't work out? Like can she go to court and try to say that she was helping make house payments or something?
Man up and marry her you pussy!!! :crossx:

[Mrs. HOOTER SLED]

Man up and marry her you pussy!!! :crossx:
LMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[djunkie]

BUSSSSSTED!!!!!! Finally movin huh????? :rollside: :rollside:
Uh no. Who the hell can afford a house? It was just a thought.

[djunkie]

I don't think so but if she writes checks for rent, have her make them out to you and write rent on the bottom.
Thats what I was thinking.

[Chase]

Did I hear PUSSY!!!

[djunkie]

Man up and marry her you pussy!!! :crossx:
Why would I do that? I get laid now. I wouldn't want to have to give that up. :rollside:

[SummitKarl]

palamony :)

[Biglue]

Why would I do that? I get laid now. I wouldn't want to have to give that up. :rollside:
Smart man. You're afraid of marriage huh? Shit wait til there is some rug rats in the picture. :cry: :cry:

[HOOTER SLED-]

Why would I do that? I get laid now. I wouldn't want to have to give that up. :rollside:
If your shits good, she'll crave it after you get married too. Come Mr. Italian lover. You ain't got skills??? :D

[Mrs. Bordsmnj]

If that were the case, wouldn't any renter have rights to the house since technically they are helping pay the mortgage?
I would say she has no rights.

[totenhosen]

If that were the case, wouldn't any renter have rights to the house since technically they are helping pay the mortgage?
I would say she has no rights.
Thats what I was thinking. I rented a room out of my house several years ago to a friend and think that was highly laughable if he tried to pull that on me.
She can however nail you with the IRS if you are accepting "rent" and not claiming it on your tax return. Her proof is all the canceled checks.

[YeLLowBoaT]

If you have a lease or a rental agreement you would be ok... if not it could get messy...

[HYPNAUTIC]

she would have no rights to the property or equity in the house. i would recomend that the mortgage payments be made from your checking accountand rent payments be made out to you. be careful because California does reconize domestic partnerships, if she is your beneficiary on bank accounts, life ins etc..., joint account holder on checking or savings accounts she can get a lawyer and go for half.

[totenhosen]

she would have no rights to the property or equity in the house. i would recomend that the mortgage payments be made from your checking accountand rent payments be made out to you. be careful because California does reconize domestic partnerships, if she is your beneficiary on bank accounts, life ins etc..., joint account holder on checking or savings accounts she can get a lawyer and go for half.
I believe there has to be a seven year time frame for that as well. But there is more to it than just what you posted.

[djunkie]

Smart man. You're afraid of marriage huh? Shit wait til there is some rug rats in the picture. :cry: :cry:
She doesn't want kids. Shes got 2 freakin dogs already. Plus I think I'm gonna get snipped. :crossx: :crossx:

[djunkie]

If that were the case, wouldn't any renter have rights to the house since technically they are helping pay the mortgage?
I would say she has no rights.
Your right. I didn't think of it that way. :rollside:

[topless]

She doesn't want kids. Shes got 2 freakin dogs already. Plus I think I'm gonna get snipped. :crossx: :crossx:
When she changes her mind and tells you she's ready to reproduce, just tell her that her eggs are too old.

[plaster dave]

Just be very careful I was in the same situation 2 months ago and it was the leagle advise from my attorney to just give her some money and make it go away. just my .02

[FMluvswater]

When she changes her mind and tells you she's ready to reproduce, just tell her that her eggs are too old.
You f'ing kill me sometimes! :D LMAO!

[djunkie]

Just be very careful I was in the same situation 2 months ago and it was the leagle advise from my attorney to just give her some money and make it go away. just my .02
Sounds like a contract would be a good idea. LOL!!!!!!!!!!!
"Hey babe, wanna move into my new house with me? Just sign this contract first" :crossx: :crossx:

[dicudmore]

She doesn't want kids. Shes got 2 freakin dogs already. Plus I think I'm gonna get snipped. :crossx: :crossx:
if she winds up pregnant...Dave I swear I didn't do it, and... we were both drunk :wink:

[djunkie]

if she winds up pregnant...Dave I swear I didn't do it, and... we were both drunk :wink:
LOL!!!!!!!!!!! Hey it would be your loss. You'd have to put up with her. :devil:

[dicudmore]

LOL!!!!!!!!!!! Hey it would be your loss. You'd have to put up with her. :devil:
hmmm... :idea: point taken

[Boatcop]

Keep in mind that if you wanted her out, and she didn't want to leave, you would have to go through legal proceedings to evict her. Court order, served papers, etc. 30 day notice, 7 day notice, 5 day notice, then court ordered eviction.
This applies to anyone who you rent to, or even let stay at your house "for a few days" 'cause:
a) They got in a fight with the spouse/significant other/roommate, etc
b) New Apartment won't be ready and I gotta move out of the old one now
c) Mommy finally kicked me out
d) They just moved here from Nebraska, and need to find a job
or any other reason, where they can say they "live there"
The law and the courts favor renters, so that unscrupulous landlords don't take advantage.

[Starloans]

Ahhhhh.
YES. She could depending on events that take place while she lives with you. I think the attorneys call it Express or Implied contract. Pooling their earnings, bank accounts, joint home repairs etc. even though you are not married.
Seems there was this movie star named....Lee Marvin. He got him a trophy girlfriend and she lived with him for a number of years. Come time for him to upgrade, kicks her to the curb and she up and sues for stuff. Now the attorneys in CA call it a Marvin Action. Even though she wasn't on title to the house she was able to prove she was entitled to something.
Go to any search engine and type in Marvin Action.
My attorney recommends for both of you to go down a fill out a contract and both sign it saying what she gets and doesn't get. I think any family law attorney can do it. Shouldn't cost you an arm and a leg. Unless....you don't get something signed! Good Luck.
Dave

[djunkie]

Ahhhhh.
YES. She could depending on events that take place while she lives with you. I think the attorneys call it Express or Implied contract. Pooling their earnings, bank accounts, joint home repairs etc. even though you are not married.
Seems there was this movie star named....Lee Marvin. He got him a trophy girlfriend and she lived with him for a number of years. Come time for him to upgrade, kicks her to the curb and she up and sues for stuff. Now the attorneys in CA call it a Marvin Action. Even though she wasn't on title to the house she was able to prove she was entitled to something.
Go to any search engine and type in Marvin Action.
My attorney recommends for both of you to go down a fill out a contract and both sign it saying what she gets and doesn't get. I think any family law attorney can do it. Shouldn't cost you an arm and a leg. Unless....you don't get something signed! Good Luck.
Dave
Great advice there.

[totenhosen]

Ahhhhh.
YES. She could depending on events that take place while she lives with you. I think the attorneys call it Express or Implied contract. Pooling their earnings, bank accounts, joint home repairs etc. even though you are not married.
Seems there was this movie star named....Lee Marvin. He got him a trophy girlfriend and she lived with him for a number of years. Come time for him to upgrade, kicks her to the curb and she up and sues for stuff. Now the attorneys in CA call it a Marvin Action. Even though she wasn't on title to the house she was able to prove she was entitled to something.
I looked up the case and found this:
SIDE BAR--MARVIN V. MARVIN
The decision said that unmarried couples may make enforceable contracts
with each other regarding property and alimony-like support, and that
where there is no explicit contract but the actions of the parties make
it appear as though there is an understanding, the court may imply a
contract to exist and enforce it. The decision does not give cohabiting
couples the property rights of married people, but rather allows them to
have their contracts and understandings enforced in court. There is no
minimum number of years that a cohabiting couple must live together in
order to obtain these rights. The Marvin case has been extended to same-
sex couples. (Whorton v. Dillingham, 202 Cal. App. 3d 447 (1988).) The
result is that adults who live together and engage in sexual relations
are legally able to form contracts regarding their earnings and property
rights.
Example: Let's look at the Marvin case itself. Michelle Triola (who
called herself Michelle Marvin) lived with actor Lee Marvin for a number
of years. She claimed that she gave up her own career in exchange for
becoming Lee Marvin's homemaker and an agreement that she would be
entitled to half his income. When the couple separated, Michelle sued
Lee for a lot of money. No written contract was produced, but Michelle
insisted that an oral agreement had been made. The California Supreme
Court allowed her to proceed on the basis of the oral contract and on
the implied contract theory. In the end, a jury awarded Michelle nothing
because she was unable to prove the contract or that her worth as a
homemaker was worth the money she claimed.

[Starloans]

Additional encouragement for you to get something signed.
Remember, when it's time to upgrade and you kick her ass out, she will be a very different person than she is now. Even if she's not able to prove you owe her anything she can still run your ass throught the ringer to figure that out. It will be ugly.
Don't get me wrong, I love all women, and to quote the late Sam Kinesen, I just don't think I should have to give away half of everything I own every five FN years.
...................That will be a $75 consultation fee............. :rollside:

[djunkie]

Additional encouragement for you to get something signed.
Remember, when it's time to upgrade and you kick her ass out, she will be a very different person than she is now. Even if she's not able to prove you owe her anything she can still run your ass throught the ringer to figure that out. It will be ugly.
Don't get me wrong, I love all women, and to quote the late Sam Kinesen, I just don't think I should have to give away half of everything I own every five FN years.
...................That will be a $75 consultation fee............. :rollside:
Sam Kinesen was a lot smarter than he looked.

[Starloans]

I looked up the case and found this:
SIDE BAR--MARVIN V. MARVIN
The decision said that unmarried couples may make enforceable contracts
with each other regarding property and alimony-like support, and that
where there is no explicit contract but the actions of the parties make
it appear as though there is an understanding, the court may imply a
contract to exist and enforce it. The decision does not give cohabiting
couples the property rights of married people, but rather allows them to
have their contracts and understandings enforced in court. There is no
minimum number of years that a cohabiting couple must live together in
order to obtain these rights. The Marvin case has been extended to same-
sex couples. (Whorton v. Dillingham, 202 Cal. App. 3d 447 (1988).) The
result is that adults who live together and engage in sexual relations
are legally able to form contracts regarding their earnings and property
rights.
Example: Let's look at the Marvin case itself. Michelle Triola (who
called herself Michelle Marvin) lived with actor Lee Marvin for a number
of years. She claimed that she gave up her own career in exchange for
becoming Lee Marvin's homemaker and an agreement that she would be
entitled to half his income. When the couple separated, Michelle sued
Lee for a lot of money. No written contract was produced, but Michelle
insisted that an oral agreement had been made. The California Supreme
Court allowed her to proceed on the basis of the oral contract and on
the implied contract theory. In the end, a jury awarded Michelle nothing
because she was unable to prove the contract or that her worth as a
homemaker was worth the money she claimed.[/QUOTE]
To my understanding even though SHE didn't get anything in the end, I think it went to the Supreme Court, there were subsquent cases that parties were able to prove there were contracts, not just in family cases. I bet a lot of times the defendant would pay just to make it go away. I'm no attorney, but unfoturnatly I have some experience with this. It appears that a Marvin action resulted in CIVIL action instead of Family.
More cases (http://www.palimony.com/12.html) [QUOTE=totenhosen]
Get something signed.
That's another.......................$75................. ..... :cry: :)
Here you go: ..........The information on this Web page is based on California law. It is not legal advice and cannot replace the advice of competent legal counsel licensed in your State based on the specific facts and circumstances of your case

[blackcloud75]

have her sign a rental agreement....