If the sale agreement said the 80yr old could live there until May, then the 80 yr old can live there until May. If it didn't say you could live there until May, then you could be evicted. You could try to explain the situation to the current owners if you don't think you are free-loading. But, it will be up to the owners. Otherwise, you can only research tenant laws in your state to see what your options are, and what timelines must be followed.

I am not an attorney, and you should talk to one. But the short answer is probably no. Unless he has some legal standing over the man in court, there is no way in hell that a landlord can evict a caregiver. More importantly, the guy's attorney, is not going to let him if you talk to him. I mean seriously, if it was allowed, which it is not even close to being allowed, and you get evicted, then the guy slips and falls the next day, well he is going to get his sand and gravel business back after the law suit.

Even if the contract with the 80 year old said only he could live there, he would still not have a tough time evicting you even if you are not a caregiver. He would have a much easier time evicting the older man and by default you.

Not to mention that eviction takes a long time.

In my location legal eviction proceedings would not be completed by May 1 even if they were initiated now. It takes months here. But the new owner may make try and make your life miserable.

we tried talking to the new owner he just said he didnt like me and he wanted me to leave he new we lived here when he bought it and it was a verbal agreement At which time he never said anything about us being here until 5 months later.

Is your girlfriend a licensed caregiver? And/or being paid as a caregiver? Even so, you are not your girlfriend (so the argument that ousting you would be bad because of a fall the following day doesn't hold any water, imo).

That said, it has been my experience in most areas, eviction takes a long time, and May isn't that far away. But, in some areas, as few as 30 days is required. You need to know your tenant laws specific to your area.

Not to be rude but the above advice is simply wrong. VERY WRONG. You don't have to be a licensed caregiver if you are not giving medical care. My advice is for you to see an attorney, as you have a big problem and it is not the one you are thinking of. You don't have to be a legal caregiver, you have a contract with the gentleman you are living with, "an offer and acceptance with exchange of consideration." The courts never get into whether or not consideration is worthwhile, your contract with the old man, even if it is just to keep him company is a legally binding contract between the parties, and similar contracts have been upheld, there is legal precedent and no judge would overturn it as no judge likes getting slapped with a reversal. The problem the new owner has is standing, he essentially doesn't have standing in your contract with the older man to take you to court. The only way I can see for him to easily obtain standing is by attaching the older man. This assumes you haven't done something to impede the business in any way, as that can give him standing.

On my rental property I have a sublet clause that allows me to have standing against people who a tenant may sublet to. Still I have to attach the tenant to a legal action to evict subletters. I can evict him and the people he sublet to, or I can evict only him and do a new lease with the subletters but I can't evict the subletters and let him remain in the house.

Now your big problem, the old man doesn't have a contract with the new owner to stay in the house. Any agreement concerning real property must be in writing. No exceptions. If he sold the business then asked to continue living on the property the guy can say yes, please live here for the next 100 years and it doesn't mean beans. If it is not in writing then he doesn't have to allow it for even 15 minutes before he starts eviction proceedures. Despite the fact that the earlier poster is of a contrary opinion, if he evicts you and the older gentleman gets hurt it is called proximate cause and is very actionable.

Bryn911--Are you saying a person can invite any number of people into their place of residence (which they don't own, and have some sort of agreement for just them to live there) to live? We aren't talking family members/relations. Just people. *A* caregiver would be one thing. Some friend (non-legal relation) of a caregiver, I'd think is something else.

I'm not an attorney. I would just like to understand what you are saying (because I can't imagine it is right. And, if it is, then never ever would I agree to let someone stay in their former house for a bit, if I owned the property. Talk about insurance liabilities... I want to educate myself).

You are stuck on this idea of ownership, which is really not that important. If you own property that you rent out, it is not your home, it is the home of the rentor. As the "owner" of the property you have many fewer rights than the tenant. Your rights are essentially limited to the right to collect compensation, and the right to act in protection of your property. But you can't go up to someone and tell them who can and can't spend the night at their place (unless you have that in the lease). If you feel that someone has spent the night too many times, you can act under your right to collect compensation and say that person is a tennant and tennants must pay. But to do this you need a clause in the lease that lists the people who are considered residents in the home. Even if you have that, you can't walk up to someone who is not a party to the lease and say you have no right to be in my home, again, because it is not your home. You do have the right to say to those that are a party to the lease, "you signed a lease saying you would not have coinhabitants and since you do I am going to evict you."

As far as the husband of the caregiver, that is just part of the consideration. I will help you if you provide housing for my family. Not that unusual, and certainly legal for the husband to also be there. The whole relation to the person doesn't really matter, its a contract not some legal right.

The caregiver thing that you are again focusing on is largely not important. They need not be a caregiver for all of the above to be true. However, if they are acting in assistance of the old man, asking them to leave without even evicting them, would probably create a proximate cause case. It has nothing to do with the allowing the older man to live on the property, it only has to do with asking the people who are assisting him to leave. For example, you rent a house that is not abnormally unsafe, your rentor falls on the stairs and breaks his hip, then you are not liable. However, if that rentor believes he is prone to fall and asks someone to come stay with him to help him avoid it, and you disallow it, then you are proximately liable. These are often called "but for" causes. But for, your making them leave he would have had help, and therefor was less likely to fall.

Bingo!

If you have no idea what in the hell you are talking about please stop giving legal advice. If living in the house was a condition of the business sale, you most certainly don't have a month to month lease. Use of the house was consideration given, eviction would result in a breach of the original sales contract. Again this assumes you have it in writing. If not in writing the whole thing is crazy messy and anyone trying to give you any legal advice other than see an attorney is crazy. The sale of business thst is also a residence is just a minefield.

Unless the original contract spelled out differently, he has all the rights of any tennant, with almost no recourse from the landlord.

This coming from someone who is not an attorney either. So I would suggest you stop giving legal advice also.

Each state is different.

It all boils down to one thing. What EXACTLY does the sales agreement say? Does it state everybody can stay, or just the 80 year old? That's the contract. If the OP isn't in the contract, buh bye.

But I'll stick to my statement that he's got to grow up and find a home for his family.

I agree none of us know the terms of the agreement, nor do we don't know the local code. I do bet the agreement doesn't name the OP.
In my area, as I was evicting a tenant, the judge told my tenant I can evict him if I don't like his tie, I don't need a reason, just thirty day notice. Done... but that was specific to my city. A few cities away there is rent control with very restrictive landlord rights.

Each state is not different, the uniform commercial code has been adopted in all 50 states. Tennant laws will be subordinate to the UCC as the allowance of living in the home was consideration given in a UCC agreement. It doesn't need to state who can live in the house, especially if doing so renders aid to the older man. He doesn't need to be in the contract if removing him from the house would cause undo hardship on the older man.

informing people of the law and how it is applied is not legal advice, telling them how to act on it is. My only advice was and is to see an attorney. Just to be sure I asked one of the law professors here, he said I was on the right track but no way he could comment without looking at the whole deal.

Specific Tenant/Landlord rights do vary by location. None of us know the specific agreement of the OP's home, our opinions don't matter, whether they be legal or otherwise, they are just our opinions about the OP's predicament.

While we don't know if there is a lease and what the lease states, I have had leases that list all the parties that are leasing the house by name and state the period of time visitors may stay in the house. In fact, it is rather common lease language. Since the OP has not returned, we do not know enough about the situation to say more than he needs to contact a lawyer.

OP was also a boyfriend, not a spouse to the caregiver. In some states, that is still a legal distinction.

If you have no idea what in the hell you are talking about please stop giving legal advice.

I suggest you stay in school at least long enough to learn how to spell "tenant" before posing as an "expert". It would make your case more credible.

As blunders go my misspelling of a word on the gardenweb forum doesn't even register. I have misspelled far more common words in far more important places. And, I don't think it would be possible for me to spend any more time in school, (since my posts make it fairly obvious I am at university every day, obviously not in the English department.) But I will consider your advice.

You attacked me, but didn't refute what I said. I didn't even want to post on this thread but felt that the advice given was seriously flawed, and didn't want someone to act on that advice.

The problem you have, and it should have been obvious that it would be a problem posting on this particular forum, is that when people see landlord/"tenant" they assume that it will be the prevailing law. At best the situation is too complicated for a simple application, and at worst it may not even apply at all. Before, I go any further, I will admit that I am assuming the older man had an agreement in place to remain in the house before selling the business. Most people wouldn't sell their house then suddenly realize they had no place to live and scramble to make arrangements. These are the issues that should be considered before giving advice.

(1) There is a contract between the older man and the girlfriend, that in return for assistance she and selected other people can live in the house. That is a reasonable exchange of consideration - He gets help, she gets housing for her family, it doesn't matter that her family is a boyfriend, it could have been a dog and it would still be fine.

(2) There is a contract between the older man and the new owner of the business that the older man can continue to reside on the property. The fact that they were living there at the time the contract was accepted and at that time were not specifically excluded, is a sign that at the original execution of the contract they would be allowed to continue.

(2a) Was the sale contingent on continued living on the property (e.g. I will sell you the business IF you let me stay in the house)? In this case, eviction of the elder man or making it too hard for him to stay there would negate the sale. I have only seen these situations personally when the contingency was a result of zoning requirements. But when one party acts counter to the intent of the contract, judges not only reverse the sale, but usually enact some penalties on the party at fault.

(2b) Was living on the property consideration in the deal (e.g. I will sell you the business for X amount if you let me live in the house)? In this case, eviction of the elder man or making it too challenging for him to live there would be considered a breach of the contract, and would probably result in a judge ruling for additional consideration (money).

(3) Are the new owners trying to take an end run around the contract by making it more difficult for the old owner to continue living there? If the answer to this question is yes, and any decent lawyer would turn this into the primary question for the court, then you have to go back to (2) and find out the wording on the contract.

(4) These things may exist in concert with "tenant" law or they might exist outside of "tenant" law. But they certainly will not be rendered unenforceable by tenant law.

(5) No landlord who had spoken to an attorney would ever let you evict someone who is living with an elderly tenant to give aid. You might evict both, but not the aid. You throw open the door to a liability claim.

In my earlier post, when I said things like "he can't do that," I should have said, "the consequences of his actions could be severe enough that no rational person would do that."

In the end, my advice is now, as it was then, see an attorney. This is not a simple landlord/tenant dispute. I am sorry I was rude, but again the advice was at best uninformed and most likely wrong.

Actually the new owner asked him to stay through the winter because his son is gonna move in in the spring and its got a wood stove and he didnt want to winterize the house

" the deal was we could stay living there until may 1s." is not the same thing as "the new owner asked him to stay through the winter"

The distinction is more than a little important. Still see an attorney, if you don't think your case is good enough to put a little skin in the game, then it probably isn't.

You haven't mentioned the 80 yr olds take on the situation. Is he angry with the new owner? Resigned to the fact that you are getting kicked out? Is he planning on moving as well if you get evicted?
Or is it possible that he agrees with the new owner and doesn't want you guys there anymore but doesn't want to be the 'bad guy' and is willing to let the new owner take the heat?
Or is he not of sound mind anymore and doesn't really understand what's happening?

Just to clarify, since I think you missed it bry911.

bry911 (Tuesday 4:42 POST) Again this assumes you have it in writing. If not in writing the whole thing is crazy messy and anyone trying to give you any legal advice other than see an attorney is crazy.

OP, in an earlier (Monday 3:45 POST) we tried talking to the new owner he just said he didnt like me and he wanted me to leave he new we lived here when he bought it and it was a verbal agreement

I didn't so much miss it as as assumed the sale of the business was not verbal. Even if living in the house was a verbal arrangement, if the sale of the business was written and alluded to the living arrangement they would still have some protection. The whole thing can't be verbal as you can't transfer real property verbally.

Evicting someone who renders any aid is still a bigger risk than it's worth.

The whole thing is a giant mess.

May not be a giant mess at all, we don't have enough information to know that.

Regardless of the legal issues, it sounds to me like the OP has been sponging off this situation long enough. If he's been working, then he should've saved enough money...as he stated was his intent... by not paying rent to afford a place of his own. If he's not working, he should get a job.

Even if there is some legal protection of some sort for the caregiver vis a vis the former owner, OP is not a spouse or any other familial relation to the caregiver so I don't see how he would have a leg to stand on.

Time to put on his big boy pants and move.

This is the sort of thing that makes me cross - people taking advantage of others.

Get a job and stand on ya own two feet.

Not my place to judge. I mean if the older man wants him there, then he wants him there.

A very similar situation happened to my father. He was living alone, pretty far from me, and a young man moved in with him. I couldn't understand why a man of 24 or 25 would move in with a 65 year old man, and I hated it. Finally, the guy "borrowed" my father's car and wrecked it, and I essentially told my father the guy had to leave.

Well, as it turns out, my father had been losing his eyesight. He didn't/wouldn't tell me, and he was very good at hiding it. A few months after I put my foot down the guy (who was still checking on my father daily) found him unconscious. He stayed in the hospital with my father, not leaving for a couple of days, while I got back. I had never talked to the guy before and only after I got back did I find a concerned young man who told me everything that my father had been trying to hide from me.

I moved back to the states and moved my father close to me. My wife, kids and I, all spend time helping him out, and I pay others to come help when needed.

Before anyone thinks, well that is a good guy, he wasn't. He basically never kept a job for more than a couple of weeks. If he sees you he will definitely try to borrow 20 bucks off of you. The guy took a bus to town to visit my father and came without a penny or a bus ticket back. Their relationship was oddly symbiotic, I really don't like the guy but I do appreciate him.

Here we have a forum where normal people are giving this kid some common sense advice and then we have an "expert" who just thinks too much of himself chiming in because he "goes to university" which suggests to me he's Canadian. Different nations, different laws. Here in Vermont, I can evict the boyfriend tomorrow if he doesn't have his name on the lease.

That's because we have 50 states with 50 different Constitutions which means 50 different sets of laws. That's why a lawyer in New York cannot just come over and practice here without passing the VT Bar first.

It's simple contract law. The lease is the contract, and only those whose names are on that lease can stay.

But it's gonna be moot in 60 days anyway. May 1st is the move out date for everybody according to the OP.

Yes. According to the OP himself, the lease agreement lasted until May 1. So, he is not being evicted at all. The lease term is just expired then. Most of the time, the simplest answer is the correct one.

Looking at some of the posts here, I am shocked by some of the unsolicited snarky pronouncements on people's character. For example, I didn't see anything that suggests that the OP does not have a job, we don't know the couple's circumstances, and even if he doesn't, it's none of our business.

nosoccermom, from the info provided by the OP, he has been living rent free for almost a year through his GFs efforts, and his response to this lucky windfall is to want to fight it and sue the landlord for telling him it's over. You can draw your own conclusions about his character.

Here we have a forum where normal people are giving someone "legal" advice. Then we have a college professor who so obviously deals with the Uniform Commercial Code, who also, obviously lives and works in the US and teaches the UCC (and incidently is from the U.S.) suggesting that people should not give legal advice, when they are at best uninformed.

We have 50 different states, all of whom have adopted Article 2 of the Uniform Commercial Code, such that a lawyer in New York might understand the complexity of a case involving the UCC in Vermont, so that he may best inform a client in how to proceed. His advice would, of course, be very similar to ours, "I don't know without looking over the contracts so see an attorney in your area."

It's very complex contract law, with two disparate contracts. While the lease is a contract, there is an opposing article 2 contract, so only a court can really say which contract dominates the question.

I corrected this for you Christopher...

One problem is your fixation on the UCC.

Annie, we don't know their circumstances, other than that they're a young couple with a child; the OP works, and his girl friend takes care of an 80-year old in exchange for free or reduced rent.

Article 2 of the UCC governs the sale of a business. I am really not fixated on it so much as aware that it complicates things.

The situation is complicated enough that the advice given should be see an attorney.

Also, courts are not usually blind to someone taking advantage of an older man. If the OP was doing this, it's the attorney who could evaluate the whole situation in person and advise accordingly. Many attorneys will do a free consultation where the validity of the case could be assessed with no risk. Everyone wins, the attorney may well give him the same advice so many of you did, but there is almost no reason not to at least call an attorney in this situation.

Annie,
OP has been sponging off this situation long enough
His girlfriend is a caregiver to the older gentleman. Who are you to say that they are taking advantage of him? This could be a mutually beneficial situation and there is no 'sponging'.

OP is not a spouse or any other familial relation to the caregiver
Just because he used the term 'girlfriend'? A lot of people still use that term even if they've been common-law married for many, many years. You don't know his situation.

his response to this lucky windfall is to want to fight it and sue the landlord for telling him it's over

It's also his girlfriend and her kid that are getting kicked out. Are you able to up and move your family and all of your possessions at a moments notice? They were planning (and had an agreement whether formal or informal) to move in April. The new landlord has decided to change that agreement. It's understandable that it's upsetting and that he doesn't want to leave.

And maybe it's the older gentleman's lucky windfall that he found someone who would take care of things that he can't. Maybe he has no family that's willing or able to help.

I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm also not saying you're right. You're just making a lot of assumptions.

nosoccermom, actually we don't know if he's working and, from his profile picture, he doesn't look especially young. We know she is old enough to have a 5 yr old child.

greg-2015, I'm trying to assess the situation based on OP's words. He says GF, not wife. He says it's her son, not his. If they were "married" for many, many years, one would presume the child would be his, but it's not. Moreover, the majority of states don't recognize common law marriage.

While it may be that the value of service she is providing to the homeowner is equivalent to 3/4 of the equivalent rent he could collect (as there are 3 'tenants' in the house), I suspect it isn't. I could be wrong. Certainly a very favorable living arrangement for the OP...if not, he wouldn't be so upset about being told to vacate.

Regardless, I'm sure being told to move out sooner than one expected is upsetting. However, as soon as a property is sold to a new owner, it behooves all tenants to expect changes and prepare to vacate and make other living arrangements unless they have specific protection from a written lease or other document. Especially when one has no familial relation to the seller, is not on any lease or sales contracts, and hasn't paid any rent, the tentativeness of that living situation should be readily apparent and one should make the appropriate contingencies. I suspect that, even if they move to the new place in May, their living arrangement is still tentative, because, should the 80-yr old suddenly pass away, they will once again be on the outs.

Cmarlin20, you are so correct. He's also fixated on himself. I rent a small apartment to a young lady. She is the only person on that lease. She is of course allowed to have guests overnight, but she cannot have her boyfriend move in unless they got married. If he stays for more than a week, I will evict him. My country lawyer says I can do just that. UCC or no UCC. He also says I can evict her for breaking the terms of the lease.

What's the difference between a dead lawyer and a dead skunk in the road? Skid marks in front of the skunk.

What's wrong when a layer is up to his neck in sand? Not enough sand.

My guess is there is no written lease, or the OP would have referred to it. So, he is on a month to month tenancy. I don't understand what the UCC has to do with it at all.

Sorry, not that it matters, but I know that he's working and that, in my eyes, is still relatively young. However, again, this is not up for discussion. I'm no lawyer but, quite frankly, find that this discussion is turning nasty.

Comedy gold... I am fixated on me because I am so righteous I get to tell other people how they should live their life. When asked a legal question that, no attorney would answer without further information, I charge boldly ahead. Since I live my life to such high standards, after I give him my absolutely uninformed opinion represented as fact, I let him know what absolute scum of the earth he is and how he should live his life.

I then let someone know that he is too full of himself because he defended himself as being educated when attacked, not for his points, but for the misspelling of a word. I then get to point out that the UCC has nothing to do with this because it is not the sale of business, even though the initial post "he sold his business of 45 yrs a sand and gravel business that is on the same property as the house but in selling the business and house both the deal was we could stay living there until may 1s," in fact, I am so amazing, I know much more about the situation than the people involved in it, because I rent a house to someone in a different state, that had nothing to do with the sale of a business. Even though tenant law varies by state and locality, I know everything there is to know about theirs, especially, since there is no indication that they even pay rent, which I wouldn't take as an indication that the living arrangement had anything to do with the original business sale.

Let's not forget that my country lawyer knows a hell of a lot more than your university law professor...

Wait, I didn't do any of that. Yet I am the one getting taken to task for being too full of myself. Oh the horror, of telling soneone with a legal question to see an attorney.

I've never seen someone use so many words in so many posts to tell someone to see an attorney.

Why didn't you just say that in your first post?

You say, "Why didn't you just say that in your first post?"

The first line of my first post, "I am not an attorney, and you should talk to one."

And in case he missed it:

Second post, "My advice is for you to see an attorney."

In my fourth post I said, "anyone trying to give you any legal advice other than see an attorney is crazy." If you are OK with it, I am going to go ahead and count that as, "see an attorney."

My fifth post, "My only advice was and is to see an attorney."

Sixth post, "my advice is now, as it was then, see an attorney."

Seventh, "Still see an attorney"

Bry911,

When people come to a forum seeking answers, they are usually not seeking someone to tell them to go seek an attorney. They will know when it is time for them to do that. They are coming here for free advice, to rant, to share knowledge and experiences, to be sympathized, to find empathy, to get "expert" advice from experts and non experts alike, to get opinions, to hear other posters like stories and experiences., to hear what other people would do in like circumstances...

A forum would die out pretty quickly if most answers were "consult your attorney". You have made some good points as has everyone else.

Which is a great point and exactly why my advice wasn't just see an attorney. In fact, when most other people were saying there was no chance, I was explaining the possible complications that will give him a chance. If the new owner served him with a notice to quit there is a fair chance he has an attorney, if Joseph were to call that attorney and say, "hey that ain't right, I should be able to live here too, cause I'm helpin," the attorney would probably not be too impressed. However, if Joseph were to give him a call and say, "your client is trying to take an end run around an UCC article 2 contract by evicting a person giving aid to one of the parties, which as you know causes problems for your client, not to mention exposure to a proximate cause liability case should Mr. (insert old owner here) injure himself," the attorney still may not be impressed, but then again, he might figure it is just not worth the trouble and May is not so far away.

Of course the OP would actually have to research those things enough to actually talk a little bit about them. But he doesn't really have to say much.

Sparky, Yes, my country bumpkin lawyer is smarter than your university perfesser.

He graduated Suma cum laude from Georgetown Law and spent 30 years as a contract law specialist in a high powered Boston law firm before retiring early and coming to Vermont.

Just because someone is a perfesser doesn't necessarily mean they completely know what they're talking about.

If your country lawyer has the chops to to weed through the intricacies of contracts without ever seeing the contract, then throw his name and contact information up here. After a brief interview I will throw some business his way.

Edit: Actually, don't post it. I feel sure that either, he didn't understand what you were asking, or he tossed a giant qualifier in there. No lawyer, with or without contract experience, would ever give you specific legal options about a contract they didn't read.