NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.edmontonsun.com/News/Edmonton/2009/02/10/8331741-sun.html

In a bizarre case before the courts, an Edmonton man has been forbidden from going to his own home while his girlfriend - whom he has told to get out - is still living there.

Todd Shandro, 36, went before a judge yesterday to try to resolve the situation, but he was told there were jurisdictional issues and he has to take the matter to civil court.

"It's very sick what is happening here," said a frustrated Shandro. "I am the sole owner of the house. The mortgage and title are in my name and she is essentially a squatter.

"It's ridiculous. The system doesn't seem to be working here and she is bending the law to her own advantage."

NO OVERLAP

The problem appears to be there is no overlap between civil matters such as land titles and home ownership and criminal matters where no-contact orders are issued.

Court heard yesterday that Shandro is charged with two counts of assault, one against the ex-girlfriend and one against her mother.

After his arrest, a justice of the peace released Shandro on $500 bail and issued a no-contact order barring him from going within five blocks of his home near 102 Street and 113 Avenue.

The JP also ordered that Shandro could revisit the residence issue by bringing his ownership documents to court.

However, Shandro has twice appeared before a judge to amend the bail conditions, with both a lawyer and the documents showing he owns the home, but to no avail.

And the same thing happened again yesterday.

"All we want is to amend the bail conditions so I can live in my own home," said Shandro.

Court heard Shandro and his ex had been dating for more than a year when he invited her to move in to the home on a "trial" basis approximately eight months ago.

In October, Shandro realized he wanted to end the relationship with his girlfriend and asked her to leave, said defence lawyer Chady Moustarah.

"She said 'no, I'm not leaving', " said Moustarah, adding Shandro repeatedly tried to get her to leave.

On Dec. 5 he came home from work and found both his ex and her mother there and asked them both to leave. When they refused, he went to a pub and had a couple of drinks, said Moustarah.

ALLEGED ASSAULT

He returned and again asked them to go and the mother told him to go to the bedroom and lie down.

He again left, but quickly returned and demanded they leave, which is when the assault allegedly happened, said Moustarah.

He told the judge the ex-girlfriend says she is fearful of Shandro, but questioned why she is then staying at his house.

"It doesn't make sense," said Moustarah. "Essentially she is a squatter. She is trespassing."

The Crown told court the girlfriend has been paying bills and said she wants to remain in the home because she has two children and they go to a nearby elementary school.

Justice Stephen Hillier ruled the matter should go to civil court and adjourned the bail review to March 2.

Cases like these are fun. Now, in Florida (to my knowledge), a criminal judge can issue a temporary civil order while the case is placed in queue in civil court if it involved an already presented criminal matter.

This, however, seems ridiculous. So, legal eagles, what is your take on the whole situation?

Some possiblilities...

Sell the home. (he 'owns' it right?)

or, when she's out, have a lock smith company change all the locks and have them give him the ONLY set of keys.

or contact the police and have them evicted?

They are in an Adult Inderdependent Relationship under Alberta law, which is akin to to being commonlaw spouses. He cannot, therefore, claim that because his name is soley on the title, that she has no claim to it whatsoever. That tangle needs to be figured out in the court if they separate...it seems he owned the house before they became commonlaw, so through tracing, he probably won't have to split it with her...but he cannot just kick her out if she doesn't agree to leave...he's got to get a court order to do that.

Assaulting her didn't help the matter.

http://www.edmontonsun.com/News/Edmonton/2009/02/10/8331741-sun.html

Interesting article. Essentially, his girlfriend got a restraining order against him while she lived at his house (his name only on the house, he lived there before asking her to live with him). As such, he must now stay away from his house. His girlfriend justifies by wanting to stay there because her kids go to school there (in case it matters, the kids are not his).

So what do you folks think? Does she deserve to stay there due to the damage he's done her, or should she be moving out ASAP?

I think Galloism's title was wittier.

http://www.edmontonsun.com/News/Edmonton/2009/02/10/8331741-sun.html

Interesting article. Essentially, his girlfriend got a restraining order against him while she lived at his house (his name only on the house, he lived there before asking her to live with him). As such, he must now stay away from his house. His girlfriend justifies by wanting to stay there because her kids go to school there (in case it matters, the kids are not his).

So what do you folks think? Does she deserve to stay there due to the damage he's done her, or should she be moving out ASAP?

It's a jurisdictional issue, nothing more. The court issued a restraining order, he then asked the court to remove her, so he could go into his own house. Court said "take that matter to a different court".

As Neesika said, primarily this is a jurisdictional issue, complicated by the commonlaw marriage laws in Alberta. It's weird and sorta strange, but it did sorta stop being "his house" free and clear after a while.

In my entirely personal, non-legally based opinion, the restraining order is completely valid and he shouldn't be allowed to return, but she should have a set period of time (perhaps 30 days) to get the fuck out before the cops remove her. Then he can go back to his home. She should also be responsible for the bills for the house for the duration of her stay, including the mortgage.

I think Galloism's title was wittier.

Did someone already post it? I checked for it too :/

They are in an Adult Inderdependent Relationship under Alberta law, which is akin to to being commonlaw spouses. He cannot, therefore, claim that because his name is soley on the title, that she has no claim to it whatsoever. That tangle needs to be figured out in the court if they separate...it seems he owned the house before they became commonlaw, so through tracing, he probably won't have to split it with her...but he cannot just kick her out if she doesn't agree to leave...he's got to get a court order to do that.

Assaulting her didn't help the matter.
is there some time limit before commonlaw spouse kicks in? would 8 months define them as commonlaw spouses?

Sometimes, You Just Can't Go Home (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=583093).

Did someone already post it? I checked for it too :/

Beat you by 11 minutes. OWNED! *runs out of the thread*

is there some time limit before commonlaw spouse kicks in? would 8 months define them as commonlaw spouses?

The Adult Interdependent Relationship Act (http://www.canlii.org/ab/laws/sta/a-4.5/20080818/whole.html) says that you must fall under one of the following:

be living in an interdependent relationship for a minimum of three years,
living in an interdependent relationship of some permanence where there is a child by birth or adoption or,
living in or intend to live in an interdependent relationship and have entered into a written adult interdependent partner agreement


The thing is, at this point, if he wants to argue that they aren't in an AIR, he needs to go prove it, and THEN he can get her out. So I take it back, she probably is not in an AIR with him, since they've only been together for a year it seems.

(prior to this Act, you would be considered 'commonlaw' if you were together for a year)

Still, there is another issue that needs to be proven...whether or not there is a written or oral rental agreement (she's been paying bills for example) etc. He's got to make his case, not just expect that he'll be able to kick her out on a moment's notice.

Beat you by 11 minutes. OWNED! *runs out of the thread*

I'll delete mine out then. Bastard :(

I'll delete mine out then. Bastard :(

Nah, I'll ask the mods to merge them.

http://www.edmontonsun.com/News/Edmonton/2009/02/10/8331741-sun.html

Interesting article. Essentially, his girlfriend got a restraining order against him while she lived at his house (his name only on the house, he lived there before asking her to live with him). As such, he must now stay away from his house. His girlfriend justifies by wanting to stay there because her kids go to school there (in case it matters, the kids are not his).

So what do you folks think? Does she deserve to stay there due to the damage he's done her, or should she be moving out ASAP?

Does she deserve to? Yes. Should that matter to the authorities, courts etc? No. The law is the law.

Still, there is another issue that needs to be proven...whether or not there is a written or oral rental agreement (she's been paying bills for example) etc. He's got to make his case, not just expect that he'll be able to kick her out on a moment's notice.

Its a bit hard to make the case when all the documents are in the house he's legally not allowed to enter...

Its a bit hard to make the case when all the documents are in the house he's legally not allowed to enter...

No, it's not.

You see, if he wants her out, he'll file a civil pleading, and state that they are not in an AIR, that the home is soley in his name, and that there is no rental agreement between him and his ex. She would then have to respond with some reason she would be able to stay, and then they would go into discovery...there are many ways around the restraining order if he needs documents from his house in the civil matter.

Does she deserve to? Yes. Should that matter to the authorities, courts etc? No. The law is the law.

That's overly simplistic. 'The law is the law' doesn't really say anything when the law must take into account things like the interests of the children involved, the relationship between the adults in question, any possible rental agreements explicit or implied and so on. The situation is not at all clear, and therefore there is a lack of clarity in terms of 'which law is the law' in this case.

And, Judge Dredd is the law.

And, Judge Dredd is the law.

I bet there wouldn't be much of a house let after he passed sentence. Big fucking bullet holes all over the place...

The Adult Interdependent Relationship Act (http://www.canlii.org/ab/laws/sta/a-4.5/20080818/whole.html) says that you must fall under one of the following:

be living in an interdependent relationship for a minimum of three years,
living in an interdependent relationship of some permanence where there is a child by birth or adoption or,
living in or intend to live in an interdependent relationship and have entered into a written adult interdependent partner agreement


According to the article:
Court heard Shandro and his ex had been dating for more than a year when he invited her to move in to the home on a "trial" basis approximately eight months ago.

So, they hadn't been living together for more than 8 months.

The Crown told court the girlfriend has been paying bills and said she wants to remain in the home because she has two children and they go to a nearby elementary school.

Yes, there are children, but the children are evidently hers, judging by this, so that rules out the next point. Note the emphasis; the children are hers.

It is my understanding, based on the facts in the article that there appears to be no written agreement of any sort. Which makes me wonder why he can't simply contact the police or even seek a court injunction ordering her to move out.

Now, I'm not saying the "law is the law", but I don't see any facts in the article that match up with the statutory requirements that would give her those rights.

According to the article:


So, they hadn't been living together for more than 8 months. Dating over a year, which under the old rules would have made them 'commonlaw'...mistake on my part, referred to on the previous page.


Yes, there are children, but the children are evidently hers, judging by this, so that rules out the next point. Note the emphasis; the children are hers. Noted. Nonetheless, the court is going to note that kicking her out is going to affect children, whether they are his or not, and are likely to allow her to stay for a set period of time in order to find alternate accomodations.

It is my understanding, based on the facts in the article that there appears to be no written agreement of any sort. Which makes me wonder why he can't simply contact the police or even seek a court injunction ordering her to move out.
He can get an injunction, and that's what he's been instructed to do. The article is bitching that the criminal courts can decide a civil matter, which is inherently idiotic, and par for the course for the Sun.

The police aren't going to kick her out without the matter being decided in court, and even once it is, that isn't their job.

Let's see. As the owner of the house, he can have alterations performed on it - such as covering all entrances with concrete until this is solved, while she's out, trapping her outside and her stuff inside. You respond to an unreasonable stimulus with insanity. You respond to insanity with psychopathy.

He can get an injunction, and that's what he's been instructed to do. The article is bitching that the criminal courts can decide a civil matter, which is inherently idiotic, and par for the course for the Sun.

The police aren't going to kick her out without the matter being decided in court, and even once it is, that isn't their job.

He CAN still have the entrances blocked at a time in which he knows she's not there, thus trapping her, her mother and her children outside and their stuff inside, right?

It's his house.

The Adult Interdependent Relationship Act (http://www.canlii.org/ab/laws/sta/a-4.5/20080818/whole.html) says that you must fall under one of the following:

be living in an interdependent relationship for a minimum of three years,
living in an interdependent relationship of some permanence where there is a child by birth or adoption or,
living in or intend to live in an interdependent relationship and have entered into a written adult interdependent partner agreement


The thing is, at this point, if he wants to argue that they aren't in an AIR, he needs to go prove it, and THEN he can get her out. So I take it back, she probably is not in an AIR with him, since they've only been together for a year it seems.

(prior to this Act, you would be considered 'commonlaw' if you were together for a year) your three points kinda shows they wouldn't be considered Common law. the third being closest to the mark. but other points in your link makes it seem like they're commonlaw... Like section 1 subsection 2 (did I get that right?)

and if she is claiming commonlaw or "adult interdependent relationship" then, according to your link, the onus of proof is on her.

He CAN still have the entrances blocked at a time in which he knows she's not there, thus trapping her, her mother and her children outside and their stuff inside, right?

It's his house.

This would be considered pretty egregious behaviour on his part, and could backfire on him if the judge decides to slap him for it.

Dating over a year, which under the old rules would have made them 'commonlaw'...mistake on my part, referred to on the previous page.

Wow, that's a very loose definition of 'common law'; I had always thought (before studying Family Law) that it was a year of living together and not just dating.

Oh and thanks for the link. :) I read through the legislation. It's interesting to see how other provinces handle common law relationships.

Noted. Nonetheless, the court is going to note that kicking her out is going to affect children, whether they are his or not, and are likely to allow her to stay for a set period of time in order to find alternate accomodations.

I would hope so, however, there was nothing that indicated that. Additionally, it seems her mother was in the city, so why would she insist on remaining when she might have been able to return to her mother's home?

Of course, I wouldn't expect such responsible journalism from the Sun. It would have been nice to see if that question had been answered.

The police aren't going to kick her out without the matter being decided in court, and even once it is, that isn't their job.

Here's a hypothetical...

The courts say she has 30 days to move out. Her time expires and she refuses to leave. At this point, as she has been order, her presence would be deemed trespassing. Wouldn't the police have to act then?

Wow, that's a very loose definition of 'common law'; I had always thought (before studying Family Law) that it was a year of living together and not just dating.

Here in Virginia, you have to live together for seven years before it's considered common law.

your three points kinda shows they wouldn't be considered Common law. the third being closest to the mark. but other points in your link makes it seem like they're commonlaw... Like section 1 subsection 2 (did I get that right?) Section 1(2) just helps flesh out what an economic and domestic unit is...you'd still have to be together a minimum of three years, have kids together or have a written agreement. So no, assuming there is no written agreement, they wouldn't be in an AIR.

and if she is claiming commonlaw or "adult interdependent relationship" then, according to your link, the onus of proof is on her.
The default position is not going to be 'get out of the house until you can prove you have a reason to be there'. She's there, the kids are there, the court is going to let the default be 'they can stay until a case is made that they should not be there'.

Yes, the onus on proving a reason to stay is on her, but the process has to happen. We wouldn't want people to just be able to eject anyone from their home (that they have invited there in the first place) without any warning, because there are many situations where this would violate the law, and we need to be sure FIRST that no such legal violation would exist.

The default position is not going to be 'get out of the house until you can prove you have a reason to be there'. She's there, the kids are there, the court is going to let the default be 'they can stay until a case is made that they should not be there'. true, wasn't making that point. just wondering if she will try that angle.

Yes, the onus on proving a reason to stay is on her, but the process has to happen. We wouldn't want people to just be able to eject anyone from their home (that they have invited there in the first place) without any warning, because there are many situations where this would violate the law, and we need to be sure FIRST that no such legal violation would exist. agreed.

This would be considered pretty egregious behaviour on his part, and could backfire on him if the judge decides to slap him for it.

What about changing the locks, then hiring someone to watch as the woman breaks in somehow, and call the cops on her for breaking and entering, since it's not her house?

SOMETHING must be done.

Here in Virginia, you have to live together for seven years before it's considered common law.

Seven years seems extreme. But, I wager there was a good reason for picking that number. It's actually three years here in Ontario.

Family Law Act (http://www.canlii.org/on/laws/sta/f-3/20080821/whole.html#BK32)

29. In this Part,
“dependant” means a person to whom another has an obligation to provide support under this Part; (“personne à charge”)
“spouse” means a spouse as defined in subsection 1 (1), and in addition includes either of two persons who are not married to each other and have cohabited,
(a) continuously for a period of not less than three years, or
(b) in a relationship of some permanence, if they are the natural or adoptive parents of a child. (“conjoint”) R.S.O. 1990, c. F.3, s. 29; 1999, c. 6, s. 25 (2); 2005, c. 5, s. 27 (4-6).

What about changing the locks, then hiring someone to watch as the woman breaks in somehow, and call the cops on her for breaking and entering, since it's not her house?

SOMETHING must be done.

yes. And that something is following the rule of law.

Seven years seems extreme. But, I wager there was a good reason for picking that number.

Seven is a lucky number? :p

yes. And that something is following the rule of law.

I point out that he'd not be breaking the law by doing what I described. Well, as far as I know.

Wow, that's a very loose definition of 'common law'; I had always thought (before studying Family Law) that it was a year of living together and not just dating. It was very contextual...living together created a rebuttable presumption of a commonlaw relationship, which was sort of silly, and you could also live apart and show an intention to be commonlaw. I think this new legislation is a lot clearer, the requirements are more obvious, and you can't so easily find yourself with legal responsibilities (and rights) that you didn't necessarily intend.

Oh and thanks for the link. :) I read through the legislation. It's interesting to see how other provinces handle common law relationships. We're not even supposed to say 'commonlaw relationship' anymore, but it's what people understand. You can have an AIR with a roommate, a friend, or even a relative, all in non-sexual circumstances...it's really quite interesting.

The case-law, however, really confuses the issue of AIR versus 'commonlaw marriage'. Even though the Family Act doesn't apply to non-married couples, certain aspects of this legislation have been read into those relationships that wouldn't apply to other forms of AIRs. The federal Divorce Act also should not apply at all to non-married couples, but has applied in some circumstances. Lawyers will still insist that commonlaw marriage does exist in Alberta, despite the AIR. It's a bizarre area.



I would hope so, however, there was nothing that indicated that. Additionally, it seems her mother was in the city, so why would she insist on remaining when she might have been able to return to her mother's home? For all we know, the mother sold her home and moved in. Who knows?


Of course, I wouldn't expect such responsible journalism from the Sun. It would have been nice to see if that question had been answered.

Here's a hypothetical...

The courts say she has 30 days to move out. Her time expires and she refuses to leave. At this point, as she has been order, her presence would be deemed trespassing. Wouldn't the police have to act then? I believe it's up to the sherrifs to remove her, once there has been an eviction order, not the police. Of course, she could possibly extend her stay with an appeal.

What about changing the locks, then hiring someone to watch as the woman breaks in somehow, and call the cops on her for breaking and entering, since it's not her house?

SOMETHING must be done.

I've already explained what legal avenues he has to seek a remedy in this case.

If you insist on looking for ridiculous ways to get around that, have fun.

I've already explained what legal avenues he has to seek a remedy in this case.

If you insist on looking for ridiculous ways to get around that, have fun.

Well, I'm looking for LEGAL ridiculous ways to get around that, yes. I strongly believe in fighting "ridiculous" with "ridiculous", just as "reasonable" is fought with "reasonable".

Neesika, quick question:

If the case is as cut and dried as it appears, and she is removed from his home, can he then sue her for the time she spent occupying his residence and preventing him from using it?

It seems like, if he has to stay in a hotel or rent another apartment when he was already making payments on that home that he should be able to get compensation for it.

Or, at the very least, compensation for any mortgage payments he might have made while she was still living there and he was unable to use it.

Neesika, quick question:

If the case is as cut and dried as it appears, and she is removed from his home, can he then sue her for the time she spent occupying his residence and preventing him from using it?

It seems like, if he has to stay in a hotel or rent another apartment when he was already making payments on that home that he should be able to get compensation for it.

Or, at the very least, compensation for any mortgage payments he might have made while she was still living there and he was unable to use it.

That might be kind of complicated. If it was determined that she did not have a legal right to be there, it would make her a trespasser, and he could sue for damages incident to her trespass.

On the other hand, he wouldn't have been refused entry into the home if not for his own bad acts.

That might be kind of complicated. If it was determined that she did not have a legal right to be there, it would make her a trespasser, and he could sue for damages incident to her trespass.

On the other hand, he wouldn't have been refused entry into the home if not for his own bad acts.

In most of these cases, neither party has a lot of cash laying around. It's rather pointless to fight in court for recompense that neither can afford to pay.

Not to mention how much lawyers cost just to engage in extra griefing.

Neesika, quick question:

If the case is as cut and dried as it appears, and she is removed from his home, can he then sue her for the time she spent occupying his residence and preventing him from using it?

It seems like, if he has to stay in a hotel or rent another apartment when he was already making payments on that home that he should be able to get compensation for it.

Or, at the very least, compensation for any mortgage payments he might have made while she was still living there and he was unable to use it.

He can try it, though as Neo Art pointed out, his own criminal act prevented him from living in the house, so that's going to work against him.

As well, she has been paying bills. If she has kept records of that, including say anything she chipped in for repairs, food, etc, that would be subtracted by anything she might owe him.

Most likely he'd lose more going to court than what he could possibly collect from her in any judgment he'd pursue to get back at her.

Seven years seems extreme. But, I wager there was a good reason for picking that number. It's actually three years here in Ontario.
probably to avoid people who are just rooming together... :tongue:

In most of these cases, neither party has a lot of cash laying around. It's rather pointless to fight in court for recompense that neither can afford to pay.

Not to mention how much lawyers cost just to engage in extra griefing.

Exactly.

He's going to have to go to court it seems, to get her out. If she is a bitch about it, she could end up paying some of his court costs at the end of it. His assault on her is not going to be looked upon favourably...the behaviour of the parties to a civil action WILL be judged when exercising judicial discretion in terms of awarding costs...so if he keeps his nose clean from now on, it will only work in his favour.

Going beyond that is going to be a zero sum game. Get her out, learn from your mistakes, move on.

That might be kind of complicated. If it was determined that she did not have a legal right to be there, it would make her a trespasser, and he could sue for damages incident to her trespass.

On the other hand, he wouldn't have been refused entry into the home if not for his own bad acts.

Granted of course that his bad actions have definitely inflamed the situation.

However, if, as it appears, she has no legal right to be there, and is in fact occupying his residence against his wishes (and against the law), isn't there some sort of legal recourse for him?

I mean, if for instance, I came to visit you as a friend, and I was going to stay for a couple days. I then stayed for 3 months. Meanwhile, you hit me again, but I said it was nonconsensual this time, and I accused you of assault. You were told to stay 5 blocks from me at all times, but I never left a 1 block radius of your home.

You are being denied use of your home because of my presence which you can legally not get near.

I would just think that the law would grant you compensation for A) The cost of your home (where I was living) or B) The cost of living wherever it is you are now living in lieu of home.

Exactly.

He's going to have to go to court it seems, to get her out. If she is a bitch about it, she could end up paying some of his court costs at the end of it. His assault on her is not going to be looked upon favourably...the behaviour of the parties to a civil action WILL be judged when exercising judicial discretion in terms of awarding costs...so if he keeps his nose clean from now on, it will only work in his favour.

Going beyond that is going to be a zero sum game. Get her out, learn from your mistakes, move on.

which, I think, is all he wants to do... :p

The default position is not going to be 'get out of the house until you can prove you have a reason to be there'. She's there, the kids are there, the court is going to let the default be 'they can stay until a case is made that they should not be there'.


An excellent point.

Granted of course that his bad actions have definitely inflamed the situation.

However, if, as it appears, she has no legal right to be there, and is in fact occupying his residence against his wishes (and against the law), isn't there some sort of legal recourse for him?

I mean, if for instance, I came to visit you as a friend, and I was going to stay for a couple days. I then stayed for 3 months. Meanwhile, you hit me again, but I said it was nonconsensual this time, and I accused you of assault. You were told to stay 5 blocks from me at all times, but I never left a 1 block radius of your home.

You are being denied use of your home because of my presence which you can legally not get near.

I would just think that the law would grant you compensation for A) The cost of your home (where I was living) or B) The cost of living wherever it is you are now living in lieu of home.

That's my impulse, however, again, I think it might be more complicated, if there was some sort of common law status, then she might well have the legal right to be there, until he legally disolves that union, at which point she won't. But until then she does, and he doesn't, due to his bad acts.

Like I said, it depends on whether she's a trespasser with no legal right ot be there, of if she does have a legal right to be there.

That's my impulse, however, again, I think it might be more complicated, if there was some sort of common law status, then she might well have the legal right to be there, until he legally disolves that union, at which point she won't. But until then she does, and he doesn't, due to his bad acts.

Like I said, it depends on whether she's a trespasser with no legal right ot be there, of if she does have a legal right to be there.

Clear as mud. :p

Clear as mud. :p

welcome to the law :p

If you insist on looking for ridiculous ways to get around that, have fun.

but it's fun to dream... right?

but it's fun to dream... right?

*Shrugs*

Look, I'm looking for quick legal ways to screw her over in ridiculous ways.

Granted of course that his bad actions have definitely inflamed the situation.

However, if, as it appears, she has no legal right to be there,
He invited her to live with him. That is her legal right to be there. He asked her to leave...getting someone into your house is a lot easier than getting them out because once they are there, they do actually have some rights, however limited they may be in this specific case.


and is in fact occupying his residence against his wishes (and against the law), isn't there some sort of legal recourse for him? Yes. He has to apply to get her evicted. Which he has been instructed to do. That's a civil matter. He is not allowed to use force to get her out...the law is VERY clear on that.

I mean, if for instance, I came to visit you as a friend, and I was going to stay for a couple days. I then stayed for 3 months. Meanwhile, you hit me again, but I said it was nonconsensual this time, and I accused you of assault. You were told to stay 5 blocks from me at all times, but I never left a 1 block radius of your home.

You are being denied use of your home because of my presence which you can legally not get near.

I would just think that the law would grant you compensation for A) The cost of your home (where I was living) or B) The cost of living wherever it is you are now living in lieu of home.
It's really going to depend on the situation. Costs are discretional. He invited her to live with him, and did so for 8 months. Did he just get pissed off one night when she farted during supper and tell her to gtfo? Should he be able, as the owner of the home, be able to at any second kick her out? That seems unreasonable. Should he be able to get her out at all? Yes...but there should be some oversight to figure out what the actual situation was, and what should be done about it.

In your hypothetical, I'd argue that if you were living with me for 3 months, we would have an implied subletting agreement as between us. If I let you stay that long, my implied consent would estop me from from claiming that the presumption should be that no such agreement exists. Had I not wanted you there that long, I should have gotten you out immediately.

I'm not going to get into all the possible ways in which damages could be awarded depending on the hypothetical...it's too contextual. Can the man in THIS situation get damages? It's possible...but it's probably going to cost more to get them, (and might wind up being impossible to enforce the monetary judgment against her anyway) than it's worth.

welcome to the law :p

Where the ONLY certain answer is....maybe?

Clear as mud. :p

*jumps in*

I'm not going to get into all the possible ways in which damages could be awarded depending on the hypothetical...it's too contextual. Can the man in THIS situation get damages? It's possible...but it's probably going to cost more to get them, (and might wind up being impossible to enforce the monetary judgment against her anyway) than it's worth.

Noted.


I'm disappointed that no one picked up on my sexual innuendo...

The moral of the story is, never invite a vampire into your home. Also, eat more garlic.

She should be given a set period of time to vacate his house.

Where the ONLY certain answer is....maybe?

The only certain answer is "this is my billing rate, and I'll need a deposit of 20,000 dollars in order to take your case..."

The moral of the story is, never invite a vampire into your home. Also, eat more garlic.

What, don't fuck the crazy?

Noted.


I'm disappointed that no one picked up on my sexual innuendo...

"Meanwhile, you hit me again, but I said it was nonconsensual this time..."

I didn't want to pull in the even more complicated issue of what kind of relationship this was.

"Meanwhile, you hit me again, but I said it was nonconsensual this time..."

I didn't want to pull in the even more complicated issue of what kind of relationship this was.

You had to go back and read it again didn't you. :(

Noted.


I'm disappointed that no one picked up on my sexual innuendo...

I picked up on it, but was too disturbed by that mental image to comment upon it. :p

You had to go back and read it again didn't you. :(

No, I noticed it the first time, but I was in serious lawyer mode and excluded it as non-relevant/too problematic to the hypothetical.

Where the ONLY certain answer is....maybe?

*sigh* student. You have a long way to go. The only answer is "it depends".

I picked up on it, but was too disturbed by that mental image to comment upon it. :p

Neo Art on Galloism...doesn't get you hawt?

I picked up on it, but was too disturbed by that mental image to comment upon it. :p

My work is done! *scurries out of the thread*

*sigh* student. You have a long way to go. The only answer is "it depends".

Hahahahahhaa...suck.

I picked up on it, but was too disturbed by that mental image to comment upon it. :p

I'm amazed that, given the audience, nobody commented on it sooner.

Hahahahahhaa...suck.

well...if you're asking nicely...

Ah, Wilgrove's here. Quick, Sin, Poli, let's start talking about a three way!

Neo Art on Galloism...doesn't get you hawt?

I think the worst part was that it was Neo Art on Galloism-who-is-somehow-his-girlfriend. :tongue:

I think the worst part was that it was Neo Art on Galloism-who-is-somehow-his-girlfriend. :tongue:

"First I glue this wig to your head, and then I make love to your face."

Anybody? Anybody?

Ah, Wilgrove's here. Quick, Sin, Poli, let's start talking about a three way!

Ahahaha.

*gets the handcuffs* :wink:

well...if you're asking nicely...

>.>

<.<

Suck, please?

*sets up the multi angle cameras*

Ahahaha.

*gets the handcuffs* :wink:

On that note, I've threadjacked my own thread. I win the game.

>.>

<.<

Suck, please?

although I have a fondness for Brazilians, I fear you don't count.

"First I glue this wig to your head, and then I make love to your face."

Anybody? Anybody?

I'm not gay if it's rape.

although I have a fondness for Brazilians, I fear you don't count.

That was cold. :p