Talk:Eviction/Archive 1

Old talk

Since mobilehome eviction laws in California are quite different, I've added a note on that. Also, while rent control laws may prohibit evasive or retaliatory evictions, my experience (as San Jose's rent control administrator for 17 years) has been that the most substantial change is the addition of just cause requirements. Not all of the 13 California jurisdictions that have rent control also have just cause. Landlords and tenants are best served by checking the local law on that point. -- LarryB {{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}

June 2006

Edits made by unregistered user June 12 are thoughtful but not accurate. For example, eviction may be completed without court proceedings through "self help" methods. Also for style purposes, we should not introduce California specific references in the second paragraph. Therefore I revert the entry but encourage the author to make more discrete improvements. Castellanet 15:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

July 2006

I made some corrections, mostly to clarify the distinction between eviction, a legislatively-enacted remedy, and distress for rent. I agree that state-specific sections are undesirable here, as fifty separate subheadings will confuse the article considerably. Findlaw is a better resource for that sort of thing.

Also, I believe the remedy of distress for rent is actually illegal in every state, but I put most states, as I have not done the research. Pehaps a more skillful Googler can correct that, if necessary.

August 2006

With organization and a proper table of contents, I don't see why processes for different states/countries/provinces couldn't be listed. It could make for a very interesting resource. I always wanted to know what the eviction process is in Ecuador for instance! --Drouillm 07:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

An interesting thought, but something better suited to another place. Perhaps a Legal Wiki? In any case, I think we should strip out location specific procedures and replace it with a more general description. A section of links to legal websites in various states and countries would also be nice. Kerowyn ^{Leave a note} 00:23, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Recent reverts - US Eviction Law

Why are people reverting my changes? This article is about Eviction, not US Eviction Law and Wikipedia IS NOT any kind of reference for US Eviction Law! There's a legal wiki for that.

IF people want to include US content, they should put it in a separate article, in the discussion page, or include other countries too - perhaps in the form of a table comparing appropriate laws.

The extra content is so inappropriate and unrelated - Wikipedia says 'Be bold' - so I was. I can't understand why anyone would want the extra content in there. Eviction is not an American concept, the article might also appropriately cover displacement of peoples and other topics relating to the topic of eviction.

I'm removing the out-of-place content again. Kierenj 09:26, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

To outright delete detailed content original to wikipedia is a very bad editing practice imo. Obscenities and vandalism get deleted. Why delete detailed process descriptions with attached diagrams? Move it if you think it would work better elsewhere. But before that even, discuss it as someone else suggested before you hack off 80% of the article. By the way, if we wanted to have no reference to US law, we would have to remove even more content then what you deleted. Only a few sentences would remain legit.Drouillm 18:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Kierenj mentions the "be bold" maxim, however as the article mentions, deleting large amounts of content runs afoul of the companion guideline "... but don't be reckless!" Castellanet 19:28, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. Openly I think the article is horrendous with all of this stuff in. I don't see how anyone would want it in there, or would have a case for it being in there. I accept moving it might be alot better, but the content simply not being there is so much better than the alternative. Is it being reverted because it deserves to be there, or simply as 'punishment' for me deleting it? I can't see a case for the first 213.235.24.170 15:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC) (This was me - Kierenj 10:11, 16 October 2006 (UTC))

I already said why I reverted. Not as "punishment" or trying to start a fight, just that I have a big problem with outright deletion of large amounts of content (quality content too imo). Instead of deletion, where can you move it?Drouillm 20:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I suggested that the content doesn't belong on wikipedia, no matter how well-written. Does anyone disagree? A description of the legal process of eviction, specific to the USA on wikipedia? I'd prefer to move it to the abyss. 194.70.193.179 11:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm serious. What in this article deserves to stay in Wikipedia? "Under California law...". We're not in California. We're looking for an Encyclopedia article about eviction. 194.70.193.179 14:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Since no-one responded (does anyone disagree / what deserves to stay), I'm going to take another crack at it later today. Kierenj 06:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree to it being moved. I don't agree to the content being outright deleted. Drouillm 21:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Well then for christ's sake move it somewhere, suggest where it should be moved to, or leave it alone (deleted). I'll ask again, why do you think Wikipedia is better off with the content in this article? Could you please tell me where this content belongs on Wikipedia? Kierenj 08:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I've been checking out Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution. The page has general rules like "Do not simply revert changes in a dispute", "The Three Revert Rule forbids the use of reverts in repetitive succession" and "improve the edit, rather than reverting it". Under the advice of the page I'm posting under [[Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal]. Kierenj 13:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that country-specific information belongs into a seperate section. Deleting it isn't good. -- 62.156.63.180 (talk) 17:50, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

This article

...is a mess. I'm gonna clean it up in the next couple of days, using my old textbook (and whatever else I can find) as a source. The article should be a general overview of the eviction process, and some of the history behind why those protections are in place. Right now, it's not. It's overly complicated, focus upon two specific juristictions, and comes dangerously close to giving legal advice (something only an attourney should do).

If someone wants to save the sections on British Colombia or California, I would suggest moving them to thier own article, or finding the source of those sections and linking to it. Otherwise, they'll probably be reduced to one or two sentences (if you want to make a case for most or all of the content staying in, go for it, but go get the source first. One of my goals is to get rid of the unsourced statements). I think the image is a good one, though, unless anyone has a better one.

Anyone else have any feedback? --UsaSatsui 01:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm inexperienced with wikipedia and don't know how some of the technical details work. How do you put the BC eviction section in it's own article for instance? The eviction process information basically comes out of the BC Residential Tenancy Act. Do whatever is better I guess, though I just feel it's a shame to outright delete something that is factually correct and not vandalism, etc.Drouillm 05:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Let me know if you want my help with the technical issues of creating a new article. --A. B. ^(talk) 14:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Just because something is factually correct doesn't mean it belongs in an article. But anyway. If you wanted to move it, here is what you do. First, you create the page. In this case, maybe call it Eviction law in British Columbia, Canada (to create the page under that name, just click the link). Then copy/paste the section over to there. Finally, delete it on this page and leave a wikilink to it. Remember when you create the new page to include the sources at the end, either a link or a footnote (check out WP:CITE for more info on citing your work). To create internal or external links, use the buttons up at the top of the edit window. If you're going to do that, then I'll probably move the California section to it's own page too, and then maybe some other people will look up thier local procedures and make more pages. --UsaSatsui 05:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

"Just because something is factually correct doesn't mean it belongs in an article." Alright, but I'm not saying that. My problem was with wiping factually correct and original content completely off wikipedia. In any event I'll look into moving that BC specific content. Drouillm 06:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The material can easily be resurrected -- just click on the "history" tab at the top of the article's page, select the article version you want, copy the desired content and paste into your new article. --A. B. ^(talk) 13:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion: I agree that specific laws may overwhelm this page, so I agree with splitting them off. I think, however, that specific pages for each state/province may not be as helpful as doing it by country, with sections for each state or province. It also makes it easier to link from here; imagine a whole section of nothing but links to "Eviction law in New Soth Wales" (Australia: 8 states & mainland territories), "Eviction law in Alabama" (U.S.: 50 states + some territories), etc. Also, I've found that articles on a specific law in a specific state tend to be less visited with the result that vandalism and spamm may last longer. Finally, an article that specific is deletion-bait. So I suggest starting with "Eviction law in Canada".

I recommend that to head off deletion and/or article merger discussions, any new articles reference this discussion on their talk pages when created. --A. B. ^(talk) 13:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

A good idea, but the problem is eviction laws -are- different in all 50 states, at least. Other countries may be more universal. I'm a bit skeptical about the idea...I don't like the idea of people using Wikipedia to find legal advice. I'll try and get started on this tonight after dinner. If my wife lets me. :) --UsaSatsui 00:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

By the way, showing the process for various different states/provinces/countries isn't about providing legal advice. It is meant to compare how eviction is carried out in different areas. It would be interesting to know if a landlord is entitled to immediately and personally remove a tenant and his belongings from a property if the rent is a day late in Ecuador (if that were the case). It is interesting to know that California eviction process might involve a jury trial whereas that is utterly not the case in Canada. For these reasons I believe it should be permitted, if not encouraged, for the processes of eviction to be added to wikipedia. I agree that each process should have it's own article though. Drouillm 04:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Oooo, right, it's not a "trial", it's a "hearing". You don't get a jury here in California (though I think you do in some places). I'll look to see if that's a trend and clarify it. Thanks. And I certainly hope you're not waiting for me to write up all these seperate articles. We've shown you how to do it, we're offered our help, get to it. I'm not going to do it since I don't think it's a good idea, but I don't think it's against the rules around here to do so, so go ahead. UsaSatsui 16:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm just suggesting ideas on how to expand the article for others to read. I don't know what you are talking about re: California - that eviction flow chart you posted even states there is a trial and that a jury could be involved. How you got the idea that I expected you to write those separate articles is beyond me. Cool it. In the meantime, someone needs to get around to fix the numerous typos and grammatical errors in the new article you created. Drouillm 20:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Most important, forgot to say -- good job redoing the article! :)Drouillm 20:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Be Bold, amigo. Or, wait, and I'll fix it eventually.  :) Funny, I didn't get a trial...UsaSatsui 22:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Complete rewrite (but still needs work)

Okay, I've started. I've got the process outlined, and folded in a couple of other article that were floating around out there such as Just cause eviction controls and Notice to Quit. I was also thinking of merging in Tenant rights.

I was unable to find my textbook but found some excellent websites that help me through it (expecially Nolo), I left the links at the bottom. I'm a little skeptical about that third one, though. If someone could help me turn them into actual sources, I'd aprreciate the heck out of it. Also, I know for a fact that what I did could be better. I welcome improvement.

Unfortunately, the BC and CA sections went, though I did use the info in them on my rewrite. There was nothing in those particular juristictions that really stood out as "different" enough from the main process (except maybe the shrink-wrap and dump thing). If you can come up with something particularly unusual or quirky for them or anywhere else, add it, but I wouldn't add in anything specific unless it's absolutely unique to that area.

I'll work on the history later on. I think it's important because it wasn't too long ago a landlord could just drop your stuff on the curb and lock the doors. I found this GREAT link over at Tenant rights [1] that looks helpful. If anyone has anything else they can give me to look at, I'd love that too, I'd EXPECIALLY like to track down a court case. UsaSatsui 20:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

It would be nice to have the BC eviction process and the California one near each other just to show how damn different the process can be. Drouillm 03:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I just didn't see how they were different. Notice, summons, trial, booting out. Only one I really saw was 10 days vs 3 days. UsaSatsui 04:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Nice job cleaning this up, it gives a base to start improving whereas the former page was too far out to be a good starting point. There are some problems, but rather than fix them, I'll spend a couple minutes to answer your questions. There is portal for US eviction guidance at [2]. It has links to legal guidance for every state, however I checked Califorinia and Hawaii, where I have litigated, but don't see much good there. A better place for California is [3] There are some great forms in Hawaii at lawhelp.org, (I am biased since I had a hand in writing them) but unfortunately the key one is not on-line. There are thousands of court judicial opinions decided ecases on eviction for free on-line. For example, California has put all of its cases free on-line at [4]. Hope these links get more content written. Castellanet 07:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the links...I'm more looking for a landmark case that changed the rules on tenancy, or some info on where the tenant rights got started. --UsaSatsui 22:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Ahhh, I see, you should write up Green v. Superior Court of San Francisco (1974) 10 Cal. 3d 616, which you can find at that link #4 I gave above. The California Supreme Court adopted the implied warranty of habitability doctrine therein, making it a land mark case. The opinion gives the history going all the way back to Olde English common law, to modern landlord-tenant relationships, a good history. Adding that case would be a real service to WP. Castellanet 05:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Sweeeeeeeeet. I'll use that as a jumping off point. Thanks. UsaSatsui 16:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

illegal to shut off utilities or change the locks

The article claims that it is illegal for a landlord to take measures such as shutting off utilities or changing the locks, in order to force a tenant to vacate a property. I doubt that this is true in every single jurisdiction of every country in the world, so it should be clarified where such restrictions exist. --Delirium 04:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Any specific examples of where this isn't the case? According to my American Law book (which I finally found, holding u--UsaSatsui 02:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)p my modem.  :) ), this is the case in the US, and I would be absolutely shocked if it weren't true in any other democratic nation. And once again, I'm not looking to create a city-by-city list of every single tweak in the law, but a general overview of the process. --UsaSatsui 05:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Just speculating here, but being prohibited to cut utils/change locks without a formal writ is likely the case in any jurisdiction where they have writtens statute regulating landlord/tenant relations. Perhaps it is not the case in areas where they rely solely on common law. Drouillm 06:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

In Texas, a landlord may cut off electricity if the tenant is delinquent in paying his/her utility bills in the case of submetered apartments, or delinquent in paying his/her rent in the case where utilities are included in the rent. No writ or other intervention of a court is necessary: The only requirement is that the landlord deliver a formal notice to the apartment several days in advance, and be available to receive payments in case the tenant decides to pay. It is true that a landlord cannot cut off utilities of a paid-up tenant in an attempt to make them move, but that's a more narrow prohibition. --Delirium 08:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, but isn't that a case of shutting off utilities because you're not paying the utility bill? That's a different situation. --UsaSatsui 20:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Most of this is dependent on the state that you're in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Natalie oneal (talk • contribs) 20:27, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

It also makes a great deal of difference whether you're talking about a residential eviction (in which all kinds of protections typically come into play) as opposed to an eviction from commercial or industrial property, in which case, typically (again, depending on the jurisdiction) the lease language will control. Xenophon777 (talk) 12:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

eviction

I'm new to contributing; please bear with me. I've read the main article with interest and some impatience, and the talk page with more interest. I'm an attorney, and "eviction" constitutes a very large chunk of my practice, in Indiana and Illinois. I also lecture on the topic to other attorneys in CLE settings. It seems to me (and I plan, once I finish wading through the Wikipedia markup/editing instructions, to add a paragraph along these lines) that the main point behind many of the talk page posts that needs to come out is this: "eviction" and "ejectment" should not be thought to be very precise terms at all, except in a historical setting (e.g., English common law of past centuries) or else with respect to a specific jurisdiction. There simply isn't widespread agreement between jurisdictions as to what these terms mean, let alone as to the procedure (which, I agree, can vary so much from place to place that it should most likely be left out in this context). For example, in Indiana, a non-paying tenant is normally removed from an apartment via ejectment (IC32-30-2) with an additional layer via motion practice called "motion for prejudgment possession" (IC32-30-3) to considerably speed the process. Statute calls this "ejectment," though laypeople and attorneys both commonly refer to the process as "eviction." This is the process in Lake County. Outside Lake County the layer of IC32-30-3 generally isn't used, as the actions are filed in small claims courts. In Illinois an analogous proceeding is called "forcible detainer," a term which is unknown in Indiana, whereas "ejectment" is a completely different procedure more likely used to try title; and "eviction" may refer to something that a landlord has done illegally to remove a tenant by self-help. I don't actually propose putting all of that into the article; however, a few lines cautioning that the terms "eviction" and "ejectment," while generally referring to ways of recovering possession of real estate, are today quite jurisdiction-specific. Anyone needing more precise information about the remedies or their procedures really and truly needs to look in a more specialized reference. Sorry, I know that was wordy. I'll welcome feedback before I actually make an edit. Zajacd01 01:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I see your point. Feel free to edit anything you like. I know there's several terms for the practice ("eviction" is the most commmon one, the others redirect here), but they all amount to the same thing: being kicked out of your apartment. The overview of the process was mainly pulled from Nolo's site, as well as a few charts for specific states. The process isn't uniform across states or even countries, but I'm fairly certain if you're going to be evicted in the English-speaking world, that's the general process you'll follow. Ejectment actually has it's own article.

That's also why I put a link to the legal disclaimer. I don't want anyone using this for legal advice. And if you have something to add about the history, by all means do so. I've been meaning too, but been way too busy. --UsaSatsui 02:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you... I've posted a change along these lines to the article, near the top... Zajacd01 15:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

To me as an English lawyer (non-practising), ejectment is an obsolete term: we now refer to possession proceedings. I would suggest that this article to limited to a discussion of modern proceedings. That on ejectment should deal mainly with the historical process, which was not only used by landlords recovering possession from tenants, but aslo as a fictitious proceeding for resolving disputes as to ownership. There should probably be a more specific cross-reference between the two. Certainly jurisdiction-specific procedural issues are probably not useful here - unless there is something similar in many jurisdictions. Peterkingiron 22:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Again, the problem tends to be that the terms can have widely different meanings across jurisdictions. In some US jurisdictions "eviction" is a legal proceeding. In some others it is itself something illegal. The same problem arises with "ejectment" (which is in current usage and procedure in some US jurisdictions, including both states where I practice) and "forcible detainer." Personally I wouldn't see a benefit to eliminating discussion of where these things came from. I would agree that jurisdiction-specific procedural points aren't useful, if only because they can vary so much from place to place, and there really isn't much of a point to trying to cover all jurisdictions. In my earlier posts here I didn't go so far as suggest eliminating prior discussion in the main article of procedure applicable in some (but not all) jurisdictions; I was a bit less bold in wanting, rather, to add a caveat to readers that there is a wide variation in the content of these terms from place to place, and that the reader shouldn't expect the discussions of modern practice to apply everywhere.

In short, I'd suggest we not eliminate historical references; but I would agree that discussion of jurisdiction-specific procedure should be de-emphasized, unless it's clearly indicated as being included solely as an example. Zajacd01 15:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Germany

The information about eviction law in germany is not correct. An eviction order ("Räumungsurteil") is a court order that can be executed by a marshall and it is not required to address everyone, only the tenant. Also, the landlord is allowed to have spare keys if it is mentioned in the rental agreement. He is not allowed to enter the flat without approval of the tenant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.207.178.203 (talk) 14:11, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

WP:LAW

add to law project Bearian 23:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Blacklisting

I'd suggest that references to blacklisting of evicted tenants be removed. This is really a separate issue, and has little to do with "eviction" itself. There are any number of issues which one might feel have an impact on evictions in general, but which would not thereby be appropriate as parts of this article. Things like debt collection, the FDCPA, or general poverty, "slum-landlord", or economic recessionary cycles all affect evictions, for example, but do not thereby merit being parts of the eviction article itself. I suggest that we excise the sentence "Persons being named in eviction proceedings should be aware that they may be listed on unlawful detainer registries, in other words "blacklisted", and may have difficulty renting in the future." Xenophon777 (talk) 13:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

This sounds like a matter applicable to particular jurisdictions, not generally. It should not appear here. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:42, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Question

if you own a home and the inlaws pay have if the morgage ,Do you have the right to kick them out?when one of the inlaws thinks she owns the place and controls everyone

WP is not a lawyer. You need to consult a lawyer in your own jurisdiction, as the answer may vary from place to place. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:40, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Defacto eviction?

I was victim of a Defacto eviction,No help no legal actions to stop this though I complianed to all I could in La City area! Money and lawyers bought with same still talk the loudest I guest!? ! From a suppossed Rent stablization protected Senior Trailer park too!(meaning tenets had to be over 55 years old) —Preceding unsigned comment added by EdsonAndrejohnson (talk • contribs) 01:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Added short part about UK eviction

Hi, I just put up a page about section 8 notices, which are an eviction process in the UK. I was doing some internal linking research and saw that this article needed a bit more on other countries, so I went ahead and added a short sentence about Section 8 and 21 in the UK. Cheers. Kurt K Hahn (talk) 09:20, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Just cause eviction controls

Just cause eviction controls redirects here, but isn't explained in the article. -- Beland (talk) 19:38, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Forced evictions

I suggest to add a section on that subject.--Reneza (talk) 19:50, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Right to Counsel

In 2017 New York City passed the first Right to Counsel ordinance for tenants facing eviction in the USA. There are now approximately 15 local or state governments that have passed Right to Counsel ordinances. In December 2021 in the midst of a pandemic, Kansas City Missouri passed the first Universal Guaranteed Right to Counsel Ordinance.KCTenants (talk) 16:04, 15 December 2021 (UTC)