Posted on 06/26/2014 6:31:20 PM PDT by dennisw
Meet the 'nightmare nanny' squatting in family's home after refusing to work who is now threatening to kick THEM out of their own house
Diane Stretton, 64, is squatting in the home of Marcella and Ralph Bracamonte in Upland, California Fell ill and began refusing to work according to the Bracamonte's Police have said that Stretton was invited into the home and has established residency
An exasperated California family is in the extraordinary position of being unable to evict their live-in nanny who is refusing to work and refusing to leave their home.
Marcella Bracamonte, 31, claims that nanny, Diane Stretton, 64, is threatening to sue her family for wrongful dismissal and abuse of the elderly and incredibly, has told them she wants them out of their own house daily between 8am and 8pm.
Upland resident, Bracamonte, and her husband Ralph, hired Stretton on March 4 using Craigslist to help with their three children, ages 11, four and one, but when they tried to evict her police told them they could do nothing.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
Maybe she can say the magic word - “amnesty” - and live free in Nancy Pelosi’s home instead. These people don’t want her in their home. Any decent person would move out at the earliest opportunity, not fight to stay. I have no pity for her.
Yep — 3 kids and the princess needed a nanny.
“Put her stuff in the front yard and change the locks.”
How about “Put her stuffed in the front yard and change the locks”? Would that work better?
Next year I’m planting a Cox’s Orange Pippen in honor of Bartelby.
A stay at home mom that requires a nanny.
&&&
Yeah, sign of the times. Pathetic generation of parents.
+1
In California you do not need to file an unlawful detainer for a single lodger:
“single family lodger tenant-landlord relationship. A homeowner who rents a room to one tenant in his or her house, and who continues to live in the house, is subject to this rule, which is described in California Civil Code Section 1946.5. The most important difference is that a homeowner who has a single family lodger need only give a notice of termination to the lodger equal to the length of the rental payment period, regardless of the length of the tenancy. For example, if the rent is paid monthly, the notice would be a 30-day notice. This rule is different from the rule applicable to any other month-to-month tenant, who is entitled to 60 days’ notice after being a tenant for more than one year, regardless of the rental payment period.
Also, the single family lodger is potentially an exception to the usual rule in California that requires a landlord to use the unlawful detainer process in Superior Court to evict a tenant after the tenancy has been terminated. Under Section 1946.5, a single family lodger who does not leave after a 30-day notice of termination expires becomes a trespasser, and in theory can be removed by the police without requiring the landlord to complete the unlawful detainer process. However, many local police departments have decided as a matter of policy not to become involved in removing single family lodgers, so a homeowner would need to check the local police policy before relying on this doctrine.”
Not judging, just questioning their intelligence for using Craigslist to hire an insane woman as their nanny, have her live in their home and expose her to their children, all while never checking applicable laws.
The insurance would go to the nanny.
How? She’s not even a renter. Dang it if that’s true.
Then the homeowners need to get a real estate lawyer and get this whacko evicted asap. Since she’s not a renter they should cut the power, don’t buy groceries and live there until the whacko leaves. Don’t make it comfortable for her.
It is definitely one of the greatest short stories of all time.
On a tangent this is one reason you DO NOT cohabitate with someone you are dating. Especially with California’s ridiculous residency laws. That being said.
The way to deal with this is to cut off ALL services to the house. No electricity, no water, no sewer, no gas, no trash, no cable. The goal is to make the living situation so terrible she will leave voluntarily. If California will not legally let you throw the B I Itch to the curb then remove ALL the furniture. The SECOND this B I itch attempts damaging the property in retaliation than you can throw a restraining order on her and press charges for vandalism. You must go through the COUNTY sheriff. Not the city police.
Leykis 101
http://www.trulia.com/homes/California/Upland/sold/6479915-1341-N-Vallejo-Way-Upland-CA-91786
Yep, not far away.
In California (and likely in almost every state), you cannot simply cut off the utilities. A molestation claim by one of the kids might be interesting.
This is quite a problem for them. They will have to evict her, but she is going to claim wrongful termination. It will cost them thousands and thousands of dollars in court. Path of least resistance —— pay her to leave. If she does a bankruptcy, it will be even more of a mess for them.
Unfortunately, she has an employment claim of some kind. It is more complicated than being a single lodger.
If this happened to me as a marrired parent I would use very unorthodox methods to make her as uncomfortable as possible. They are doing right thing to make this a national story, with her picture to warn others.Expect heavy retaliation once they do throw her out.
Agreed. As soon as she’s well, out she goes!
no... i know it is not fair, but that is illegal... it would make their situation worse... they need to hire a lawyer...
yes... they are in quite a pickle... this nanny knows the system... she knows how to use it... she knows what she is doing...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.