Posted on 07/11/2002 9:39:38 AM PDT by TheOtherOne
Women Who Run Topless Car Wash in Liberal Idaho College City Are Evicted From Communal Home
Published: Jul 11, 2002
![]() |
|
City officers served trespassing notices on five of the 11 residents Wednesday, threatening arrest if they returned, Police Chief Dan Weaver said. The residents do not have a lease and not subject to formal eviction procedures, he said.
The action came at the behest of landlords David and Sis Clift, who said the residents were not paying rent.
"This has nothing to do with the toplessness," David Clift said.
But Daisy Mace, the 22-year-old woman leading the carwash, said rent has been paid and they were kicked out because of neighbors' complaints.
Clift said the person at the house responsible for paying him the entire rent bill reported the five tenants had not paid their share for July. He also said complaints have cropped up since news reports of the sudsy spectacle surfaced.
Moscow, home of the University of Idaho, is a liberal anomaly in a staid state. Still, the City Council is trying to enact a law that would prevent future topless car washes. The proposed indecent exposure ordinance would replace one the courts voided three years ago because it was too vague.
The car wash had been open for business about five times in the past month. Patrons were asked only for donations, with most paying from $15 to $20, Mace said.
AP-ES-07-11-02 1203EDT
Thank goodness!! Ah, I'm thinking about investing in rental property in Moscow, Idaho, any advice?;^)
In most states, if you are a sub-lettor, you have a contract right between you and the person on the lease. If you fail to pay, the leasor may recover from the leasee. (The leasee's right of recovery is against the sub-lettor)
If the lease is paid in full to the landlord by the leasee, it seems the action for removal would have to come by the leasee. By contract, he or she has the right of occupancy under the lease. Contrary to Mamaduck's post, the owner can't just through people out for being perverts -- unless it's in the lease.
In this case, as I read it, the five were simply not on any lease. Thus, they had no right of occupancy. Accordingly, the landlord could enforce the terms of the lease, which undoubtedly provide for a number of named tenants. It probably also restricts how many people can stay, and for how long.
Flip-side is this. If the landlord knew they were present, and he allowed them to stay, he may have waived his right to enforce any occupancy provisions. The five booted out may have acquired some right of occupancy. This is case is strange though (for many reasons), in that their failure was in paying the "July" rent. It seems to me that was probably due on the July 1, with at least a 10 day grace period. It seems awfully fast for an eviction action through the state.
Clearly, these five were not lease-holders in any sense of the word. Thus, the City was able to use a simple trespass action to remove them. (Again, depending on state landlord-tenant law, they may have acquired some right of occupancy by staying, with the knowledge of the landlord, and paying rent. If so, they could have an action for a right of re-entry. Landlord-tenant law is different from state-to-state. Many soouthern and western states vest great rights in the landlords, while many eastern states provide many remedies and rights to tenants and even squaters.
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.