Don't know the details of the trial so that I can not explain why the judge did what he did.
To put everything rationally, though, I could think of the following reason:
1. It is not important whether you had a lease or not. Once you take the $1145, the judge could reasonably believe that a new lease was formed, because he had already declared that the first lease was void. Furthermore, a new lease can be evidenced by the tenant's occupation. Unless you have strong evidence to show that there was no new contract, and the $1145 was for the unpaid rent of the first lease, the judge has discretion to treat it as rent of a new lease.
2. If the judge separated what the mother paid and what the tenant paid, that would actually work against you. If the mother paid the debt on behalf of her daughter, then you need a written document to satisfy statute of frauds because the mother was acting like a surety for her daughter. Without anything in writing, the judge knew it would violate the statute of frauds so that he MUST treat the $1145 as the rent for the new lease.
3. If the judge decided that you had a new lease, then you must start another action to evict the holdover tenant. That is why he said you must start anew. The tenant did not pay for September so that she is a tenant in sufferance so that you MUST elect to evict her or renew a periodic lease with her. The key is that you MUST ELECT. Your filing an action to evict is an election. However, the tenant is holding over from the NEW lease, not the first lease, which was void, so that your previous action has no effect. You have to file an action again.
4. Don't believe that people won't lie in court. The problem is how to convince the judge. I don't have to mention the famous football star to convince you on this. Evidence is the key.
5. Under common law you can go in the house right to take possession. Modernly, some courts allow this if you can do it peacefully. Majority will ask you to evict the holdover tenant. You need to go there to make sure the tenant is gone and demand she to move out if not. For strangers you can call the police for trespass. Even though you don't have possession right now, most courts will allow you to go in for purposes of repair, inspection, and such. If the tenant did some damage, you need to take pictures and grab a witness if you can and sue her for waste, if necessary.
To put everything rationally, though, I could think of the following reason:
1. It is not important whether you had a lease or not. Once you take the $1145, the judge could reasonably believe that a new lease was formed, because he had already declared that the first lease was void. Furthermore, a new lease can be evidenced by the tenant's occupation. Unless you have strong evidence to show that there was no new contract, and the $1145 was for the unpaid rent of the first lease, the judge has discretion to treat it as rent of a new lease.
2. If the judge separated what the mother paid and what the tenant paid, that would actually work against you. If the mother paid the debt on behalf of her daughter, then you need a written document to satisfy statute of frauds because the mother was acting like a surety for her daughter. Without anything in writing, the judge knew it would violate the statute of frauds so that he MUST treat the $1145 as the rent for the new lease.
3. If the judge decided that you had a new lease, then you must start another action to evict the holdover tenant. That is why he said you must start anew. The tenant did not pay for September so that she is a tenant in sufferance so that you MUST elect to evict her or renew a periodic lease with her. The key is that you MUST ELECT. Your filing an action to evict is an election. However, the tenant is holding over from the NEW lease, not the first lease, which was void, so that your previous action has no effect. You have to file an action again.
4. Don't believe that people won't lie in court. The problem is how to convince the judge. I don't have to mention the famous football star to convince you on this. Evidence is the key.
5. Under common law you can go in the house right to take possession. Modernly, some courts allow this if you can do it peacefully. Majority will ask you to evict the holdover tenant. You need to go there to make sure the tenant is gone and demand she to move out if not. For strangers you can call the police for trespass. Even though you don't have possession right now, most courts will allow you to go in for purposes of repair, inspection, and such. If the tenant did some damage, you need to take pictures and grab a witness if you can and sue her for waste, if necessary.
选择“Disable on www.wenxuecity.com”
选择“don't run on pages on this domain”
