How JustAnswer Works:
  • Ask an Expert
    Experts are full of valuable knowledge and are ready to help with any question. Credentials confirmed by a Fortune 500 verification firm.
  • Get a Professional Answer
    Via email, text message, or notification as you wait on our site. Ask follow up questions if you need to.
  • 100% Satisfaction Guarantee
    Rate the answer you receive.
Ask Your Own Question, Lawyer
Category: California Employment Law
Satisfied Customers: 73
Experience:  Sworn to the California Bar in 2011. Former staff editor at The New York Times Co. and seasoned news professional of 20 years experience in the U.S. and abroad.
Type Your California Employment Law Question Here... is online now
A new question is answered every 9 seconds

We have 6 acres and have allowed an elderly gentleman to

Customer Question

Hi I'm Laura. We have 6 acres and have allowed an elderly gentleman to live in his trailer on our property for a number of years. We don't charge him as he only has social security. He watches the property when we are away and feeds the dog. We have a nice relationship. We do not have a legal agreement. Should we?
Submitted: 1 year ago.
Category: California Employment Law
Expert: replied 1 year ago.

Hi Laura -- I'm Scott!

First, I have to say that lawyers in this forum cannot provide specific legal advice to specific legal matters, because no lawyer client relation exists. We can only talk about the law generally.

But hopefully I can help by providing some perspective on landlord-tenant relations in similar circumstances as described.

Tenants need not pay rent to be considered tenants with respect to the law.

And tenancies need not be in writing unless there is a specified term for a year or longer.

Tenants who have no written or oral lease agreement with a landlord fall into one of two categories:

tenant at will = this is a tenent who remained in possession after the original lease term expired, but with the consent of the landlord and generally under the terms of the original agreement except for the time term, and the tenant continues to pay the periodic rent -- weekly, monthly, annally, or whatever).

This is usually what happens at apartments after the lease expires, where most standard lease indicate that after the original term the tenancy is "month-to-month" unless a new lease is formed.

This "tenancy at will" can be terminated at will by either party for any reason or no reason at all, with due notice as described in the original agreement (in a monthly payment situation, notice would be 30 days; in a gratuitous situation it would be "reasonable notice").

tenant at suffrance = is a tenant in possession of a premises entirely at forbearance of -- or at the sufferance of -- the landlord. The tenancy can be terminated by either party at any time for any reason or no reason at all, and with notice or without notice. In a gratuitous tenancy situation, no notice whatsoever is legally required.

Because both these tenancies require the landlord's permission, there is no chance the tenant can seek legal title to the premises under the theory of adverse possession.

A legal agreement may shade existing relations, even if merely describes what currently exists; and if it adds conditions for each party, then it may color the relationship even more.

If parties are content in their informal, personal relations, the question is whether either feels the need for what "protection" formalization brings weighed against any shadows that might be cast over the relationship.

In a gratuitous tenancy at sufferance, even a notice agreement might be more obligation than either party wants to commit to.

It comes down to what parties want and are comfortable with.

I hope you found some this helpful in adding perspective: If so, I would greatly appreciate acceptance & a positive rating! thanks! scott