01-28-2010, 09:17 AM
Kathy, I'm sorry I was reading and replying to the post in a rush to get to a meeting and thought there was a POA. I was thinking about this and here are some additional thoughts.
Trespass laws and landlord tenant laws often conflict. Each is written from a different viewpoint, the trespass on behalf of the property owner and the landlord tenant on behalf of the tenant. Since they often conflict, Police may go with what they know or what they think is the law.
Although this is a big problem because of the conflicting nature of laws, many times Police use one law instead of the other because they don't fully understand one of them. The definition of tenant and what constitutes an agreement is clearly spelled out in law. If the person is not by definition a tenant and does not have a legal agreement as the law states, the Police have no duty to accept that person’s word over the word of the owner. If that was the case, every burglar caught in someone’s home simple has to claim they are a tenant with an oral agreement. Since that doesn't fly, so shouldn't any other claim of tenant rights.
So, I would suggest the owner gets on the phone and work their way up the chain of command until someone in the Police dept, address the issue. It may turn out that the officers were honestly following what they through the law said and not what is fact.
As an FYI, here is an except from case law on Hawaii "While defendant was "a tenant" as defined by this Code, defendant's tenancy was not as a sublessee, but as a licensee of defendant's roommate, where defendant did not have exclusive possession of the property, the unilateral right to assign defendant's interest in the property, and defendant's agreement was not for a fixed term; thus, as the holder of a license revocable at will, defendant became a trespasser when the licensor roommate's interest in the property ceased."
Trespass laws and landlord tenant laws often conflict. Each is written from a different viewpoint, the trespass on behalf of the property owner and the landlord tenant on behalf of the tenant. Since they often conflict, Police may go with what they know or what they think is the law.
Although this is a big problem because of the conflicting nature of laws, many times Police use one law instead of the other because they don't fully understand one of them. The definition of tenant and what constitutes an agreement is clearly spelled out in law. If the person is not by definition a tenant and does not have a legal agreement as the law states, the Police have no duty to accept that person’s word over the word of the owner. If that was the case, every burglar caught in someone’s home simple has to claim they are a tenant with an oral agreement. Since that doesn't fly, so shouldn't any other claim of tenant rights.
So, I would suggest the owner gets on the phone and work their way up the chain of command until someone in the Police dept, address the issue. It may turn out that the officers were honestly following what they through the law said and not what is fact.
As an FYI, here is an except from case law on Hawaii "While defendant was "a tenant" as defined by this Code, defendant's tenancy was not as a sublessee, but as a licensee of defendant's roommate, where defendant did not have exclusive possession of the property, the unilateral right to assign defendant's interest in the property, and defendant's agreement was not for a fixed term; thus, as the holder of a license revocable at will, defendant became a trespasser when the licensor roommate's interest in the property ceased."