(Gregory Luce writes:) "Gramma avoids or contests the eviction by putting the landlord to his or her proof. If the proof is not in the pudding (i.e., by a preponderance of the evidence), then she stays unless she also owes rent and cannot pay that rent."
Don't leases often specify that only the person(s) named in the lease, and no others, shall reside in the unit, and define "reside" as staying in the unit more than X number of days? Wouldn't a landlord have less of a burden of proof in that case? I suppose they'd still have to prove that the Trojan-horse "relatives" weren't just "visiting Gramma." Sam Adams East Phillips REMINDERS: 1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
