From the Forum – Landlord wants to move back into house we are renting – what rights do we have?

Photo by PoPville flickr user ekelly80

Landlord wants to move back into house we are renting – what rights do we have?

“Hello! Before I get started, yes, I’ve tried calling the appropriate places but haven’t been able to get any kind of answer just yet. I’ve tried a few different websites and made some calls but it’s been frustrating, especially when things are happening so quickly.

On June 1st, my boyfriend and I moved in to a group house and signed a one year lease. We rent two rooms upstairs in this house. Another roommate (roommate 3) moved in for the summer into the other spare room. Her lease is from 6/1 – 8/31. The three of us share one bathroom. We have a fourth roommate (roommate 4) in the basement who has her own bathroom attached to her room but she shares the other common areas with all of us.

We found out last Friday, 8/2/2013, that are our landlord wants to move back into our house the end of this month once Roommate 3 vacated the room. She is also bringing her teenage son with her. Both of them were going to live in that room until our lease term was up. Roommate 3 was hoping to stay in the room month to month once the initial term was up as her job offered to extend her contract – she was working out the details. My boyfriend and I asked the landlord if her plans were set in stone and if so, what happens if we break our lease since this new arrangement will not work for us. She said we had 60 days (until the end of October) to find a new place, per our lease agreement.

My questions

1. She has this clause in our lease: The landlord reserves the right to terminate the lease with 60 days written notice. From what I’ve read, this is illegal in DC, correct?

2. Furthermore, it says the lease goes month-to-month with approval from the landlord. I believe this is also illegal? If so, she can’t just evict Roommate 3 or assume she is leaving?

3. I realize she CAN evict us if she moves back in and it looks like she would need to give us 90 days notice in that event. That would be better because it would give us more time to pack and find a place. However, I can’t find anywhere if she is allowed to live there while we are there. Additionally, Roommate 4 in the basement was not told to move out as well. I’m not sure if DC law lets the landlord choose who they can kick out.

Ultimately we know we have to move. But it seems everything is happening on possibly illegal terms. Before we plan to pursue this further, I want an idea of if she can even live there and what would happen if we tried to block her from moving in.

FWIW, we’re looking for a new place but I still want to know for my own edification what precedent there is for this. I’m sure it’s a fairly common issue but as I said, I haven’t been able to get an answer yet from orgs I tried to reach out to. I will also admit, I’m more than a little irked we were allowed to move in when we did when I am assuming she must have been already looking for a job. She is moving basically across the country back to DC.

Thanks for anyone who can weigh in!”

You can see all forum topics and add your own here.

59 Comment

  • I was a landlord in DC and my understanding is that I can only vacate the least if I plan to move back into the unit and occupy it or sell it. Other than that, the tenant has the right to go month to month. (but landlord can jack up the rent which may force you out anyhow). DC is too damn tenant friendly anyhow. And before people argue with me on that, let me assure you it raises the rents for eveyone. Knowing how hard it is to kick folks out, made me price the rent as high as possible and be a real dick about who was allowed to rent. If you thinks that unfair, let your councilmember know.

  • It sounded like you told your landlord the arrangement would not work for you, so how is that kicking you out? It sounds like she can terminate your lease and give you whatever is statutorily allowed in DC (not sure if it is 60 per the lease or 90 by statute). If your lease is separate from the 4th roommate in the basement, there is no reason she has to terminate that lease if she doesn’t want to. I doubt the third roommate gets to choose a month to month lease free of the landlord’s ability to terminate her lease as well. She likely has to give Roommate #3 the same statutory notice, but perhaps the automatic month-to-month allowance by law is not for short term leases, but only after you’ve rented for a year. I think the law is that after a year lease ends, the lease becomes month-to-month unless the landlord objects. I think the landlord could require another renewal of the same term (3 months) or terminate the lease. I don’t think your roommate gets to choose month-to-month. But I think the landlord tenant law is readily available on the DC government website and is pretty straightforward when I’ve had to look at it for other issues before.

  • 2. It’s pretty typical for leases to go to month-to-month after the first 12-month lease. I don’t see why this would be illegal. But am interested if others know more about this.

    3. If you’re signing leases for individual rooms and rooms 1 and 2 have different leases than rooms 3 and 4 (as it sounds they do) and there’s nothing in your lease about who roommate 3 and 4 will be, then why couldn’t it be the landlord? She might not be your first choice of roommate, and I can see why having 2 people in a room intended for one would be a hassle, but not illegal. If you rented the entire house and then found people to contribute to the total rent by living in room 3 or 4, that would be a different thing.

  • Is your lease for the room or for the house (i.e., do you sublet rooms to tenants 3 and 4 or does the landlord only rent the rooms individually to each of you?). If your lease if for the whole house, then the 90-day notice to vacate would apply. If you are just renting a room, I don’t see why the landlord couldn’t come back and live in a vacant room, but I don’t really know. If I were you, I would just get out of there ASAP.

    As far as the lease terms are concerned, if they are illegal in DC (e.g., 60-day notice for personal use), then they are not enforceable. The month-to-month clause is probably intended to apply to the end of the lease. In DC, a tenant does not have to sign a new lease after the original lease expires. The lease automatically converts to a month-to-month. Seems like this would apply to roommate 3, so she would need to give a 90-day notice to her as well.

  • Save yourself a lot of angst. Accept the inevitable and start house-hunting; don’y drive yourself crazy over what’s legal and what’s not. Good luck.

  • The law in DC requires an owner who is taking possession of the property and evicting tenants to give 90 days’ notice. Of course the 90-day window cannot end before a signed lease agreement, although they can fall on the same day (e.g. the 90th day of her notice corresponds with the last day of your 1-year lease).

    Unfortunately I do not know about the whole “moving back in” thing. Can she just move in while you are still there? Don’t know.

    • It doesn’t sound like anyone is getting evicted. Roommate 3’s lease is not being renewed. Tenants 1 and 2 could stay, but since they don’t want to the landlord is asking for 60 days notice. Sounds reasonable.

      But as someone above said, who cares what’s legal. You don’t want to live there with her and her son, you can leave without having to cover the entire term of your original lease, you have time to find a new place, so just move and move on.

  • From a DC gov page on landlord tenant rights:

    “No matter what type of lease you have—written or
    oral, month to month or annual—your landlord
    cannot evict you without a legally valid reason. (See
    the section on Evictions for details on the eviction
    process.) In fact, after a lease expires you can
    continue to stay in your apartment as long as you
    continue to pay rent. The terms of your expired lease
    continue to be in effect with the exception that your
    rent may increase after a valid 30 day notice. To
    increase your rent, your landlord must file a notice
    with the RACD. Any increase must meet certain legal
    requirements. (See the section on Rent Control for
    details regarding rent increases.)
    If you do not wish to remain in your apartment after
    your lease expires (or you wish to leave at some
    later date), you must comply with the terms of your
    lease regarding proper notice to your landlord. Upon
    vacating your apartment, you are entitled to the
    return of your security deposit (with interest in some
    cases) from your landlord unless you have damaged
    your apartment.”

    It looks like DC makes it pretty difficult for a landlord to evict anyone, even after a lease technically terminates. But you may want to find out what those legal bases are for eviction. The landlord can always raise the third roommate’s rent after 8/31 with proper notice so long as it is within the statutory limit on rent increases in an effort to get the tenant to vacate voluntarily after the lease expires. But it sounds like otherwise, the landlord cannot get any of you out easily.

    That said, if the third roommate leaves and the landlord moves into that room, it would be your choice to then leave or not leave. It sounds like then ultimately you are breaking your lease. Especially if you did not reserve the right to approve a roommate in the house in your lease. And if you want to terminate your lease, you have to give proper notice (not sure what that is but probably 90 days). And I also think it is likely you’d forfeit your security deposit. But perhaps not.

    If the landlord seems to want you to leave, and you want to leave, then tell them you’ll be gone in 90 days as long as the landlord agrees to return your deposit. Otherwise, the landlord cannot force you out if you continue to pay your rent. You just have to think about whether you want to live there. While the landlord is required to give you 90 days to vacate if they terminate your lease, this sounds like they aren’t terminating it, you are. And so you may not get 90 days, you may only get 60. Because you are choosing to leave. The landlord may be happy to give you 90 days though to continue getting rent so just ask if you can.

    • Personal use by the landlord is one of the legally valid reasons. Check this out the DC Tenant Survival Guide [pdf].

      So it sounds like the renter should start packing, whether it’s 60 or 90 days from now. As an aside, I don’t know how to make sure the landlord is actually moving in, rather than just making a play to get the renter out to charge a higher rent on somebody else, or sell it without offering the tenants the right to buy.

      • “As an aside, I don’t know how to make sure the landlord is actually moving in, rather than just making a play to get the renter out to charge a higher rent on somebody else, or sell it without offering the tenants the right to buy.”

        I’m not sure of that either. I suppose the ex-tenant could talk to the new residents a few months later and see if they are renters. Or check the mail and see if there are new names that are not the landlord’s name. There’s ways to collect evidence and then bring it to the Tenant Advocate’s office. The ex-renter could then sue for damages, but I’m not sure how that would be practically assessed.

        That said, I’m sure someone’s done it in The District! There’s probably a few civil cases that someone more industrious than myself could find in the public record.

        • Check the mail?

          • Open the mailbox and look at the names on the mail. If there’s four new names, you know the landlord is renting it out to another group. There’s nothing illegal about opening a mailbox, so long as you don’t steal or open their mail.

          • Or just move on with your life.

          • “Or just move on with your life.”

            Well, there’s a lot of money at stake here. I’d be pretty pissed off if the landlord scammed me out of my legally rented residence. Also, I think that might be treble damages, if they are in violation. So yeah, it would probably be worth my time to check in on the situation.

          • Federal law prohibits removing mail from a mailbox that is not your own. Would be quite embarassing to get caught doing that and get sent to jail.

          • Actually, the law does not state that. You are not allowed to “steal, take, or abstract” their mail. You’re also not allowed to break into their locked mailbox.

            However, you can look at the exterior printed names on someone’s mail on their stoop, if the mail is left out in the open. You can look at the names on the packages left on the porch. So long as you do not open the mail, remove it from the premises, or destroy a piece of property, you would not be breaking the law by simply looking at the name on the envelope.


          • Let me get this straight. People are actually advising the OP to trespass once she moves out and open the mailbox to check to see if the landlord is renting to new people? Seriously? Some things just aren’t worth your energy, and this is one of them. Also, if I was a resident of the house, I’d call the police if I saw someone snooping in my mailbox.

        • A landlord has the right to jack up the rent as high as they want once the initial lease expires. The vast majority of units are not rent controlled. Sometimes landlords do this as a way to encounrage a shitty tenant to move on. Again, if DC just made the owner rights the same as the tenants I think people would be shocked at how much more fluid the rental market would become. I lived in a rent controlled unit on the hill, great while I was a broke grad student but it definitely kept me in because of low rents even when I making close to 6 figures 10 years later. The point is that rent control does not effectively deliver low cost housing to those who need it most. I then bought a condo and became a landlord. If you think discrimination isn’t rampant, yall are living in a fantasy world. Landlords are scared shitless about getting stuck with a tenant who doesn’t pay (and let me assure you, even if a tenant stops paying altogether a landlord is looking at 6 months minimum and 5k in legal expenses to get them out). And this one reason why the rent is too damn high.

          • Yup, this. Not to mention even if you get a seemingly good tenant who makes enough to pay rent, that won’t necessarily stop them from being vindictive if you happen to do something they don’t like. Even if you are following all the laws, you are still going to have to spend big bucks going to court and it’s your word against theirs. Being a landlord in DC can be downright scary.

  • The Landlord Tenant Resource Center down at Superior Court building B (510 4th St., NW, room 115) is open from 9:15am-12pm Monday-Friday. You should take your lease and any other correspondence from your landlord and you’ll be able to speak to a lawyer there free of charge. The earlier you get there the better as it gets pretty busy!

  • You should inquire if your landlord applied for a residential rental business license with the city. If she does not have that, she is pretty much SOL as far as making you move or forcing you to live with her. Sounds like a weird arrangement anyways that each room is rented to a different person, but definitely check on the business license.

    • Yes, this. If your landlord did not get a residential rental business license, they are SCREWED. But that’s what they deserve if they are not following the law (and evading taxes on the rental income).

      Assuming your landlord did everything legally, if your landlord wants to move back in, they must give you 90 days notice via certified mail. If your landlord is selling, they must give you 120 days notice via certified mail. The law is very clear about this and nothing agreed upon in your lease can negate those facts. They can offer you compensation, if they want access to the place sooner (I’ve had friends get paid off in order to leave sooner).

      • Aaaaand this is why landlords are super paranoid like the first poster said. Honestly if the city didn’t make it so damn hard/expensive to have a legal unit, maybe more people would do it. And if tenants did not try to think of ways to screw over otherwise decent landlords, maybe this city would be a better place to rent for everyone…

        • I’m not sure what’s involved in meeting the standards for the business license, so I can’t speak to the difficulties in this. In this scenario, it sounds like the OP has an entire rowhouse, so at least the landlord does not need to mess with separate metering, which is a big expense.

          I think the minimum notice periods are adequate and reasonable. 90/120 days is enough time for the renter to find a new place within their budget. It takes time and money to move – renters need time to look at places, save up money for moving costs, etc.

          If I was the OP, I would negotiate with the landlord to get my moving costs covered. In return, I would leave prior to the expiration of the 90 day statutorily-required time period. That seems fair.

          • Im the first poster and getting a business license is a pain in the ass. Don’t let the “E-Z” on the form full you. Its about $250 and required in person trips to three different locations (OTR for a “clean hands” form, DCRA for filing the paper work and of course paying the cashier, a trip over to DHCD on MLK for a rent control verification form) and then finally waiting around 3 hours in unit for the “inspector” to show up for five minutes. License comes in mail a week later. But yeah, you are screwed without it. A smart landlord factors as much of this cost, time lost, potential legal expenses, lack of payment into the rent for you to pay.

          • So I’ve just gone through the DCRA hell, got the CofO, got the BBL, but WTF with the trip to MLK for rent control verification? ??? Rent control only kicks in if you own 4+ units. They KNOW I only have one. What are they verifying? What happens if I just skip this? I’m not planning to jack up the rent beyond rent control limits anyway.

          • Well, for example, it took my mother five months and cost her over $10000 in upgrades which she was then told–at the end of the process, of course–were unnecessary because it was a basement apartment in a Victorian house, and the rules she’d followed applied to newer multifamily. The process is byzantine, and the people who administer it don’t give a shit about giving you accurate information. Luckily, she’s retired, so she has days and days to spend wandering between different offices, but in most cases that obviously isn’t so.

      • There are also some landlords who don’t have the business license but do in fact pay taxes on rental income. I learned this when I had to take a former landlord to small claims court. The DC tax folks aren’t talking to DCRA in that regard.

  • I thought one of the few situations in which a landlord *could* actually make renters move out was when the landlord was moving back into the property him/herself.
    I can’t speak to the notice period, etc., but it sounds like the OP’s primary beef is basically “I don’t want to have the landlord as a housemate. Is there any way I can get around it?” I agree with the person who suggested the OP start looking for another place to live — even if the notice period turns out to be shorter than required, it sounds like the landlord and her son are going to be moving back into the house within a few months. And if that’s not acceptable to the OP, I’m not sure there’s much point in arguing about the details.

    • Seriously. Let’s suppose the OP fights it and manages to get the landlord to delay moving into the house. Eventually she’s going to be able to and then you’re either going to have to live with her (super awkward after fighting it in the first place) or move anyway. So why delay the inevitable and cause a lot of drama. If her actions were egregious I could see wanting to fight it, but it doesn’t really sound like they are.

  • OP
    Is your lease for the room or the entire house (either as a single person or in common with roommates 3 & 4)?

    Either way the landlord has full right to occupy her/his house provided appropriate notice is provided. I would see if she would be open to an early exit from the lease since the living arrangement has changed from tenant occupied to a rooming house. I wouldn’t make it adversarial – she wants to occupy her home and you don’t want your landlord as your roommate. There is enough space for a positive resolution to this situation . In the mean time start looking for a new place to live NOW and ensure that your new lease doesn’t set you up for a similar issue.

  • I am a Property Mgr. She is well within her rights to provide you a 60 day notice to vacate, especially if you signed a lease saying so. Had you not had that noted in your lease you might of been able to get 90 days if it went to court. She likely will need to provide the same 60 days to the MTM tenant. DC courts are very tenant friendly so you might be able to go that route to get another 30 days, but it likely isn’t worth your time.

    Each of your leases are separate, but I have no clue legally how she can decide which of you to kick out. It sounds like a pretty easy way for you to scream discrimination (pick one of the many protected classes that apply).

    Good luck

    • It doesn’t matter if the lease says 60 days. That is an invalid clause in the lease and tenants can not sign away their rights.

      I should revise my comment from earlier.
      90 days notice – personal use OR sale of the property. However, you cannot be evicted “if the landlord intends to rent or sell the property within a year of acquiring the property.” (back from you, the renter) – IMPORTANT CAVEAT.
      120 days notice – substantial rehabilitation of the property. However, you have the exclusive right to return to the property after rehabilitation at a higher rent.
      180 days notice – demolition of the property

      • But in this case, nobody is being evicted. Landlords don’t have to renew leases, so roommate 3 is out at the end of August. Roommate 4 can stay. Roommates 1 and 2 could stay and live with the landlord until their year is up, but they don’t want to, so she’s letting them break their lease with 60 days notice.

        I don’t see that OP gains anything in this situation, other than stress and lost time, by doing anything but find another place to live where they have more control over who their roommates will be.

        • Actually, in DC, landlords do have to renew leases (technically, the lease is not renewed, but the tenancy continues perpetually). As long as the tenant keeps paying rent, the landlord cannot tell them to leave without a legal reason to do so (and the end of a lease is not a legal reason).

          • Really? I knew DC tenants’ rights were strong, but didn’t realize they were this crazy strong!
            But in this case the landlord is moving in to the house, from what people above have posted it sounds like that does allow her to not renew a lease.

          • The landlord moving back is a valid reason, but they have to give 90-days notice. The renewing lease thing was in reference to tenant #3 whose lease is expiring at the end of August.

    • A property manager who clearly does not understand DC landlord and tenant law. If the statute says 90-days notice is required (which it does), then it does not matter what the lease says. Shady landlords (and property managers) try to pull this stuff all the time, but it is not legal. Even at the end of the 90-days, the landlord cannot “self-help” remove the tenants. On the 90th day, the landlord could file a lawsuit in L&T court. That case would likely take a few months and then the landlord would have to wait until the U.S. Marshals evicted the tenant. Given the timeline, this puts the eviction in the winter, which is bad for the landlord as well because the Marshals will not evict when the temperature is below a certain threshold. In theory, the eviction might not happen until next spring.

      • I think what this person is referring to is an apartment complex. Many leases in DC have a 60 day clause where the landlord has the tenant acknowledge and waive their rights at the time of the lease signing. With this you are basically just politely asking them to leave. I actually have seen this upheld in Landlord Tenant court but only if there were prior issues (NSF,Failure to Pay, Cleanliness). This is in no way an eviction and should the person choose to not leave and continues to pay rent even in escrow, you probably aren’t getting them out.

        Its a different ballgame for a house that the landlord is moving back into as was said above.

      • Sassy Pants. Let me guess law school student. Is it really the Marshal or DC Police?

  • Out of curiosity, is this type of structure–where the rooms are rented out on separate leases–typical for group houses? I always assumed that in a group house situation, there was one master leaseholder (or maybe two, if two roommates are going in on the place together), and it’s incumbent on them to pay the rent however they choose, whether it’s on their own or by soliciting additionall off-lease roommates to occupy additional bedrooms and split the rent.

    • I have no idea how it works with separate leases for each person. I’m not sure if that’s even legal, if the house has not been properly divided into separate apartments.
      In my grad school group house on U Street, we had one lease with the names of all 7 roommates on it. Whenever we had one person move out, the landlord would recirculate the lease with the new roommate’s name added to the lease. We would all need to sign the amended lease. The lease would be renewed every August, along with an appropriate increase in the rent (0-3%, depending on the economy at the time).

    • Not necessarily. When I was renting I lived in a group house and all four of us were on one lease for the entire house rather than one person holding the lease and choosing roommates. Our landlord actually made it against the lease to sublet, so that was not an option. When one person moved out, we’d fill the spot and their name would be put on the lease in place of the previous person’s. Ultimately, the landlord had final say on who could move in, but he never ended up rejecting anyone we chose in the five years I lived there.

  • I have a question/point. Is the landlord allowed on the property without your explicit permission? My friend (an attorney) dealt with a shady landlord a month ago where he wasn’t giving enough notice before trying to show the property and she was able to enforce it. I think she was allowed to call the cops on him if he didn’t respect that clause in the lease/statute (it wasn’t clear which gave her that right). Could enforcing that (if it’s either in the statute or lease) help in this situation?

  • I’ve been in this situation too, and it is the worst. You definitely have my sympathies.

  • Going back to the OP’s original set of questions:

    1.) She can’t kick you out with only 60 day’s notice. She needs to file paperwork with the Housing office and then give you certified 90 days notice.

    2.) Your friend does not need to leave at the expiration of her lease. The landlord needs to do the same 90 day process with her, if you friend decides to stay in the room upon the expiration of her lease.

    3.) I have no idea about the basement dweller. I would think that the landlord can allow that person to stay, if that’s the landlord’s prerogative. It sounds like the landlord only wants the upper two bedrooms for personal use, so I don’t think the landlord is required to remove everyone from the premises.

    Good luck and get your butt to the tenant advocate’s office.

    • The landlord isn’t trying to kick her out. The OP is the one who wants to break her lease and move early because she doesn’t want the landlord as a housemate (which is perfectly reasonable). But let’s be clear, the landlord did not say “you need to be out by X date because I’m moving back in.” Seems to me she really has no leg to stand on because the landlord should be able to move back into her own house (especially if the lease is room by room and not the whole house).

  • “that are our landlord wants to move back into *our* house…”

    Therein lies the problem: it is HER house, not YOUR house. If she wants to move back into HER OWN property, and especially in such a way that it doesn’t displace you, she damn well ought to be able to. If you don’t like it, go buy your own place, or rent another.


    • Huh? It IS the renter’s house. That’s why there’s a contractual lease, as the renter is paying to utilize the property. As a landlord, you don’t get to ignore laws just because they’re not convenient for you or you don’t like them.
      This isn’t ‘Nam, there are rules Donny.

  • Like with all of these posts, what you should ask is “What do I gain by pursuing legal action against my landlord?” In this case, maybe an extra month before you have to leave (though your landlord doesn’t sound like she’s totally unreasonable, if you asked for 90 days instead of 60, she would probably say, “OK.”). But you’ll be living with her and her teenager for that month, so is that really what you want? Is that worth taking time off of work to haul yourself down to Georgetown’s rental clinic, and all the unpleasantness associated with sending registered letters to your landlord (now roommate)?

    Either way, you have to move either in October or in June. So move in October and be done with the drama. While you night have some legal standing (though it doesn’t sound like it to me), any potential benefit of pursuing it is more than outweighed by the cost and hassle of going forward with litigation.

  • Blithe

    Okay, let’s see if I’ve got this right: You and your boyfriend want to break your lease(s) — because you object to the house’s owner living in the house with you. The owner is allowing you to do this — with 60 days notice. You ask if you have the right to block the owner from living in her own house. Hmmm. You’ve chosen to move out — and wish you had more time. Well, YOU decided to break your lease. You could have had until the end of the lease — which you chose to break.
    The only way that I could understand your complaint is if you and/or your boyfriend had a lease for the entire house — with the possible exception of the basement apartment. If Roommate 3 had a separate lease, it’s up to the house’s owner — not you — to choose her tenant, even if that tenant is herself.
    I’m not clear what it is you want: If it’s more time, you could perhaps negotiate with the landlord — who was clearly expecting you and your boyfriend to honor the time frame of your lease(s). If you want to choose your roommate — that’s not up to you if you rented two rooms — rather than the entire house. Since Roommate 3 was planning to leave at the end of August, what did you think was going to happen to the 3rd room once she moved out?
    As I read this, the owner is doing you the favor of allowing you to break your lease with reasonable notice..

  • Obviously, none of us has read your lease to see what the wording is. We’re assuming that it is a standard lease. Based on that assumption, I personally think the landlord is being pretty generous by allowing you to break the lease with 60 days notice. She could make you pay a penalty to break the lease or leave you on the hook for the rent until your lease is up.

    As for the month-to-month issue with roommate #3, an attorney told me that m2m works both ways–you can give a 30 day notice to vacate or the landlord can give 30 days notice to vacate. You essentially have a one-month lease that gets automatically renewed at the end of each month. Now, this information was given to me in the 80s, so that may not be the case anymore.

    It seems to me that your landlord is operating civilly and fairly. Be grateful for that. There are some pretty skeevy landlords out there.

    • Absolutely. This landlord by no means sounds unreasonable. It seems to me OP is the one being unreasonable. That is some pretty entitled thinking if you want to block someone from moving back into their own house just because it doesn’t suit you. If you want to be in total control of your living situation, I advise you to buy your own property. Besides, is it really that big a deal to live with your landlord and her son for a month or two while you look for a new place?

Comments are closed.