Women Who Run Topless Car Wash in Liberal Idaho College City Are Evicted From Communal Home

""This has nothing to do with the toplessness," David Clift said."

Thank goodness!! Ah, I'm thinking about investing in rental property in Moscow, Idaho, any advice?;^)

I agree, those folk could not be lease signees otherwise they would have to go through the eviction process. My question was that if they had an agreement with the lease signer to live there, how could the landlord be the one to file trespass charges?

I think the landlord has the right to kick out whomever he wants, since they are running an indecent business outside their "home", his property, in a neighborhood, not of prostitues, nudists, or other perverts, but of families including children, whose parents ought to have the option of when their children are exposed to adult nudity not some waste-oid, do nothing, young punks.

I don't know all of the facts, but it seems to me that the five who were asked to leave were not on the lease. (It may well be that the there was no provision for a sub-lease, thus those five had no rights to occupancy).

In most states, if you are a sub-lettor, you have a contract right between you and the person on the lease. If you fail to pay, the leasor may recover from the leasee. (The leasee's right of recovery is against the sub-lettor)

If the lease is paid in full to the landlord by the leasee, it seems the action for removal would have to come by the leasee. By contract, he or she has the right of occupancy under the lease. Contrary to Mamaduck's post, the owner can't just through people out for being perverts -- unless it's in the lease.

In this case, as I read it, the five were simply not on any lease. Thus, they had no right of occupancy. Accordingly, the landlord could enforce the terms of the lease, which undoubtedly provide for a number of named tenants. It probably also restricts how many people can stay, and for how long.

Flip-side is this. If the landlord knew they were present, and he allowed them to stay, he may have waived his right to enforce any occupancy provisions. The five booted out may have acquired some right of occupancy. This is case is strange though (for many reasons), in that their failure was in paying the "July" rent. It seems to me that was probably due on the July 1, with at least a 10 day grace period. It seems awfully fast for an eviction action through the state.

Clearly, these five were not lease-holders in any sense of the word. Thus, the City was able to use a simple trespass action to remove them. (Again, depending on state landlord-tenant law, they may have acquired some right of occupancy by staying, with the knowledge of the landlord, and paying rent. If so, they could have an action for a right of re-entry. Landlord-tenant law is different from state-to-state. Many soouthern and western states vest great rights in the landlords, while many eastern states provide many remedies and rights to tenants and even squaters.

Before long, they'll say "Surf's Up!"