Family Beach House- DS and Friends Using it for Summer.

[Anonymous]

No one has any idea if the cousins are paying rent to their parents. Lots of speculation from a bunch of non beach housing owner free loaders though...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Was Jay Gatsby charging Klipspringer?

Don’t remember, but OJ wasn’t charging Kato.

[Anonymous]

https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/81TYizovxIL._SX569_.jpg

[Anonymous]

I don't think its unreasonable for OP to expect him to pay something. Her son is staying there for an entire summer. $333 a month is basically nothing. Personally I think this whole scenario has disaster written all over it and I would never allow it. At a minimum all the boys should be required to pay something each month, so it can go toward weekly or honestly even twice a week house cleaning. That is the only way the family can hope that the house won't be completely trashed by the end of the summer. And even with that, I guarantee the house will need a VERY deep clean when they leave. My parents have a beach house and they used to rent it out for several weeks during the summer. They rented it out to family's and it was always filthy by the end of the summer, even with weekly cleanings. There will be four college aged boys living there for the whole summer. What could POSSIBLY go wrong?!?!?!

[Anonymous]

Charging one kid rent and not the others is so unbelievably trashy and cheap. The cousins don't own the house either.

I'm sure the Duke of Devonshire lets his grandsons stay in the manor house for free and then charges their school friends rent to sleep in the stable, because they're peasants who should be grateful to have any benefit of his attention or to even associate with such people. Not. How utterly gauche.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Charging one kid rent and not the others is so unbelievably trashy and cheap. The cousins don't own the house either.

I'm sure the Duke of Devonshire lets his grandsons stay in the manor house for free and then charges their school friends rent to sleep in the stable, because they're peasants who should be grateful to have any benefit of his attention or to even associate with such people. Not. How utterly gauche.

Uhh, the kids most certainly have an ownership interest. If the cops show up they are 100% the legal owner. So sad youre too dumb to know this. Back to your trailer...

No they are not. The grandparents own it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Charging one kid rent and not the others is so unbelievably trashy and cheap. The cousins don't own the house either.

I'm sure the Duke of Devonshire lets his grandsons stay in the manor house for free and then charges their school friends rent to sleep in the stable, because they're peasants who should be grateful to have any benefit of his attention or to even associate with such people. Not. How utterly gauche.

Uhh, the kids most certainly have an ownership interest. If the cops show up they are 100% the legal owner. So sad youre too dumb to know this. Back to your trailer...

Not unless their name is on the deed.

Seriously?

This why cops run rough shod over citizens all day long. The kids are de facto tenants which grants them the same sights as property owners. LE needs their permission to enter the property unless there is a felony being committed in their witness.

Same goes with rental cars and VRBO.

You are equivalent to the owner of the property if the property owner has agreed to you being there.

And the same is true of any of your invited guests, so she’d boy and the owners’ kids will all be good.

[Anonymous]

I think it’s not OP sock puppeting. Its the shed boys mother who should have thought it through before getting ugly. Shed boys mother ended it for him and another friend took the offer. Because beach rentals are expensive.

[Anonymous]

No one who isn’t family is an invited guest for three summer months. Unless you are in an income bracket far above what OP describes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Charging one kid rent and not the others is so unbelievably trashy and cheap. The cousins don't own the house either.

I'm sure the Duke of Devonshire lets his grandsons stay in the manor house for free and then charges their school friends rent to sleep in the stable, because they're peasants who should be grateful to have any benefit of his attention or to even associate with such people. Not. How utterly gauche.

Uhh, the kids most certainly have an ownership interest. If the cops show up they are 100% the legal owner. So sad youre too dumb to know this. Back to your trailer...

Not unless their name is on the deed.

Seriously?

This why cops run rough shod over citizens all day long. The kids are de facto tenants which grants them the same sights as property owners. LE needs their permission to enter the property unless there is a felony being committed in their witness.

Same goes with rental cars and VRBO.

You are equivalent to the owner of the property if the property owner has agreed to you being there.

By this logic, the unrelated kid in the shed is also "equivalent to the owner of the property."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Charging one kid rent and not the others is so unbelievably trashy and cheap. The cousins don't own the house either.

I'm sure the Duke of Devonshire lets his grandsons stay in the manor house for free and then charges their school friends rent to sleep in the stable, because they're peasants who should be grateful to have any benefit of his attention or to even associate with such people. Not. How utterly gauche.

Uhh, the kids most certainly have an ownership interest. If the cops show up they are 100% the legal owner. So sad youre too dumb to know this. Back to your trailer...

Not unless their name is on the deed.

Seriously?

This why cops run rough shod over citizens all day long. The kids are de facto tenants which grants them the same sights as property owners. LE needs their permission to enter the property unless there is a felony being committed in their witness.

Same goes with rental cars and VRBO.

You are equivalent to the owner of the property if the property owner has agreed to you being there.

Ha ha. I love DCUM-trained lawyers. No. You are completely misstating the law.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Charging one kid rent and not the others is so unbelievably trashy and cheap. The cousins don't own the house either.

I'm sure the Duke of Devonshire lets his grandsons stay in the manor house for free and then charges their school friends rent to sleep in the stable, because they're peasants who should be grateful to have any benefit of his attention or to even associate with such people. Not. How utterly gauche.

Uhh, the kids most certainly have an ownership interest. If the cops show up they are 100% the legal owner. So sad youre too dumb to know this. Back to your trailer...

Not unless their name is on the deed.

Seriously?

This why cops run rough shod over citizens all day long. The kids are de facto tenants which grants them the same sights as property owners. LE needs their permission to enter the property unless there is a felony being committed in their witness.

Same goes with rental cars and VRBO.

You are equivalent to the owner of the property if the property owner has agreed to you being there.

Ha ha. I love DCUM-trained lawyers. No. You are completely misstating the law.

That's me you're quoting. I never claimed to be an attorney, but I have worked in commercial real estate for 26 years. If you are an attorney you are a piss poor one because the purpose of a lease to provide the sole and exclusive use of a property and be afforded the exact same rights as an owner, provided the terms are adhered to. From a LE perspective, it's irrelevant if the individual is a tenant or an owner.

Did your online lawyer certificate program skip contract law?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Charging one kid rent and not the others is so unbelievably trashy and cheap. The cousins don't own the house either.

I'm sure the Duke of Devonshire lets his grandsons stay in the manor house for free and then charges their school friends rent to sleep in the stable, because they're peasants who should be grateful to have any benefit of his attention or to even associate with such people. Not. How utterly gauche.

Uhh, the kids most certainly have an ownership interest. If the cops show up they are 100% the legal owner. So sad youre too dumb to know this. Back to your trailer...

Not unless their name is on the deed.

Seriously?

This why cops run rough shod over citizens all day long. The kids are de facto tenants which grants them the same sights as property owners. LE needs their permission to enter the property unless there is a felony being committed in their witness.

Same goes with rental cars and VRBO.

You are equivalent to the owner of the property if the property owner has agreed to you being there.

Ha ha. I love DCUM-trained lawyers. No. You are completely misstating the law.

That's me you're quoting. I never claimed to be an attorney, but I have worked in commercial real estate for 26 years. If you are an attorney you are a piss poor one because the purpose of a lease to provide the sole and exclusive use of a property and be afforded the exact same rights as an owner, provided the terms are adhered to. From a LE perspective, it's irrelevant if the individual is a tenant or an owner.

Did your online lawyer certificate program skip contract law?

Ha ha. You are too much. You have no idea what you are talking about. Kid who was invited there would be an invitee under the law. Grandkids would also. Stop it. It is irrelevant what you think you know.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Charging one kid rent and not the others is so unbelievably trashy and cheap. The cousins don't own the house either.

I'm sure the Duke of Devonshire lets his grandsons stay in the manor house for free and then charges their school friends rent to sleep in the stable, because they're peasants who should be grateful to have any benefit of his attention or to even associate with such people. Not. How utterly gauche.

Uhh, the kids most certainly have an ownership interest. If the cops show up they are 100% the legal owner. So sad youre too dumb to know this. Back to your trailer...

Not unless their name is on the deed.

Seriously?

This why cops run rough shod over citizens all day long. The kids are de facto tenants which grants them the same sights as property owners. LE needs their permission to enter the property unless there is a felony being committed in their witness.

Same goes with rental cars and VRBO.

You are equivalent to the owner of the property if the property owner has agreed to you being there.

Ha ha. I love DCUM-trained lawyers. No. You are completely misstating the law.

That's me you're quoting. I never claimed to be an attorney, but I have worked in commercial real estate for 26 years. If you are an attorney you are a piss poor one because the purpose of a lease to provide the sole and exclusive use of a property and be afforded the exact same rights as an owner, provided the terms are adhered to. From a LE perspective, it's irrelevant if the individual is a tenant or an owner.

Did your online lawyer certificate program skip contract law?

Ha ha. You are too much. You have no idea what you are talking about. Kid who was invited there would be an invitee under the law. Grandkids would also. Stop it. It is irrelevant what you think you know.

And none of the kids would be the owner.

[Anonymous]

Why won’t this thread die?