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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Patent attorney chiming in. It's been a while since I did contract law, but if the kid is paying rent (or any consideration- could be labor) he is a tenant of the property. There is an offer, an acceptance, and compensation. It's pretty black and white. It's been a few years since school and I never practiced real estate la but there is no distinction between invitee, guest, and tenant if both parties are paying.

That said, we are all just guessing without seeing the lease. No one can be certain of anything absent that.

Correct. And none are owners. And the grandkids have no special rights beyond what the invited kid would have.

Actual lawyer. Don’t just play one on DCUM.

Ehhh, we don't know if the grandkids are owners or not. They may very well be on title or even party to a trust if it's held that way. Patent attorney again.

Doubtful their names are on the deed. If you can't sell the property, it ain't yours.

Be doubtful until the cows come home. I don't care. You have no idea if their names are on title.

[Anonymous]

I discussed this thread extensively over dinner with friends in DC last night. It was the entire topic of conversation the entire meal.

Three couples, mid 40s, all with teenagers, grad school educated, upper middle class (HHI in the 300-400k range if I guessed) nary a beach house among us and the universal consensus was that there has to be one extremely dedicated troll on this thread playing contrarian to the idea that paying to stay at the beach all summer is fair.

We even played 'phone a friend', texting a bunch of people to ask if they would let their kid stay for free or, if they hosted, whether the would charge rent.

Every single person said charge rent. Not a single person out of about 15 said to let the kid stay for free.

So, congratulations DCUM you officially crossed over into my real life.

And to the free loading troll- well done for keeping this going, but you might need a healthy hobby.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I discussed this thread extensively over dinner with friends in DC last night. It was the entire topic of conversation the entire meal.

Three couples, mid 40s, all with teenagers, grad school educated, upper middle class (HHI in the 300-400k range if I guessed) nary a beach house among us and the universal consensus was that there has to be one extremely dedicated troll on this thread playing contrarian to the idea that paying to stay at the beach all summer is fair.

We even played 'phone a friend', texting a bunch of people to ask if they would let their kid stay for free or, if they hosted, whether the would charge rent.

Every single person said charge rent. Not a single person out of about 15 said to let the kid stay for free.

So, congratulations DCUM you officially crossed over into my real life.

And to the free loading troll- well done for keeping this going, but you might need a healthy hobby.

“Nary a beach house among you”. I DO have a beach house and have never charged a guest to stay, even long term.

[Anonymous]

Am I the only person who thinks about this Luke Bryan song when I read this thread?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8c08Oz8AovU

[Anonymous]

This is my first time opening the thread, but I agree it is super tacky to charge the friend and not the other kids (even if their family owns the house). Paying a portion of the utilities makes sense to me.

[Anonymous]

I don't know how I managed to miss this thread, I usually visit this forum.

Well, I have read all 430 posts and OP- I fully agree that the other kid should pay rent. After all, it's not his house.

Shame on that mom.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I discussed this thread extensively over dinner with friends in DC last night. It was the entire topic of conversation the entire meal.

Three couples, mid 40s, all with teenagers, grad school educated, upper middle class (HHI in the 300-400k range if I guessed) nary a beach house among us and the universal consensus was that there has to be one extremely dedicated troll on this thread playing contrarian to the idea that paying to stay at the beach all summer is fair.

We even played 'phone a friend', texting a bunch of people to ask if they would let their kid stay for free or, if they hosted, whether the would charge rent.

Every single person said charge rent. Not a single person out of about 15 said to let the kid stay for free.

So, congratulations DCUM you officially crossed over into my real life.

And to the free loading troll- well done for keeping this going, but you might need a healthy hobby.

“Nary a beach house among you”. I DO have a beach house and have never charged a guest to stay, even long term.

We believe you!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LOL @ the idea that BIL's are retired biglaw partners who've kept their licenses current and waived into NC so they can practice landlord tenant law. Plausible!

Keep digging. You don't and a license to execute a lease.

Duh. The point isn’t that they CAN’T “execute a lease” it’s whether they SHOULD. Anyone with Microsoft word and the ability to google could technically draft what they think is an enforceable lease. This whole thing makes no sense. If your family is so wealthy and the beach house means so much to you why wouldn’t you hire someone to do this that regularly practices in that area of law?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Oh, you missed the part where the BILs are actual attorneys (not pretend ones like you) and would draw the lease?

How embarrassing.

DP. Please. There are no major legal markets in areas where a beach house would be. So either they are not the legal superstars you think they are or they are too cheap/stupid to realize they need to hire an attorney that is familiar with landlord tenant law in the jurisdiction where the house is located.

Man, you are just dumb as a box of rocks. You know where huge amounts of Big Law Partners retire? The coast of the Carolinas. It's probably the number 1 spot on the East Coast.

I guarantee you that retired Big Law partners are not wasting their time learning about landlord tenant law in the Carolinas. No one in Big Law works on that type of crap and if they are retired it’s likely being 20+ years since they were in law school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I discussed this thread extensively over dinner with friends in DC last night. It was the entire topic of conversation the entire meal.

Three couples, mid 40s, all with teenagers, grad school educated, upper middle class (HHI in the 300-400k range if I guessed) nary a beach house among us and the universal consensus was that there has to be one extremely dedicated troll on this thread playing contrarian to the idea that paying to stay at the beach all summer is fair.

We even played 'phone a friend', texting a bunch of people to ask if they would let their kid stay for free or, if they hosted, whether the would charge rent.

Every single person said charge rent. Not a single person out of about 15 said to let the kid stay for free.

So, congratulations DCUM you officially crossed over into my real life.

And to the free loading troll- well done for keeping this going, but you might need a healthy hobby.

You had me at “nary a beach house among us”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Oh, you missed the part where the BILs are actual attorneys (not pretend ones like you) and would draw the lease?

How embarrassing.

DP. Please. There are no major legal markets in areas where a beach house would be. So either they are not the legal superstars you think they are or they are too cheap/stupid to realize they need to hire an attorney that is familiar with landlord tenant law in the jurisdiction where the house is located.

Man, you are just dumb as a box of rocks. You know where huge amounts of Big Law Partners retire? The coast of the Carolinas. It's probably the number 1 spot on the East Coast.

I guarantee you that retired Big Law partners are not wasting their time learning about landlord tenant law in the Carolinas. No one in Big Law works on that type of crap and if they are retired it’s likely being 20+ years since they were in law school.

That's not the point I took from PP. Point I took was the idiot trying to claim 'invitee' granted special consideration/distinction had much less of a grasp on the situation than the lawyers that actually own the property.

[Anonymous]

Hell yes, charge the kid. You don't get to live at the beach for free because your friend's uncle owns a house.

[Anonymous]

I would never think I could live for free. I also would never let anyone live with me for free. It may be low class to some people but its they way I am. Most of my friends also feel this way. Im sure the pp's friends are not abnormal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I discussed this thread extensively over dinner with friends in DC last night. It was the entire topic of conversation the entire meal.

Three couples, mid 40s, all with teenagers, grad school educated, upper middle class (HHI in the 300-400k range if I guessed) nary a beach house among us and the universal consensus was that there has to be one extremely dedicated troll on this thread playing contrarian to the idea that paying to stay at the beach all summer is fair.

We even played 'phone a friend', texting a bunch of people to ask if they would let their kid stay for free or, if they hosted, whether the would charge rent.

Every single person said charge rent. Not a single person out of about 15 said to let the kid stay for free.

So, congratulations DCUM you officially crossed over into my real life.

And to the free loading troll- well done for keeping this going, but you might need a healthy hobby.

Wow, you got 15 people involved in this sh!t show?

The OP is trash... not because she wants to charge rent, but because she's an insecure, vapid nobody who makes childish attempts to hurt people by insulting their checkbooks.

Her entire persona screams inferiority complex and guaranteed her DH's family sees it loud and clear too.

You need to look up imposters syndrome, OP and then look in a mirror.

[Anonymous]

First time on DCUM in forever.

Interesting read n a Saturday morning. The problem with one kid going for free is that will likely create bad feelings among OP's son's group of friends back home. Everyone would want to come. Charging rent makes it a 'product' with limited availability. It makes it easy to keep harmony with his friends.

I too am convinced there is one poster trolling this post claiming free is the norm. I grew up with many, many friends whose parents had houses in Rehobeth. Virtually all of us worked at Funland in HS/ college at some point. And all of us paid rent. The idea that I would have stayed for free at my friend's parent's house is absurd.