Can a landowner charge a dead person for renting property in the U.S.? Can a landowner charge a dead person for renting property in the U.S.? Let's say my grandma died 4 months ago and the landowner only discovered that she was dead just now, can the landowner charge my grandma for 4 months of rental in the United States or is this illegal and can only force her to pay the rent of the month before she died?
A person's contractual rights and obligations remain valid past their death, so if the landlord dies, their heirs cannot then kick out the tenant, and likewise if the tenant dies, their estate still is liable for unpaid past and future rent. That means for example that the person cannot be evicted, the landlord cannot take their property or enter without permission save for the standard emergency conditions. The tenant (or their estate) remains liable for rent until the lease terminates. If the lease has a clause to the effect that the lease terminate at the end of the month when notice of death is given, that defines when the tenancy ends and therefore when rent isn't due – relevant to a yearly lease, and the question of whether the estate would be on the hook for a full year of rent (it also depends on whether subletting is allowed).
What kind of procedures would be necessary to undo the legal death? What happens to his property (note: the reanimated character is a young man with no written will)? If he's a renter, how long will it take for his landlord to push all his stuff out and welcome a new tenant? How much paperwork does he have to fill out? If the person is on the autopsy table, while he may have technically been legally dead, the person's death certificate has probably not even been issued yet, since normally an autopsy is done, in part, to determine a cause of death for purposes of preparing a death certificate. Normally, an autopsy is only prepared when the cause of death is uncertain or needs to be documented for legal reasons (e.g. an accidental or potentially criminal death or one that is just unexplained), and the need for one postpones the preparation of a death certificate. If the cause of death is self-evident and there is no indication of foul play, an autopsy isn't done and the preparation of a death certificate proceeds more quickly. In other words, while he may be &quot;legally&quot; dead (defined as discontinuation of the function of certain bodily processes like brain activity and heartbeat and breathing), he very likely isn't yet &quot;bureaucratically&quot; dead. You can be &quot;legally&quot; dead days before anyone even discovers that you have died, with the time of your death determined only retroactively, but that doesn't have any practical effect until someone discovers it and it makes its way through the bureaucratic and court process. It takes a few days after a death for a probate proceeding to establish death, heirship and the validity of any will (many states have a 120 hour minimum waiting period after a date of death and most autopsies are within 72 hours). Even if a probate proceeding had been commenced, a simple affidavit or notice that someone was not, in fact, dead would cause the case to be summarily dismissed and it is unlikely that much would have happened in the court process since then. With older people, one of the fastest agencies to act is the Social Security Administration discontinuing benefits. But a younger person wouldn't have gotten those to start with, so that wouldn't be a factor. Life insurance companies normally won't pay until a final post-autopsy death certificate with cause of death is in place (so they can look for fraud in the life insurance application relative to the cause of death stated). It would be very usual for a landlord to take action sooner than the month after learning of the death, and often the estate will keep in a lease in force much longer. Next of kin may have removed some valuables prior to any official declaration, and while most people would promptly return them upon learning of the &quot;mistake&quot;, a few items might not be recovered. The final death certificate would probably never be prepared. A preliminary death certificate might be quashed as erroneous and not filed with the Vital Statistics Department of the State Department of Health, by the preparing party, through a simple, oral, in office instruction to the person in the coroner's office who handles those filings. Since there isn't a formal judicial declaration of death or a final death certificate, simply informing an agency or person that received a preliminary notice that it was in error, perhaps by letter or email, would suffice. Even if a final death certificate had just issued, the person who filed it could probably fill out a simple correction form so soon (probably just a matter of hours) after it was filed. It wouldn't be that disruptive. The messy cases are when there has been a legal declaration of death and then months of actions have been taken in reliance on the determination that someone is dead.
If a trespasser openly and notoriously, exclusively and continuously possesses your property by building a fence on your land for the right time period, they automatically own the land. It still takes a court proceeding to record the passing of title (the trespasser has to prove in court that it is legally theirs). The trespasser would also have to establish that the recent survey was correct (survey errors do exist): was there an earlier survey in connection with the fence that established different boundaries? If (as it turns out) this has become his property, he abstractly has title to it, but only you and he know about it. The trespasser may have an interest in officially changing the property description, because it will officially increase the size of his lot and thus the value of the house+land. This also will increase their tax burden (while decreasing yours). The county has no knowledge of the fence: they go off of the official record, which says that you own that wedge. You also may have an interest in changing the property description, primarily to reduce your tax bite. There could also be issues with your resale of the property, since a mortgage company may require a survey of the property. Whether or not that is bad is hard to say: the consequence could be that the buyer is alerted to the fact that the lot is smaller than advertised and so on; in the current market I doubt anyone would care. If the fence goes away and you start using the land, then it will officially revert to you after a while. If you catch the party and complain within 10 years, you may recover the property (RCW 7.28.010). The limitations statute says that The period prescribed for the commencement of actions shall be as follows: Within ten years: (1) For actions for the recovery of real property, or for the recovery of the possession thereof; and no action shall be maintained for such recovery unless it appears that the plaintiff, his or her ancestor, predecessor or grantor was seized or possessed of the premises in question within ten years before the commencement of the action. That ship has (apparently) long since sailed. There is a different law pertaining to "Adverse possession under title deducible of record" which shortens the limit to 7 years, which is even less useful to the original owner. RCW 7.28.070 also shortens the time limit for an adverse possession case, to 7 years: Every person in actual, open and notorious possession of lands..who shall for seven successive years continue in possession, and shall also during said time pay all taxes legally assessed on such lands or tenements, shall be ... the legal owner of said lands There is another (more recent) tax-related provision, RCW 7.28.083. (1) A party who prevails against the holder of record title at the time an action asserting title to real property by adverse possession was filed, or against a subsequent purchaser from such holder, may be required to: (a) Reimburse such holder or purchaser for part or all of any taxes or assessments levied on the real property during the period the prevailing party was in possession of the real property in question and which are proven by competent evidence to have been paid by such holder or purchaser; This does not require them to have paid taxes, it say that the victor in the dispute may nevertheless be ordered to reimburse taxes paid by the other party (assuming the other party has paid the tax). So there is some chance of getting the taxes back. The reimbursement is at the court's discretion (continuing that section): (2) If the court orders reimbursement for taxes or assessments paid or payment of taxes or assessments due under subsection (1) of this section, the court shall determine how to allocate taxes or assessments between the property acquired by adverse possession and the property retained by the title holder. In making its determination, the court shall consider all the facts and shall order such reimbursement or payment as appears equitable and just. One should also pay attention to the last provision in that statute: (3) The prevailing party in an action asserting title to real property by adverse possession may request the court to award costs and reasonable attorneys' fees. The court may award all or a portion of costs and reasonable attorneys' fees to the prevailing party if, after considering all the facts, the court determines such an award is equitable and just. That means that the victor can request the loser to pay his attorney's fees. This is delicate math, balancing the chance of recovering some paid taxes vs. paying the other guy's costs. You could try calling the assessor to find out how much the decrease in lot size might net you (the land vs. improvement proportion of taxes is all over the map in KC, easily ranging from 60% to 250% depending on year). One additional feature of adverse possession is that it must be "hostile", i.e. without permission. If a neighbor builds on your land, you can explicitly give them revocable permission (to avoid "no you didn't" arguments, explicit and revocable written permission, signed by the neighbor, would bar an adverse possession claim). This raises an interesting question, to which I don't know the answer. Suppose the prior owner gave permission to the fence builder, and did not demand the removal of the fence when he sold the property or right after the neighbor sold his property (there was only on act of granting permission). Does the clock start from your acquisition of the property (whereupon the element of hostility is satisfied)? Or does it start from the point where they acquired the property and were in hostile possession of the land (I would bet a quarter that that's the answer). If (or, given that) the fence was moved further onto your property more recently, there is a chance to recover the newly-taken piece of land. If you grant them revocable permission to build a fence on your property, you would not be subject to an adverse possession taking for the newly-taken land. If at some point you tell them to tear down the fence and they refuse, you can sue them and the court will (almost certainly) order the removal of the fence. The neighbor might then initiate an action to quiet title on the originally-taken piece of land, so you'd be back to where you were 4 years ago. From a practical perspective, this is well-worth the small amount of money involved to consult with an attorney to get legal advice. The legal matter probably will not go away quickly, and they may be presently inclined to settle in a manner more in your favor.
Bizarrely, it depends on where you live in Kentucky. There is a law, the Uniform Residential Landlord and Tenant Act (KRS 383.500 to 383.705) which states limits on residential leases (otherwise, the matter would be governed by the terms of the contract and common law). The state didn't enact those laws as enforceable in the state, it "made them available" for cities, counties and urban-county governments to adopt unmodified (or not). So it depends in part on whether your locale adopted the law. Assuming it did, in the definitions, (13)"Security deposit" means an escrow payment made to the landlord under the rental agreement for the purpose of securing the landlord against financial loss due to damage to the premises occasioned by the tenant's occupancy other than ordinary wear and tear. (emphasis added) That would mean that they can't take the cost of carpet cleaning, painting etc. out of your security deposit. §383.595 (again, if applicable) states the obligations of the landlord, so he must Maintain in good and safe working order and condition all electrical, plumbing, sanitary, heating, ventilating, air-conditioning, and other facilities and appliances, including elevators, supplied or required to be supplied by him So it depends on whether the URLTA was enacted in your jurisdiction. This page indicates where that is the law, and also urges you to read the lease.
It would be more common to leave a separate direction regarding the disposition of your body in a document other than your will, entrusted with your next of kin. This is because a dead person's body is usually disposed of in less than a week following death, but a determination that a will is valid and effective often has a minimum five day waiting period from death and can take months. Often, this direction regarding your own remains would not be phased in terms of a sale or gift. Instead, it would usually be a "direction" about their disposition. Someone else's remains would be property governed by a will. But, we don't normally think of body parts of a recently deceased person as becoming property, rather than a person, until they are processed in a way that makes them not a biohazard. This would not be the case, obviously, immediately upon your death when the direction regarding your remains is intended to take effect. Also, while selling already processed bones can be permissible, selling organs for transplantation is generally not permissible, although there can be reimbursement for any medical costs or similar out of pocket expenses incurred in connection with that process, again reflecting the distinction between an unprocessed dead body which is often not considered property, and a processed dead body part which often is considered property.
Transfer of title must eventually occur, otherwise the property was never willed to another because the willing of the property is perpetually incomplete. One can place conditions on the transfer of title, but those conditions cannot last forever. They can last quite long, but there is a rule against perpetuities, especially created due to clauses constraining the transfer of of title in wills. This rule applies to a person who is transferring title, with a conditional clause that bars the full use of the property. If such a clause is limited, then it does not exist in perpetuity. The rule specifically addressed the will's call to reassign title if the transfer's clauses were violated. The maximum limitation historically was the lifetime of some person alive when the will was executed, plus 21 years, to permit an unborn grandchild to inherit. The reason this rule came about was due to the will of Henry Frederick Howard, the Earl of Arundel and Surrey. It effectively left the dead Earl managing his estates after his death, shifting properties that were bequeathed, based on the possibility of a &quot;more suitable&quot; heir being born after the Earl's death. This will eventually created the most complicated bit of common law that exists to date. In my totally amatuer attempt to summarize it; it is a combination of at least two ideas: a &quot;dead hand&quot; (deceased person) cannot guide the activities of the living forever transfer of property (title) must eventually be fully transferred Exceptions to the rule exist for conditional transfer of title back to the person who originally owned the property, but these exceptions cannot apply when the transfer is to a third party. This clause in Evan's will, &quot;If the state violates this clause, the property is to return to the heirs of the estate of Evan Carroll.&quot; would only be enforceable for a limited amount of time. First, the Estate of a dead Evan Carroll is not a lasting entity, eventually his estate would be closed. Finally, the transfer to the &quot;heirs&quot; of Evan Carroll would be a transfer to a third party, subject to the rule. Some states interpret their protections against the rule in different ways; but, nearly all states that have revoked the rule have done so by making a new rule (often with easier to manage time limits). A handful claim to have revoked the rule; but, they use other legal approaches to prevent this problem from occurring. Texas has extended the rule to 300 years while New South Wales, puts the limit at 80 years. Texas's extension seemed to be primarily to permit trust funds to operate legally long after the person establishing it had died. Consider what happens if such a rule doesn't exist. The title of the property could never be fully transferred, because the clause could never be proven to not have been violated. This would dramatically devalue the property, and clog the courts with suits claiming property held by one family for 100 years isn't theirs because of some evidence just uncovered about what happened 60 years ago. It also would massively complicate the selling of the property, because a clean title could never be proven. Note that this rule would have no bearing on a covenants not tied to the property's transfer of title. This rule even made it into a recent Disney case, which is explained far better than I can by the Legal Eagle, Devin James Stone
With testamentary succession, the matter is simple: do what the will says. Religion aside, the Indian Succession Act, 1925 says As to what property deceased considered to have died intestate.—A person is deemed to die intestate in respect of all property of which he has not made a testamentary disposition which is capable of taking effect. Illustrations (i) A has left no will. He has died intestate in respect of the whole of his property. (ii) A has left a will, whereby he has appointed B his executor; but the will contains no other provision. A has died intestate in respect of the distribution of his property. (iii) A has bequeathed his whole property for an illegal purpose. A has died intestate in respect of the distribution of his property. (iv) A has bequeathed 1,000 rupees to B and 1,000 rupees to the eldest son of C, and has made no other bequest; and has died leving the sum of 2,000 rupees and no other property. C died before A without having ever had a son. A has died intestate in respect of the distribution of 1,000 rupees. Then other acts address intestate succession, such as the Hindu Succession Act. If we suppose the will only identifies an executor, then w.r.t. distribution the Hindi Succession Act (etc.) govern the distribution. Those acts are ostensibly specific enough that there is no discretion: except, the law only addresses portions of the estate, and not very specific matters such as who gets the watch and who gets the computer. Indeed, there is a reasonable chance that property is not wholely transferred to a beneficiary, instead the beneficiary gain an interest in the property. There are also related provisions regarding an heir's transfer of his interest in property where other heirs have a &quot;right of first refusal&quot;. So in general, the laws of intestate succession remove discretion from the equation. A will could, however, empower an executor to make a decision. The provisions of the will must be in writing. &quot;Challenging&quot; a will is a specific legal process, not the same as &quot;asking about a will&quot;. If a legal petition has been filed, the will is challenged. If a person asks a lawyer &quot;is that really legal; what does that mean&quot;, that is not a challenge.
We have no way of knowing when this happened, but it is probably a fact, recorded some time in the past. Utility companies very frequently obtain a right-of-way (easement) which gives them certain rights to your property. Typically, this happened a long time ago when a previous owner agreed. As for gas pipelines, that typically includes "don't plant trees" restrictions. The easement is usually recorded in the county office where deeds are filed. The legal basis is generally "because you agreed, or some previous owner agreed". You can get a copy of the easement to see if "no trees" is actually part of the agreement. If yes, no point in arguing, if not, you could hire a lawyer if they are demanding that they are threatening you. They are allowed to be concerned and to ask you to cut trees regardless, but if it's not required by the terms of the easement, you can say "No, I'd rather keep my tree".