Legal Question in Real Estate Law in California

Re: No rental agreement

This question seems to be coming up fairly frequently now. I believe the answer lies in the legal distinction between a tenant and a guest. If the person is a tenant, you need to go through a formal eviction process, involving formal notice and probably an unlawful detailer suit followed by a writ of possession and action by the sheriff (in extreme cases).

On the other hand, if the person's legal status is "guest" or even "lodger," you can terminate that status by giving any kind of reasonable notice; that turns them into a trespasser, and you are entitled to immediate police assistance if necessary.

The distinction between a tenant and a guest is not always that easy to delineate. Even a person who pays rent may be a lodger rather than a tenant. The main defining characteristic of a tenant is that the tenant is granted the exclusive right of possession to part or all of a piece of real property. In your case, if there was a clear understanding that when you were in town you had the right to occupy (or share) all parts of the property, the person is probably a guest, especially if he wasn't paying anything (but payment of rent is not by itself determinative; it is whether any exclusive possessory right was given up).

I'd say if the facts seem to fit the description of guest rather than tenant, go for it, and see what happens. In fairness, give the person enough time to remove his belongings. If he leaves anything behind after reasonable notice, I'd say you have a strong legal argument that you're not responsible for property left behind, which is different than it would be with a former tenant's belongings, by the way.