CA Trust property has to be sold due to survivorship clause, however, after 8 months following the passing of the surviving Settlor, the property has not yet been listed for sale, and 2 adult grandchildren beneficiaries still reside in the property.
Many of the household items were packed into boxes by the housekeeper several months ago, but left open for review by siblings. The trustee (sibling) had his attorney send a letter to the other siblings suggesting that they all divide the personal property, and use the drawing of lots over contested items. Thus, the siblings placed name labels on the personal property indicating items they were interested a few months ago, but the personal property remained in the house.
About a month ago, one of the grandchildren beneficiaries informed the trustee that the language in the trust amendment did not address the personal household property, thus, the original trust still divides the personal property with 50% to the siblings and 50% shared by the grandchildren.
Soon thereafter, the trustee threatened to lock out the 2 grandchildren’s from the garage attached to the house if they did not remove their car from the gargage, or would have the police tow their car, because he wanted to use the garage to store the household items inside the garage before listing the house. The grandchildren refused to move the car and told the trustee that the garage was not large enough for the household items.
A few days later, trustee entered there home again with his key and had movers remove 90% the household furniture and items supposedly because the realtor friend to him that he could obtain a higher price for the property if it was empty and vacant. The trust is now having to pay $400 a month for storage, and the trustee never informed the other grandchildren that they have a beneficial interest in the household personal property.
The 2 adult grandchildren have lived as lodgers with their grandparents for two decades, and after nearly everything was moved from the house, they were given a 30 day notice to quit from the trustee’s eviction attorney (instead of the required 60 day notice to quit). They are upset because some of the items the movers took were previous given to them, and they were not given any notice having been asleep upstairs when the movers remove most of the household furnishing and other items.
According to the following civil code it appears that the trustee acts would give rise to the claim that the trustee desire to evict them is retaliatory, thus, illegal.
California Civil Code 789.3. (b) In addition, a landlord shall not, with intent to terminate
the occupancy under any lease or other tenancy or estate at will, however created, of property used by a tenant as his or her residence, willfully:
(1) Prevent the tenant from gaining reasonable access to the
property by changing the locks or using a boot lock or by any other
similar method or device;
(2) Remove outside doors or windows; or
(3) Remove from the premises the tenant's personal property, the
furnishings, or any other items without the prior written consent of
1) Should 2 grandchildren inform the eviction attorney, and the trust attorney that the 30 day notice is not valid, that a 60 day notice is required before the trustee’s eviction attorney files for the unlawful detainer?
2) Are the 2 grandchildren likely to avoid eviction due to the retaliatory acts of the trustee, and the fact that the trustee has never requested rent (since it would cost the trustee’s family more since his family is not paying fair market rates in 2 other trust properties). Also, would a judge or jury not evict since there is no irreparable financial harm to the trustee (or trust) since the 2 grandchildren will receive tens of thousand of dollars that could be used to pay rent, if necessary.