woman asks for room renter to be evicted - tenant kills her

[Rukh O'Rorke]

while judge delays......

“I am being terrorized daily in my own home," Cowen said. "Escalating each day. I need help. I need a restraining order.”



In response, Superior Court Judge James Cox gave Cowen an eviction, but not the one she needed. He ordered Pettigrew's dogs out of the house, but said Pettigrew could stay as long as he remained 5 yards away from Cowen. Cox told Cowen and Pettigrew to come to a court hearing in two weeks where they could work out a permanent solution.



Four days later, Cowen was dead. Pettigrew was in jail. The court hearing came too late.

www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/woman-recorded-her-own-murder-police-say/ar-BBB4RtF?li=BBnb7Kz

5 yards for a dangerous person? wte.

[Tennesseer]

It almost seems like orders of protection are worthless.

[Tennesseer]

Here's a violent incident from yesterday where the order of protection did no good.


Records show violent history for Ohio nursing home gunman

[dee27]

May 13, 2017 12:29:22 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

It almost seems like orders of protection are worthless.

They have no teeth especially if the order is the first on record for the one doing the harassment or physical harm.

[Miss Tequila]

May 13, 2017 12:29:22 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

It almost seems like orders of protection are worthless.

I agree.  A piece of paper won't protect but my gun will

[Opti]

May 13, 2017 12:29:22 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

It almost seems like orders of protection are worthless.

They generally are, and this one was stupid. I think most male judges assume women are over-reacting when telling their stories and that influences their judgments. I understand why you might be reluctant to evict someone immediately, yet if someone is already behaving badly, odds are they will escalate if the restraining order isn't granted - or even if it is.

I wonder if judges would be more careful if making the wrong decision resulted in jail time for them. Because how in the heck would you prove the guy stayed 5 yards away from you? Are you entitled to a get out of jail free card if you shoot them if they are within 2 yards or less of you?

[Tennesseer]

May 13, 2017 17:10:49 GMT -5 Opti said:

May 13, 2017 12:29:22 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

It almost seems like orders of protection are worthless.

They generally are, and this one was stupid. I think most male judges assume women are over-reacting when telling their stories and that influences their judgments. I understand why you might be reluctant to evict someone immediately, yet if someone is already behaving badly, odds are they will escalate if the restraining order isn't granted - or even if it is.

I wonder if judges would be more careful if making the wrong decision resulted in jail time for them. Because how in the heck would you prove the guy stayed 5 yards away from you? Are you entitled to a get out of jail free card if you shoot them if they are within 2 yards or less of you?

That was a very stupid and ultimately fatal decision by the judge. Telling someone to keep 15 feet away from someone inside a home just does not work.

[hoops902]

Part of the issue I'm guessing is the frequent over-reach of live-in landlords who don't want to go through an actual eviction...and so try for restraining orders (which are far easier and quicker to get initially). The natural counter-action to that is that judges are loathe to kick people out of their homes immediately for things like a restraining order.

One of the obvious solutions is that if you're THAT scared...move out yourself.

Not sure what people want the judge to do in this situation.  I haven't seen anything in the story that shows there was any proof of anything prior to the restraining order. Do we just have judges kick everyone out of their own home anytime someone else makes a claim? The judge could have simply dismissed the request for a restraining order...which is probably what the 5 yard order is in effect. With the massive number of people misusing restraining orders now, what do you do as a judge? 

[Opti]

May 14, 2017 17:32:47 GMT -5 hoops902 said:

Part of the issue I'm guessing is the frequent over-reach of live-in landlords who don't want to go through an actual eviction...and so try for restraining orders (which are far easier and quicker to get initially). The natural counter-action to that is that judges are loathe to kick people out of their homes immediately for things like a restraining order.

One of the obvious solutions is that if you're THAT scared...move out yourself.

Not sure what people want the judge to do in this situation.  I haven't seen anything in the story that shows there was any proof of anything prior to the restraining order. Do we just have judges kick everyone out of their own home anytime someone else makes a claim? The judge could have simply dismissed the request for a restraining order...which is probably what the 5 yard order is in effect. With the massive number of people misusing restraining orders now, what do you do as a judge? 

I'm confused. She wanted an actual eviction. My guess is she rented part of her home because she needed the income to keep paying her mortgage or property taxes. I agree there needs to be proof, but are you serious that a homeowner should move out of their own home and let a tenant remain until a judge decides on doing something that moves the tenant out?

[naughtybear]

If I seriously thought my life was in danger, hell yes I would do whatever was necessary. Sometimes, just sometimes no one else is going to save you but your own self.

[Green Eyed Lady]

First of all, no....male judges do not assume women are over-reacting. At least not where I am. They take these things very seriously.  Most of them actually care and if they don't, they at least care that their names aren't plastered all over the headlines for something like this. Laws are laws and from what I understand, eviction laws are especially touchy. A judge has to follow those procedures. An eviction doesn't happen overnight. Sometimes, it can take months.

Secondly...yes.  Restraining orders aren't worth the paper they are written on if a crazy person is intent on doing you harm.  It is a tool to get someone charged and jailed if they disobey them, but it's not much use if you are badly injured or dead. If someone is threatening you to the point you feel you need a restraining order, you need more protection than that order.

Thirdly, judges can't predict the future.  They can only follow the statues of the state they work in. The judge in this matter set a hearing to come to a permanent solution two weeks down the road.  Yes...I would have moved out of my house for two weeks until the matter was settled.  What were her complaints?  Water on a computer?  Missing silverware?  Late rent?  None of these things were crimes of violence against her.  She said he threatened her.  Obviously, she was telling the truth; but many people don't tell the truth.  What I wish is that a judge would say to the tenant, "You have to move out until we have a hearing on this matter to get to the bottom of things."  What I wish is that if you rent a room in your own home, you should be able to kick said tenant out any time you want without having to go through this stuff.  But I don't think that the law reads that way.  Again, not sure as landlord issues aren't something I know a lot about but I know in my State, you have to go through a LOT to get someone evicted and if you get it done in three months, you are lucky.

That doesn't mean she deserved what she got since she didn't leave; nor is it victim blaming.  It's common sense.  She'd be alive to attend that hearing if she'd used some common sense.  It makes me so mad that women don't protect themselves.  Nobody else is going to do it for you.  There are crazy people out there and you can't go it alone and toe-to-toe with them.  Protect yourself, dammit! 

 

[Deleted]

I wonder why the rules are different with spouses?  I got a restraining order on my husband living with me and he never stepped foot in the house again from that day on. 

[MJ2.0]

May 15, 2017 8:35:21 GMT -5 minnesotapaintlady said:

I wonder why the rules are different with spouses?  I got a restraining order on my husband living with me and he never stepped foot in the house again from that day on. 

because he chose not to. A piece of paper isn't going to stop someone who is crazy or just doesn't care.

[Deleted]

May 15, 2017 8:45:50 GMT -5 MJ2.0 said:

May 15, 2017 8:35:21 GMT -5 minnesotapaintlady said:

I wonder why the rules are different with spouses?  I got a restraining order on my husband living with me and he never stepped foot in the house again from that day on. 

because he chose not to. A piece of paper isn't going to stop someone who is crazy or just doesn't care.

I get that, but 15 feet in the same house?  That's not a very effective restraining order. 

[MJ2.0]

May 15, 2017 8:52:08 GMT -5 minnesotapaintlady said:

May 15, 2017 8:45:50 GMT -5 MJ2.0 said:

because he chose not to. A piece of paper isn't going to stop someone who is crazy or just doesn't care.

I get that, but 15 feet in the same house?  That's not a very effective restraining order. 

I agree.

[Tennesseer]

May 15, 2017 8:52:08 GMT -5 minnesotapaintlady said:

May 15, 2017 8:45:50 GMT -5 MJ2.0 said:

because he chose not to. A piece of paper isn't going to stop someone who is crazy or just doesn't care.

I get that, but 15 feet in the same house?  That's not a very effective restraining order. 

I went back and reread the article in the OP. The woman did not ask for a restraining order. She asked a judge for an immediate evction of her tenant. The judge said a court hearing would occur in two weeks fot the homeowner and tenant to work out their differences The only thing the judge did order was the tenant to do was remove his dogs from the house and get no closer to the home owner than fifteen feet.

[Deleted]

At least if one is out of the house there is a chance that it will mitigate the situation.  Having to see and interact with the person when there is hostility between them is just going to make it worse and if it escalates there is a much greater chance of violence because, they're RIGHT THERE. 

I know that someone could just violate an order outside of the home and show up and shoot you in the head...and that does happen, but usually it doesn't go down that way.  Usually, you get them apart and things mellow out. 

[finnime]

Usually things do mellow out. Unless they're JPN. (Just Plain Nuts)

[Opti]

GEL, I think he was trying to isolate her and make her unable to get help. Look again at two of the things he did-

"poured water on her computer and cut the batteries out of her phones."

That's pretty unusual. Notice too she recorded her death, she didn't make a phone call. I think I'd have trouble finding friends that would put me up for two weeks while my tenant trashed my home.

[Green Eyed Lady]

May 15, 2017 11:15:56 GMT -5 @sroo4 said:

What's bizarre is that this could easily have fallen under the domestic violence bucket, which typically has specific rules for who can stay in the house and who can't.   I still think the judge is an idiot. 

I don't know how it is in other states, but in my state this wouldn't fall under the domestic violence statues.  For that to happen, it has to be a familial or intimate relationship.  A renter would not count.  That poor woman was in trouble the minute she let him into her home.  And there wasn't much anyone could do to protect her.

What he did could be construed as psychological violence, but since it wasn't a familiar or intimate situation, I don't think they could have charged him with this.  Had it been that simple, police could have removed one party (hopefully, the perpetrator) from the premises immediately.

Maybe the statues have broadened since I last looked.  It would certainly be smart to include a person in residence - even if they were not family or an intimate partner. 

[Deleted]

In MN these are the relationships that qualify as "domestic".


Spouses

Persons related by blood

Roommates

Former roommates

People in a dating relationship

Former spouses

People who share a child

Parents/children

A pregnant woman and the father

[DagnyT]

California has some of the most tenant friendly, landlord unfriendly laws of all the states. When she invited someone to live in her house and pay rent, she set up a landlord/tenant relationship.  The judge was most likely just following the laws enacted by the state legislature and/or the local city council. It is a long process to evict a tenant in California.

[zibazinski]

All the states are that way now. Texas used to be landlord friendly. You didn't pay your rent? After 3 days late you were served with payment due by the 10th. No rent paid by then? You had the right to throw your tenants belongings out of the house. I was visiting my aunt when on tv was the deadbeat tenant boo hooing about her stuff being thrown out onto the front yard and the locks changed on her. Guess the laws were different wherever she came from. Surprise!! 😂👏🏻👍🏻 That's how the laws should be. But they aren't. I'm glad I'm not a landlord anymore.

[hoops902]

May 14, 2017 20:38:22 GMT -5 Opti said:

May 14, 2017 17:32:47 GMT -5 hoops902 said:

Part of the issue I'm guessing is the frequent over-reach of live-in landlords who don't want to go through an actual eviction...and so try for restraining orders (which are far easier and quicker to get initially). The natural counter-action to that is that judges are loathe to kick people out of their homes immediately for things like a restraining order.

One of the obvious solutions is that if you're THAT scared...move out yourself.

Not sure what people want the judge to do in this situation.  I haven't seen anything in the story that shows there was any proof of anything prior to the restraining order. Do we just have judges kick everyone out of their own home anytime someone else makes a claim? The judge could have simply dismissed the request for a restraining order...which is probably what the 5 yard order is in effect. With the massive number of people misusing restraining orders now, what do you do as a judge? 

I'm confused. She wanted an actual eviction. My guess is she rented part of her home because she needed the income to keep paying her mortgage or property taxes. I agree there needs to be proof, but are you serious that a homeowner should move out of their own home and let a tenant remain until a judge decides on doing something that moves the tenant out?

Of course.  If you're afraid for your life...get the hell out of there!

[formerroomate99]

There are a lot of people out there who have an extra bedroom they could rent out.  There are also a lot of people who don't make enough to have their own place and end up homeless as a result.  But if you're going to tell someone that they have to put their lives on the line to rent out a room, there aren't going to be many takers and a lot of people are going to end up homeless as a result.  

[hoops902]

May 15, 2017 20:06:43 GMT -5 formerroomate99 said:

There are a lot of people out there who have an extra bedroom they could rent out.  There are also a lot of people who don't make enough to have their own place and end up homeless as a result.  But if you're going to tell someone that they have to put their lives on the line to rent out a room, there aren't going to be many takers and a lot of people are going to end up homeless as a result.  

You're going to have a much larger problem if you start telling landlords they can evict people with no notice with no proof of any threat to someone's safety.

[Bonny]

May 15, 2017 13:38:12 GMT -5 DagnyT said:

California has some of the most tenant friendly, landlord unfriendly laws of all the states. When she invited someone to live in her house and pay rent, she set up a landlord/tenant relationship.  The judge was most likely just following the laws enacted by the state legislature and/or the local city council. It is a long process to evict a tenant in California.

They don't have to be but you do have to dot every "i" and cross every "t". Some of these "professional tenants" are excellent manipulators and a sympathetic judge may grant them extra time to locate housing.

I know when I did the eviction of the tenants up in my SF Bay Area house I was worried that trying to evict the family in April with a school teacher mother and three school aged children could be a problem. I deliberately waited a month before pulling the plug so that the order to vacate would be effective after the school year was over.

They still had their lawyer pull some cr*p on me to challenge the eviction but at least they got out and didn't trash the house. I eventually got all of my money when I made a demand for the unpaid rent. I pointed out that while they couldn't figure out how to pay me my $2700/mth rent somehow they had figured out how to find another house which rented for $4,000/mth.

[Bonny]

DH has a local friend who has been in a bad roommate situation. The friend, we'll just call him "A" is disabled with a very serious head injury and close to 60. He's not paralyzed but has severe mobility issues and is in a wheelchair. His 90 year old mother lives with him and has her own health issues.

They got the idea that they could rent out a room in the 3br 1ba house to someone who would provide caregiving services for below market rent. I don't know all the details but FMR for that type of situation would be close to $1,000 for the one bedroom. Woman hasn't paid rent, is apparently on some kind of poverty level assistance and is not providing caregiving. Of course son and mother are white and roommate is black just to keep it interesting.

They went to court and judge gave the woman another two weeks to find another place to live. But you can bet if she couldn't afford to pay the $ for a below market rent situation what are her chances to find other housing.

Bad, bad situation.

[formerroomate99]

May 16, 2017 9:36:30 GMT -5 hoops902 said:

May 15, 2017 20:06:43 GMT -5 formerroomate99 said:

There are a lot of people out there who have an extra bedroom they could rent out.  There are also a lot of people who don't make enough to have their own place and end up homeless as a result.  But if you're going to tell someone that they have to put their lives on the line to rent out a room, there aren't going to be many takers and a lot of people are going to end up homeless as a result.  

You're going to have a much larger problem if you start telling landlords they can evict people with no notice with no proof of any threat to someone's safety.

Either way, you're going to have big problems.  

In my grandmother's time, when landlords could evict easily, it was as common as dirt for someone who had an extra room to rent it out.  As a result, a lot of people who would have been homeless otherwise had a roof over their heads, and a lot of little old ladies who would have been destitute had some income coming in.  But since renting out a room now means risking financial ruin and your life, you don't see as many people renting out rooms, and if they do, they have to overcharge so they can save for the lawyer's bills and property damage that comes with a long eviction process. The lack of affordable housing is a big problem for low wage workers.  My area is booming, which means that the price of rentals has skyrocketed.  This has put a lot of decent working people on the streets.  

[hoops902]

May 16, 2017 10:28:11 GMT -5 formerroomate99 said:

May 16, 2017 9:36:30 GMT -5 hoops902 said:

You're going to have a much larger problem if you start telling landlords they can evict people with no notice with no proof of any threat to someone's safety.

Either way, you're going to have big problems.  

In my grandmother's time, when landlords could evict easily, it was as common as dirt for someone who had an extra room to rent it out.  As a result, a lot of people who would have been homeless otherwise had a roof over their heads, and a lot of little old ladies who would have been destitute had some income coming in.  But since renting out a room now means risking financial ruin and your life, you don't see as many people renting out rooms, and if they do, they have to overcharge so they can save for the lawyer's bills and property damage that comes with a long eviction process. The lack of affordable housing is a big problem for low wage workers.  My area is booming, which means that the price of rentals has skyrocketed.  This has put a lot of decent working people on the streets.  

The "risk your life" argument simply doesn't hold. How many people drove cars in your grandmother's time? A LOT more people die in car accidents now...do you see that slowing down? People choose not to rent out rooms for a lot more reasons than risking financial ruin or your life.