Fired nanny refuses to leave

[Flossie]

The upshot: Marcel and Ralph Bracamonte hired a 64-year-old woman through a Craigslist ad to live in their home as their nanny. The nanny, Diane Stretton, was not to be paid a salary, but would be given room and board if she helped with childcare and housekeeping for three children aged 11, 4, and 1. The mother is a young, apparently fit stay-at-home mother, but for some reason the couple felt the need to have live-in help. The Bracamonte's say they've done this before without problems, but there is definitely a problem this time.

'Nanny' Stretton started out just fine. For the first several weeks she performed her duties with no complaints, then suddenly began staying in her room, only coming out for meals and refusing to watch the children or do housework. Ms. Stretton complained that she had COPD and couldn't work. The Bracamonte's say they spent weeks trying to encourage Ms. Stretton to try to do at least some of her duties, then they gave up and asked her to leave. Ms. Stretton stayed put, so the Bracamonte's filed a three-day quit notice, but filled it out wrong so a local judge refused to enforce it.

At some point the local police were called to remove the recalcitrant nanny, but by that point residency had already been established so it's now considered a civil issue. The Bracamonte's now have to go through legal channels to force an eviction.

Ms. Stretton at this time has the legal ability to come and go as she pleases, and is said to only show up for meals. She is also said to have told the family that she wants them out of the house between the hours of 8 am and 8 pm, and is threatening to sue the family for elder abuse.

Ms. Stretton is no stranger to law suits, having been a party to at least 36 of them. In the words of Marcel Bracamonte, "If someone even looks at her funny she sues them". In fact, Ms. Stretton is listed on California’s Vexatious Litigant List.

There is so much to snark on here, but I have to wonder why the Bracamonte's didn't do a better job of vetting their live-in help, or why they even need it anyway. Not that they should have to share their home with Ms. Stretton at this point, but there is no legal document outlining the terms of employment, the duties expected of Ms. Stretton, or anything else. I suspect that Ms. Stretton will push this as far as she can and then crawl out her window some night, leaving the Bracamonte's with years worth of nightmares and herself with a clear path to another scam.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/family-stumped ... d=24316229

http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2014/06/ ... t-get-out/

[momof2treasures]

Wow the nerve of this woman! I would say if I could afford it, it might be nice to have an extra set of hands. To not have to drag the kids to the store, to shower in peace, and maybe get a workout in. It's a crazy story, I hope they get her out. I can't imagine having that kind of stress in the home with 3 kids.

[doggie]

She is a sue freak and is on the books for suing about everyone. Time to remove the food from the house eat out and when she leaves to eat change the locks and dump her crap in the lawn.

[Coco]

It's frightening that there are actually people like this out there floating around. My hubby's mother once told me not to keep a welcome mat out because that can be used as a defense for someone to stay, iifc, up to a month. For one thing, why would she know that and what circumstances would make someone stay where they are not welcome? Totally jaded my view of the world. :lol:

Definitely shows the need to check references on hiring anyone!

(and tell my kids over and over that when they marry someone the family becomes FAMILY iykwim) sigh :angry-banghead:

[Coconut Flan]

Why are they still feeding her? That would have been cut off by me as soon as she refused to leave. I'd lock up or remove all the food and probably vacuum at 2 or 3 AM every day. I'd also remove the furniture from "her room." I'd probably leave a mattress. So crazy to invite a stranger into your house like that though.

[doggie]

All night raves would be good

[keen23]

Wait, so these people hired someone from Craigslist, to LIVE WITH THEM, and didn't do enough of a background check to find out she was sue-happy? I'm sorry, but they deserve this. They wanted someone to live with them for free and take care of the kids, and were too cheap to pay someone a legal wage to do it. Now, they have to go through a legal eviction process. They'll learn the hard way. I have no sympathy- well, maybe for the kids, because gods knows who they've been left with in the past.

[DGayle]

Wait, so these people hired someone from Craigslist, to LIVE WITH THEM, and didn't do enough of a background check to find out she was sue-happy? I'm sorry, but they deserve this. They wanted someone to live with them for free and take care of the kids, and were too cheap to pay someone a legal wage to do it. Now, they have to go through a legal eviction process. They'll learn the hard way. I have no sympathy- well, maybe for the kids, because gods knows who they've been left with in the past.

Background checks usually show criminal history. And offering room and board in exchange for work is legal compensation. There is value to that.

[DGayle]

She's trying to claim tenant rights. My mother did the same thing, and the police kept having to get involved. My mother was only in my home for a couple weeks when she started getting violent and threatening to kill me. The cops told me bluntly that, for my own safety, I needed to get out until she was gone, but to make it easier, they would haul her in for a psych hold for a threat she made against me in their presence.

If you let someone stay with you, they can claim tenant right very fast, and you're screwed.

[keen23]

Background checks usually show criminal history. And offering room and board in exchange for work is legal compensation. There is value to that.

Yes, background checks do show criminal history. But a Google search of this woman's name pulls up the probate case in first page or two (and before all the news outlets picked up this story, it might have been higher). A quick read of the probate case (which I did read), shows that it had been going on for years, and that Diane Stretton was a litigious nightmare. Even when you hire an au pair from overseas, you have to pay that au pair IN ADDITION to providing room and board. So just offering room and board sounds like these people wanted to cheap out on hiring a nanny and a housekeeper.

[DGayle]

It depends on how much help was required. Au pairs are full time, plus they typically can't get other jobs.

My best friend lived in an area where a room rental goes for $650, which doesn't count food or utilities, and the help the family she was with required about ten hours a week. She didn't get money on top of the rent, utilities, and all meals, as even she understood that that compensation she got was already equal to at least $17/hr, and tax-free to boot. She had a part-time job at a mall shop and used that money for other stuff. She thinks she got a great deal getting room and board paid in exchange for only about ten hours a week because she'd have had to work more than twice as many hours to pay for what she got for those 10 hours.

[Mama Mia]

It depends on how much help was required. Au pairs are full time, plus they typically can't get other jobs.

My best friend lived in an area where a room rental goes for $650, which doesn't count food or utilities, and the help the family she was with required about ten hours a week. She didn't get money on top of the rent, utilities, and all meals, as even she understood that that compensation she got was already equal to at least $17/hr, and tax-free to boot. She had a part-time job at a mall shop and used that money for other stuff. She thinks she got a great deal getting room and board paid in exchange for only about ten hours a week because she'd have had to work more than twice as many hours to pay for what she got for those 10 hours.

Exactly. I live in an area where rooms tend to rent for around $700 -900 a month, so providing part time childcare / housekeeping / eldercare / gardening in exchange for rent is often a very good option for everyone involved if a family has an extra room.

[16strong]

I can't believe these people haven't figured out a non-violent way to kick this woman out of the house. Put a lock on the refrigerator, store dry food in a place that can be locked up, and starve her out. As someone else has said, as soon as she goes out to shop for groceries, put new locks on the doors. Or, barring that, have someone come fumigate the house. Then put new locks on while that's being done. Not sure how big their house is, but even if it costs the upper amount of $4,000, that's much cheaper than legal fees to get her taken out and much less of a hassle.

[Mama Mia]

I can't believe these people haven't figured out a non-violent way to kick this woman out of the house. Put a lock on the refrigerator, store dry food in a place that can be locked up, and starve her out. As someone else has said, as soon as she goes out to shop for groceries, put new locks on the doors. Or, barring that, have someone come fumigate the house. Then put new locks on while that's being done. Not sure how big their house is, but even if it costs the upper amount of $4,000, that's much cheaper than legal fees to get her taken out and much less of a hassle.

You're missing the point. Of course there are ways they could get her to leave, but if they change the locks or do something dangerous like fumigate knowing she's in the house she could legally sue them. If she got I'll from the fumigation she could potentially file criminal charges. If someone is fighting an eviction the landlord needs to be very careful to follow the legal process or this nightmare could become much, much worse.

[FJismyheadship]

I think 16strong meant if they fumigate the house, the woman has to come out before the fumigation begins. Once she is out of the house, then they can change the locks.

[Mama Mia]

I think 16strong meant if they fumigate the house, the woman has to come out before the fumigation begins. Once she is out of the house, then they can change the locks.

They can, but they would be opening themselves up to a lawsuit that they could quite possibly lose. Once they have started down the eviction road they can't lock her out, or move her things or do anything else that could remotely be considered harassment or intimidation. Really sucks for them, but until the actual legal eviction goes through the often lengthy court process they are stuck with her.

Eta: I used to work with low income families with challenges like homelessness, and came across some really awful rental nightmares - sometimes caused by the homeowner, sometimes by the tenant, but always a huge pita.

[lilwriter85]

Wait, so these people hired someone from Craigslist, to LIVE WITH THEM, and didn't do enough of a background check to find out she was sue-happy? I'm sorry, but they deserve this. They wanted someone to live with them for free and take care of the kids, and were too cheap to pay someone a legal wage to do it. Now, they have to go through a legal eviction process. They'll learn the hard way. I have no sympathy- well, maybe for the kids, because gods knows who they've been left with in the past.

I was thinking the same thing about about them hiring a nanny via Craigslist. Craigslist can be used for gigs in certain situations, but for hiring nannies it's not a good thing. There are a few nanny or caregiver sites that people search for good candidates for nanny or caregiving jobs. There are also accredited agencies that do stuff like that. My cousin's girlfriend is an early childhood education major. She is currently working as a nanny for the children of two doctors. My cousin's gf isn't a live in nanny, but she does sometimes work overnights and the couple actually pays her a bit more when that happens.

[doggie]

They use a bike lock on the fridge. They can't even go into the part of the house she is in and change the locks without getting fined 60 thousand dollars.

[Coconut Flan]

Isn't that ridiculous?

[doggie]

Yep but it is the law and she planned this out. She must be one screwed up person. Making her miserable may be the only way.

[DGayle]

I can't believe these people haven't figured out a non-violent way to kick this woman out of the house. Put a lock on the refrigerator, store dry food in a place that can be locked up, and starve her out. As someone else has said, as soon as she goes out to shop for groceries, put new locks on the doors. Or, barring that, have someone come fumigate the house. Then put new locks on while that's being done. Not sure how big their house is, but even if it costs the upper amount of $4,000, that's much cheaper than legal fees to get her taken out and much less of a hassle.

Can't. She has the legal right to live there until the eviction notice is over. California is an extremely pro-consumer state, and usually that's a good thing. In cases like this, it is awful because the laws are being abused. She already comes and goes as she pleases because she has the legal right.

Moral right? Hell no. It sounds like she planned this, and whether or not the family did due diligence, they are still victims of this woman, and I'm not getting on board with blaming victims.

[DGayle]

Isn't that ridiculous?

Yes, which is why the law is fucked up. In California, the MINUTE you move into a house, you have tenants' rights. Most other states, it's 30 days after you move it. If you, as a landlord, violate a tenant's rights to try getting them to leave, you are the one whose fucked. As if you aren't already.

My mother-in-law's in-laws own rental properties not too far from all of this, and as tenants move out (most of theirs are older people who've been there for many, many years, who are good tenants and pay on time, and I know that for one of the oldest tenants, they've dropped the rent to nothing), they're selling off the houses to not have to deal with the decline in morals people have. What started the just-sell spree is a the last time they brought in new tenants, about five years ago or so, they had to evict both times because the tenants were horrible, and even though California is supposed to be fast about evictions, in reality it took upwards of a year both times while the tenants were trashing the place, and good luck getting the money to make repairs out of people like that.

If they were to even TRY locking them out, or going into the tenants' space, including the yard, they, the landlords absorbing the costs, would have been out more money than missing a year's rent and repairing holes in the walls. And no, it doesn't matter if the tenants live alone in the house, or if they're roommates. Even if you live in the home and are renting out just a room, you can only discriminate based on sex. So you could end up stuck with a bible-thumper who thinks her religion mandates slapping you with the bible everyday, and you're stuck.

[Coconut Flan]

Called a lawyer friend who said the nanny would have to go to court, but it's only $2000 per instance of entrance to her room without permission and in some instances they wouldn't need her permission just notice. Plus the nanny would have to go to court to claim it. They might have been better off offering the nanny a severance package to be paid once she was moved out of their house. The woman sounds irrational so that might not have worked either.

ETA: Found a news report that said she left the house 7 AM on Thursday but didn't take all her belongings. She's been homeless for years before this. Irrational is probably the least of her problems.

[chaotic life]

I hired a friend to do 20 hours of housework in exchange for a set of rooms in my house and she refused to do the work. Third time she quit, we told her to either pay the $650/month the set of rooms was worth or get out.

When she stormed out, we moved her stuff to the barn and locked it to keep it safe until she bothered to retrieve it. She threatened to sue us and called the cops. Cops stood on the property while she got her stuff and advised us to get her and her stuff gone because state law would have allowed her to she us. They were disgusted with her as we were and because she had made multiple false reports with the cops and CPS by that point, they told her if she ever contacted us again they would charge her with harassment.

But state law gave her tenant rights even though we had a contract and she had neither worked nor paid rent in months. It was an absolute nightmare and the level of entitlement she had by the end was mind boggling, but yeah I can well imagine what this family faced, except mine was originally a personal friend I tried to do a good deed and help out in her divorce.

[It'sFunToRun]

Now this is some fresh Chutzpah!