Grotta v. Grotta, 01-5494 (2002) (2002)
- Citation
- Grotta v. Grotta, 01-5494 (2002) (2002)
- Parent Document
- Grotta v. Grotta, 01-5494 (2002) (2002)
- Jurisdiction
- Rhode Island (state)
- Effective Date
- 2002-09-20
Other Sections in This Document (29)
- Grotta v. Grotta, 01-5494 (2002) (2002)
- Grotta v. Grotta, 01-5494 (2002) (2002)
- Grotta v. Grotta, 01-5494 (2002) (2002)
- Grotta v. Grotta, 01-5494 (2002) (2002)
- Grotta v. Grotta, 01-5494 (2002) (2002)
- Grotta v. Grotta, 01-5494 (2002) (2002)
- Grotta v. Grotta, 01-5494 (2002) (2002)
- Grotta v. Grotta, 01-5494 (2002) (2002)
- Grotta v. Grotta, 01-5494 (2002) (2002)
- Grotta v. Grotta, 01-5494 (2002) (2002)
- Grotta v. Grotta, 01-5494 (2002) (2002)
- Grotta v. Grotta, 01-5494 (2002) (2002)
- Grotta v. Grotta, 01-5494 (2002) (2002)
- Grotta v. Grotta, 01-5494 (2002) (2002)
- Grotta v. Grotta, 01-5494 (2002) (2002)
- Grotta v. Grotta, 01-5494 (2002) (2002)
- Grotta v. Grotta, 01-5494 (2002) (2002)
- Grotta v. Grotta, 01-5494 (2002) (2002)
- Grotta v. Grotta, 01-5494 (2002) (2002)
- Grotta v. Grotta, 01-5494 (2002) (2002)
- Grotta v. Grotta, 01-5494 (2002) (2002)
- Grotta v. Grotta, 01-5494 (2002) (2002)
- Grotta v. Grotta, 01-5494 (2002) (2002)
- Grotta v. Grotta, 01-5494 (2002) (2002)
- Grotta v. Grotta, 01-5494 (2002) (2002)
- Grotta v. Grotta, 01-5494 (2002) (2002)
- Grotta v. Grotta, 01-5494 (2002) (2002)
- Grotta v. Grotta, 01-5494 (2002) (2002)
- Grotta v. Grotta, 01-5494 (2002) (2002)
Full Text
1,395 charsIn Tambor v. Miller, 792 A.2d 744 (R.I. 2002), the court addressed the claim by defendants, Robert Miller and Dora Miller, the owner of premises previously occupied by Daniel Tambor and Rami Johnson. Johnson was not a party to a written lease agreement and did not pay rent or give a security deposit, but who frequently stayed at leased premises The precise issue before the court was whether Johnson should be considered a tenant entitled to damages, return of part of a security deposit and attorney's fees. At trial, Johnson offered evidence that she stayed occasionally at Daniel's apartment when he was there and would take out the Millers' garbage. In discussing whether Johnson was a tenant, the court referred to § 34-18-11(14). The court observed "[T]here is no evidence in the record to demonstrate that there ever was any rental agreement, written or oral, between the Millers and Johnson. The mere fact that Johnson occasionally brought the Millers' garbage out for collection, without more, is insufficient even to imply that any such agreement ever existed." (emphasis added.) 792 A.2d at 745. The court in Tambor v.Miller, held "[c]onsequently, because Rami was never a party to any rental agreement with the Millers, she was not their tenant and she was not entitled to receive damages . . . under the Residential Landlord Tenant Act." (emphasis added.) Tambor, 792 A.2d at 746.