Ex-Wife Refuses To Leave Husband's House... Instantly Regrets It

our child will lose shelter, safety, schooling, community access to care. Um, we're very well established in the community. Um, they work at the high school.

Um, so this constitutes uh child endangerment on Mr Dash's part for forcing an [snorts] eviction for his minor child that very much doesn't want to move. Um, excuse me, Mr Blumbberg is back. Do we have Miss Deg Grez with us?

Hello. Mr Degre is with us as well. Mr Blumbberg, are you able to stay with us for a while now?

I am, judge. Thank you. All right.

Um, the case is with you to start and then we'll hear from Miss Degrez afterwards. How do you wish to proceed? Judge, Mr Judge, I think appearing via Zoom as well.

I I think he's muted. Mr Dash, are you with us? If so, I need to see your video on and your audio available.

Yeah, I'm here. Need to see your video, sir. Can you see me?

I can. Thank you very much. All right, Mr Blumbberg, go ahead.

Judge, let me, if I may, just take a moment to give you an overview of where we're at in this matter. Um, Mr Gra is the mother of my client's child. Um, in the midst of a custody dispute and u parenting time debate, the parties came to an agreement whereby uh Miss Deg Gres would be able to remain in the residence owned by my client and that is at Seagulland Drve, Gaylord, Michigan.

uh she was allowed to stay there for a period of time with the understanding uh that at the end of March of this year she was to vacate the premises. Uh that was memorialized in a mediation agreement between the parties and signed by the parties and their respective council. Um [clears throat] in in consideration of that u certain monies were to be deducted from Mr uh Dash's child support obligation.

Well, March came and went and Mr Grez has remained in that property since then. She's been served properly with a notice to quit and a complaint to recover possession of property. Um, her defense is, as I read it, or at least as I hear it, is that she's a single mother and she has no place to go and there were other, I guess, conditions that she believed would somehow allow her to stay in the property.

The reality is is that she has no legal right to remain there. She's been a holdover tenant since March 31st and we are simply seeking the court to enter an order to recover the property for my client. Mr Dash is here today if necessary to testify to those things that I've just represented to the court.

All right, Miss Degrez, do you disagree with anything that Mr Blumbberg has said? I would just I would disagree. talk a little bit louder so I can hear you.

I apologize. Um I would in fact dispute that um almost everything he said um and the eviction itself. Is there an agreement between the two of you for you to be out at a certain date?

Um yes sir. I may provide background as well just briefly. Um I am the primary caregiver, sole caregiver of um our shared minor son of Holton and I have maintained the stable residence at at Seagulland Drve since um November uh 2019.

Um we did enter agreement that was dated August 1st, 2024. Um it did ma'am, every time you look to the side, I I don't have the ability to hear you then. So, you either need to move the paperwork closer to the microphone or change something somehow so I can hear you.

Yes, sir. I do apologize. Um, the [clears throat] plaintiff and I did enter into a mediation agreement which was dated August 1st, 2024.

There were specific terms in that agreement that do apply directly to our situation now. Um first was um conditions related to payment of the arars um by the plaintiff which was conditional then on my move out. Um there were additional financial and logistic responsibilities um as well as within the mediation agreement there's a mutually agreed upon review to revisit mediation before summer 2025.

I did make several attempts um with community community mediation uh services. They did reach out to James and Mr Bloomberg and um my attempts for further mediation were denied. Um there was no final eviction or moveout date unless said conditions were fulfilled in good faith.

Um and there there's more. Um there was no official lease. It was just the date in the mediation agreement.

there was no official agreed upon terms outside of that date um with the various conditional matters I had already stated. Um, additionally, Mr Dash did unlawfully lock me out on March 18th, 2024, violation of MCL law, uh, 600 2918. Um, I do have video proof from the Michigan State Police.

Um, two 10-minute videos with Trooper Hop of Mr dash changing the locks on Colton and I and um not allowing what was the date on that? What was the date of that? March March 18th, 2024.

So, this would have been um just as like within process of trying to get the PO um of 24 [clears throat] or 25 24. So, that would have been before the lease agreement or the mediation agreement. I mean, yes.

And there was no I asked for a lease. I was never given a lease. Um so the so the illegal lockout you say that there wasn't a lease agreement.

How did he illegally lock you out if there was no lease agreement? Um so this is so this was documented in the PO. Um what resistance um when he had disputed the PO there was like a three-hour uh court we had with um honorary judge Mertz and um so this has all been documented.

Um, I would think well documented. Um, I'm I'm not disputing the documentation, but the question I have is how would it violate the landlord tenant law if there was no lease agreement? And this happened prior to the mediation agreement.

Um, due to domestic situations at the time, Cole and I were living there um by ourselves and um, Mr Dash uh had become very threatening. So, I left the house for the night to go to my mother's and then when I returned the next day to try to get Colton's things, um he had locked us out and so I had requested police assistance out of Pier and they did record that interaction that was trooper hop. Um, so there's never been a lease in place is what I'm saying.

And um, I've definitely tried, but I believe it's always illegal to change the locks on someone's place of residence, which it was clearly mine established since November 2019. Um, all right. But then you stayed with him for another the end of March, April, May, June, July, and then August before the remediation agreement.

Right. No, sir. Um, Mr Dash was not present at the home after a domestic incident in August.

Um, and so up to that point, were you residing together? up until August 2023. Yes.

Until that reported domestic incident, we were Yep. So, you're alleging they changed the locks in March of 24. That is correct, sir.

And you reached a a mediation agreement in August of 24. Mhm. All right.

I just want to make sure that I understood your timeline. Thank you. Okay.

I have more in case you need more. Well, let's let's [clears throat] take your statements one at a time. Mr Blumbberg has said um that there was a mediation agreement and it appears that you agree with that and the med I'm looking at it.

[clears throat] It's dated Thursday, August 1st of 2024. Um, and it does say in the down near the last paragraph, the opening sentence says both parties agree that Rebecca will stay in the home owned by James until March 31st, 2025. Am I quoting that correctly?

That that is correct, sir. Um, based on the condition, you are you are alleging that there are some caveats to that, some conditions on that. Um, absolutely.

And other illegal bad faith things. I'm sorry I didn't hear what you said. I apologize for interrupting.

No, you're you're fine. Um I said as as well as further um actions by the plaintiff that I would consider illegal and against like the thection. Let me let me take these things one one at a time then so I can understand them uh in order.

Uh okay. What is your first reason for believing that there's an additional condition in play? Start start with your first one and and we'll take them in order.

Okay. Um, and just one little bit of background information. I'm I'm again having a hard time hearing you, ma'am.

I'm so sorry. I keep trying to speak up. It could be my computer as well.

I do struggle with Zoom. Um, so during the mediation agreement did go on for hours. I was under like severe emotional and mental duress and um I did agree because I felt I had no other choice.

Judge, I object. First of all, as you well know, what goes on at mediation is confidential. The mediation agreement reflects the agreement of the parties and their attorneys.

She was represented by councel at the mediation. So any discussions about what went on in mediation, I believe, is improper. All right, ma'am.

Council is correct. An agreement is an agreement. It really doesn't matter how it got there or when it got there or under what circumstances it got there.

This is an agreement. Uh it it appears to me that it was Has this been entered in a court court order that that solidified this? I I assume in the court in the custody proceedings.

Yes, judge. It has. Mr Grez, do you agree with that?

that this has been so uh solemnized by a court order so that it's a binding agreement on the parties. Uh yes sir I have the dates here as well. It was with honorary judge Mertz.

Um I would just like to add though if um just given the context matters and like that the threat like I felt very threatened. Um I still do ma'am whether you felt threatened or not isn't going to change anything. If if this is a court's order out of this mediation agreement, it is what it is.

Whether you agree to it willingly or unwillingly or under duress or whatever, I can't change that now. All I can do is enforce what it says. So, both parties have agreed that there was a mediation agreement.

Both parties have agreed today uh that this was been uh put in place under a court's order in the custody and parenting time case. So I need to know whether or not there are these conditions that you allege to this agreement. So the the agreement says in in one sentence that you're supposed to be out by March 31st.

What do you believe allows you to stay after that? What what are the conditions that you outlined? So lay them out for me and we can take them one by one.

So what's your first condition? There's no guarantee. Ma'am, I'm I'm sorry, but every time you turn your head, I cannot hear you.

So if you want to hear have me hear you, you have to face the camera and and speak directly into the microphone. Okay. I'm so sorry.

Um I just get a little nervous. So I think foremost there was no official lease telling me any further terms. Um in a lease situation there's usually like a monthtomonth that happens and that would just be like the very tip of the iceberg is there not being a lease me asking for a lease not being provided with one and repeatedly like trying to go through community mediation.

So I'm not even sitting in front of yourself right now. Um so that would be the first no lease. Um, there's several.

So, the first one is no lease. Mr Blumbberg, your response to that, judge. There didn't need to be a lease.

It was a verbal agreement reduced to writing that allowed her to stay in the home until March 31st of 2025. Any other terms in terms of who was paying the utilities, none of that was a a an issue or a factor in her ability to stay there. And again, there were no conditions.

If the court reads this mediation agreement, there's no language in there that says um [clears throat] the right to stay in in in the uh property is conditioned upon Mr Dash complying with all other terms because if that's the road where she's going down, the fact is she is the one that's denied my client parenting time, which was granted by the mediation agreement. So they're not I'm not here sorry to interrupt, but I'm not here to do parenting time. This is a landlord tenant matter.

That's that's a different court. That's a different proceeding. So the issue is whether or not the fact that there was no written lease allows her or is a condition would allow as a condition for her to stay longer.

I know of no legal precedent that would say that that is true. Ma'am, the fact that there was no written lease may have enforcement consequences as far as him requiring you to pay rent, but I don't know of anything that says that you get to stay longer without his permission. And clearly, he has revoked that permission at this point.

So, I don't know of any legal requirement that says that you are allowed to stay other than by the party's own agreement after you've reached an agreement that says you are to be out on a certain date. Uh, so so I'm going to deny that as a basis for allowing you to continue to stay. What is your second reason that you believe would allow you to stay longer than March the 5th the excuse me, March 31st?

Um, okay, very good. So I do disagree with Mr Blumbberg. Um verbally within that mediation um it was known or agreed that the payment of the arars was how I was going to move out of the house as well.

Like it's pretty conditional on it. Um, [clears throat] so the second basis is that you believe that he had to repay child support rears [snorts] in order for you to be required to move out of the hole. Is that correct?

Yes, sir. And there Yes, sir. Um, I do have documentation of all the payments um which I've submitted.

I think Mr Bloomberg does as well, but I've never seen James documentation of the payment. So, I'm not aware um the truthfulness of what was submitted. Um yes.

So, as I took it, the move out date was based on his fulfillment of said obligations. Um he failed to pay, he failed to mediate, and he acted unilaterally against um several court um matters. his own lawyer.

Um myself, good faith. Yes. All right.

So, hang on. Let's let's not get too far ahead of ourselves. So, the second reason that you would think he should be able allowed to stay is that is that he failed to pay the arars that are referred to in this same paragraph uh where it says um Rebecca agrees that there will be a monthly rent of $1,500 beginning the first of the month following the child supporters being paid in full.

Uh Rebecca agrees that the rent money can be credited toward the child support beginning the first of the month of the child support arers being paid in full and then uh James and Rebecca will provide receipts of payments as a credit since March of 2024 to both attorneys on the child support in a rear. So you believe that those three sentences together give you a condition that says that you can stay until he pays off the arars. Is that what you're arguing?

mediation agreement that longer requested. I I'm so sorry. I would have liked the mediation agreement that that paperwork to have fleshed that out more clearly for me just as I had asked several times for a lease so I understood all of the terms and I was change it now.

All I can do is try to give effect to what it says. So okay that's the three sentences that you want me to consider on your argument. Is that correct?

That's what you think says that you can stay there longer if he doesn't pay the child support barriers. That's what it says. So yes.

All right. Mr Blumbberg, your response to that. Well, two things.

I don't believe it says that. And more importantly, he has paid all the aars. There is no child support or rearage at the current time.

And how do I know that? Well, judge, that's a custody and parenting time issue that [laughter] you're [clears throat] not going to be addressing today. So, I can sure that the front the front of the court would be filing motions against Mr Dash if he was in the rears.

They have. All right. There's several motions.

There's 61 items. All right. Here's the language says that there will be monthly rent of $1,500 beginning the first of the month following the child supported re being paid in full.

From this document alone, I can't tell when payment of rent was supposed to start. It would be some point in the future from the date of this agreement. Whenever the child support was paid in full.

Yes. when the arrays were paid in full was when that would start. There is no payment on the house as well.

The house is paid off. That's an important detail. Yeah, there's no payment done with it.

All right. All right. Stop.

Let me let me process it. The next sentence says that Rebecca agrees that the rent money when paid in the future can be credited toward the child support beginning the first of the month of the child supporters being paid in full. So there's another in the future thing going to happen.

So rents in the future, rent being uh being placed towards or credited towards child support is in the future again after child support is paid or the rears is paid in full. And then the only other sentence that's there says Rebecca and James will provide receipts of payments as a credit for what has been paid since March of 2024. So something in the past.

So I got two sentences that deal with something in the future and I got a sentence that says something in the past. And we're going to try to work all this out about the arars. It doesn't say anything about condition on when you are to move out of the house.

It is rent for while you are staying there and it start which would start in the future if the arars are paid off. I assume if the arars are not paid off you would never owe rent and all it is is all that language is conditioned on rent being or excuse me a rears being paid first but if it is then you owe rent. If it's not you don't owe rent.

It's got nothing to do with how long you stay in the house. Okay. Okay.

So, I can't find any reason for payment of a rears to be allowing you to stay within the home. Okay. So, your next allegation of of a condition is that you said he failed to mediate as to parenting time.

Is that correct? Um, well, that and the matter of the house. I'm sorry.

That that in the matter of what the house that and the matter of the house that was mediate that was to be discussed in mediation. What about the house was to be discussed in future mediation? What about the house was supposed to be discussed in futureation?

Our shared minor child and I staying longer than the date in the mediation agreement was to be discussed in the media. Where does it say that that Where does it say that that's going to be further mediated? It it does not, sir.

I would have liked it to be included, but I don't have control. Well, you did at the time of mediation. You could have put that in there, but you didn't.

So, that's what I'm asking. But did I miss something? I I don't see it within this mediation agreement that you're going to come back and do future mediation on how long you get to stay in the house.

Can you point that out to me or or is it not there? It is not there. Sir, you're correct.

It would have been nice to have an addendum on that sentence that said and as well as the house. All right. Well, all I can do is enforce the agreement as it's written.

So yes, sir, I'll have to deny your request based on the failure to mediate on the house because it's not within the document and it doesn't appear to me to be a reasonable reading of what the document says to imply that or to infer that at this point either uh because future mediation is stated previously. Uh I believe um yeah uh three four paragraphs above that James will have six weeks of parenting time commencing in the summer of 2025 if the parties cannot agree on the schedule they agree to return to mediation. So there is a paragraph in there that talks about returning on a specific item.

So you could have put that in there about the length of time you were going to stay in the home and and that wasn't done there. Is there any other condition that you have that you believe allows you to stay within the home? Um, yes sir, I do.

Go ahead. I may proceed. Um, so the un the unlawful lockout of 31824 of which I have trooper um video from.

Is that not okay? So the lockout of March 18th of 24, which is approximately four and a half months before this mediation agreement, why would that allow you to stay longer than the So you had the lockout in March, you have the mediation agreement in August of 24. Why would that extend the period for you to stay that you reached in mediation in August?

Why would a March event change an August agreement? I'm sorry, ma'am. I can't hear you.

I I still I still can't hear you for whatever reason. I don't know if it's the microphone or here. Let me pull that up.

If you're if you're close enough, I get you, but as soon as you back up a little, I can't hear you. I just don't want you to see my whole face. So, okay.

Here we go. Um, your whole face is just fine. Uh, I don't have a problem looking at your face, so you're you're good.

Just I just need to hear you because it's important. Okay. Yes.

Very good, sir. Um, so feel free to interrupt me. Um, I would like to respond to that.

Go ahead. Yep. This is just one item that reflects a pattern of control that the plaintiff has exercised over myself for over a decade.

Um, there was a criminal case that was pending that was um, uh, led to a plea deal just this past week and additional humiliation on my part. Judge, I'm going to object to this. It has nothing to do with the landlord teny matter.

Excuse me. Let me just finish. Mr Grez, hang on.

Both both parties. Hang on. Let me explain it to her.

Mr Grez, Mr Blumbberg has the right as an attorney to object to an argument or a statement that that the other side makes. So, he's made an objection. I'm then going to come to you and you're going to tell me where it is that you're going with this argument and then I'll rule on whether or not it's going to be allowed.

So, he says that your argument that decades worth of alleged bad behavior on Mr Dash's part isn't relevant to this agreement. So, I want you to tell me why you think it is. Myself?

Yes, me. I am asking you that. Yes.

Go ahead. Tell me why it should be I should consider it. Okay.

I believe this attempted eviction is a clear act of retaliation and harassment. Um, intended to punish me for any testimony that I would have put in for the case that was just decided this past week. um continually undermine my stability and safety and coerc me into silence.

Um the threats placed on both myself and our shared minor child, put us at severe risk of homelessness. Um our child will lose shelter, safety, schooling, community access to care. Um we're very well established in the community.

Um they work at the high school. Um so this constitutes uh child endangerment on Mr Dash's part for forcing an eviction for his minor child that very much doesn't want to move. um under Michigan law MCL 722 uh 622.

So I consider this to be like a retal retal retaliatory eviction and um leading to child endangerment. Okay. They have more as well.

But the the idea behind all you want to explain in a little more detail as to what what he's done to you that causes you to believe it was a retaliatory eviction. Is that correct? I can I can't I can't do that.

I just want I just want to make sure I understand your argument first. So Mr Blumbberg has objected. You've said you believe it to be a retaliatory eviction.

I'm going to give you the opportunity to tell me uh quickly, but I am going to give you the opportunity to tell me why you believe that this is a retaliatory eviction. Go ahead. Uh there's been a long pattern of threats and documented 911 calls um from situations with Mr Dash.

Um I have continually felt threatened by both himself and his council. Uh there was a letter sent by Mr Bloomberg to the state police, the county police that I was not even supposed to be allowed in my home until the PO was upheld by honorary judge Marks. Um, so I have felt threatened all along.

Um, and there is documentation of it, including the the lengthy PO hearing that we had um that supports that. Um, let's see. I have more.

Um, I do feel like it's a violation of my rights as a tenant, as a mother, and um, a survivor, and I'm just asking for continuity of housing for Colton and I, or even for the parties to agree to revisit this matter in mediation. I would really just like to talk it out, not in this setting. Um, so or an extension.

Um, both our son really just doesn't want to move. Anything else that you want me to be aware of regarding this claim of retaliatory eviction? Um, just give me one second to look over my notes again.

Ma'am, you're too far away from the microphone. I can't hear you. Just give me one second so I can look over my notes.

Yep. Go ahead. Fulfillment of obligations.

um child endangerment. [clears throat] Oh, I feel that the threats are retaliatory um based on my reporting of these incidents. Um like I said, there's multiple calls documentation with both state troopers and um county police.

Um and I feel like it is also retaliation for my cooperation and respect for the legal system and for law enforcement. um to my knowledge like it would constitute grounds for port protection which I currently have in a no contact order not for eviction. Hi.

Is there anything else that you want to tell me about regarding the retaliatory eviction? [clears throat] All right, Mr Blumbberg, your response to that. Judge, this is hardly a retaliatory eviction.

This is a an a date in which she agreed to vacate the premises. She has been there improperly as a holdover tenant since March, April, May, June. Here we are in July and she still refuses to vacate the property and assert some ridiculous claim of retaliatory eviction and child endangerment.

The fact is is she was a guest in my client's home up until the time where they separated. And when we entered into this agreement, the parties agreed she would stay until March 31st. That's why my client is seeking to regain possession.

She has no legal right to be there at this point. We would ask the court to disregard any claim of retaliatory eviction. All right.

Ma'am, I can certainly understand emotionally why you would believe uh that that you are uh being threatened or that you have um in the past been threatened. I can certainly understand why it would be emotionally difficult for you to leave the home uh and why your son would not necessarily want to leave the home, but I find no legal basis for believing that this is a retaliatory eviction. Uh the date the date noted in the mediation agreement and subsequently um affirmed by the court's order uh was that that you were to stay in the home uh owned by James until March 31st of 2025 which means that after that time he has a proper legal basis for asking that you be in essence be evicted.

Uh he has taken advantage of that. uh there is no indication on this record that he has by filing this action that he has uh violated some other law or some other court order. I've not heard or seen any indication that the custody or parenting time order has been violated or that the personal protection order has been violated by this request.

The request is a normal legal landlord tenant law request. It's not he didn't self-help. My original thought when you first brought up the um lockout was that that was in March of 2025 and that that this was somehow a self-help um cause of action and that you were objecting to that.

Uh so I I see no action by either Mr Blumbberg or by Mr Dash that is retaliatory. They they are simply using the court system to enforce a legal right that you agreed to in when you reached the mediation agreement and that the court affirmed [snorts] when it uh entered the court's order in a custody and parenting time thereafter. Uh for that agreement to have any effect, the court has to be able to enforce it.

And the court uh the mediation agreement and the court order very clearly says that you were to stay in the home until a specified date. You have now exceeded that by a number of months. It was supposed to be March the end of March this year.

So April, May, June, and now be in through the first week of July. Uh you have exceeded that time period. Uh so I'm going to deny that as a reason for allowing you to stay further within the home.

Do you have any additional conditions that you believe would allow you to stay within the home uh outside this mediation agreement? Um did you then did you um did you refuse the child endangerment situation with him then forcing his minor child to be homeless? the the statute that you cite MCL722.

622 is the uh child protection statute uh and it basically is the definitional section. It does not contain it does not contain a a specified definition of child. Uh there are certainly definitions of neglect, um serious abuse, all of those kinds of things.

But the only statute that I'm aware of in the state of Michigan is drunk driving with a child less than 16 years of age in your car. That's called childment under the Michigan statutory scheme. Um, I understand what you're saying that by kicking your son your son uh out of the house at uh or or without you having another place to go might be some sort of in your mind.

Uh, but I don't find that as a matter of fact today because I don't know under what circumstances you would be able to move the child. And if you are the parent, as you've alleged, if you are the parent with custody at the moment, uh, where the child is going to stay would fall on you first. Even if you were, so if this was a third party that was saying, "Hey, you haven't paid your rent.

I'm going to kick you out. " It's not abuse for that landlord, whoever that landlord would be, to remove you from the home, even if you were to be homeless at that point. It would be your job to find the child immediate shelter.

Uh, and if so, I can't make a finding a fact that says that his use of the court system to enforce a right that he has is child endangerment because it's not a statutory phrase or or or violation. I also find that it's not neglect or abuse under these exact circumstances as I have them today because you are able to provide even if he was to kick you both out, he knows that you are able to provide for the child's immediate safety and find the child an appropriate place to stay immediately thereafter. uh so I I don't find that that is a proper basis for action uh to extend the time period for today.

Is there any other condition that you would propose? Um may may I just point out a specific law 750. 161 um and you and you I hear you.

I understand what you're saying. Um, in section 161 of that, um, in reference to Mr Dash, a person who being a sufficient ability fails, neglects or refuses to pro provide necessary and proper shelter, food, care, and clothing for his or her spouse or his or her children under 17 years of age, um, is guilty of a felony, punishable by imprisonment, etc. Um he he meets all of these things like he has not provided necessary shelter, food, care, clothing.

Um yes, just to give you cuz you had said and you are correct. That's just like a very simple like stating what the law is the first one I named, but this one kind of fleshes that out a little bit more. But I do accept as well what you are saying.

I do not feel like we can look at this from an objective perspective as this just my landlord. This was our family home. We worked for it together.

Uh paid it off together. There's no mortgage payment on the house. Um and I'm doing trying to advocate for myself and my son.

Mhm. I don't have a problem with you advocating. I do not I don't I don't have a problem, ma'am.

Ma'am, hang on. Hang on. I don't have a problem with you advocating for yourself and your son, and I think you're doing an admirable job.

So, I that's not an issue. The issue is does a and and this that's all that's in front of me today is landlord tenant. Does a landlord have the right to remove a tenant when there's an agreement between the landlord and tenant to move at a certain date?

The answer to that question is yes, he does. And simply by removing the tenant if the tenant has a young child does not cause the child to be ne because the tenant can provide for the child's immediate welfare by getting a motel or getting a hotel or going to a homeless shelter or renting another place. So, it is not abusive or neglectful.

Even if the landlord is the father of the child and knows that the child is going to be removed from the home that the child believes is its long-term home, that may have some emotional impact on the child, but by and of itself, I do not believe that it is neglectful to the point where it would overcome the landlord tenant laws. If you disagree with me, you may certainly report it to child protective services. They may do an investigation and if they believe that I am incorrect, they can bring that by way of a child protective proceeding in court and I would review it again at that point.

But as of today, simply enforcing the landlord simply enforcing a an agreement reached with the tenant for a date to be removed from the home does not amount to abuse and neglect. Do you have any other conditions that you believe would allow you to stay within the home longer than the date that you agree to? Let me just look.

They are rather backed up at CPS, too. Um, they're very busy over there. I I deal with them every day, so I know exactly how busy they are.

Correct. So, they really are. They're doing the good work.

Judge, can I respond while she's looking? Whatever it is she wants. Yes, sir.

If anyone is neglectful in this situation, it is Mr Grez. She is the individual who cannot provide for her child. My client at a moment's notice can provide this child with housing, food, and clothing.

So if she wants to go down that road, she's the neglectful parent. Not not my go down that road, sir. I would love to go down that road.

Like what? 230 miles away. 230 miles away.

Sir Ma'am, the false narrative not acceptable. I'm sorry. As I've said before, I'm I'm not going to consider what Mr Blumbberg said because I'm not doing I'm not here on abuse and neglect.

I'm not here on custody and parenting time. I'm not here on any of that. This is landlord tenant.

I I don't I I don't take what Mr Blumbberg said as statement of fact. He is an advocate for his client and that's all that that was there for. So if do you have please review your notes, do whatever you need to do.

Take a minute to think about what you need to do and then all I need to know is do you have any other reason for believing that you can stay longer than March the 31st in the home? I'm reviewing right ahead. Okay.

Um I guess they have a closing or like Yes, I can talk. Very good. Go ahead.

Um, I would request the court not to think of the situation as a contractal contractual dispute. Um, it is a matter of child safety, survivor protection, and a parent's right to remain housed while completing a master's degree, and caring for our um our shared son. Um, the plaintiff's actions are consistent.

The long-standard pattern of abuse and retaliation. Um, and this should be evaluated as such in any legal setting, especially as it pertains exactly to this. Um, I don't believe it could be looked at objectively.

Uh, as a landlord tenant um, typical situation that you described. I do understand what you have said. I agree with this very much.

Um, I would like the court to consider the non-performance and retaliatory motives of the respondent with this and please just hold my continued right to reside at my home at minimum until a mediation session can be held and we can agree on further terms. Um, it's in the best interest of our child. Um, but again, like you said, I I realize this is not a custody dispute from my perspective.

Um, I felt like it was in bad faith. Your rears weren't paid and that was verbally discussed, agreed upon and um, it is to my detriment that it's not um, an addendum within the mediation agreement. I did request an addendum to the mediation agreement in January as well and I have been denied um, continually.

Um, that is all, sir. All right. Mr Bloomberg, do you want any response?

Just briefly, judge, and I'll try to stay on point. Um, contrary to what Mr Gres says, this is a contractual situation. There was an agreement freely and voluntarily entered into the by the parties.

It specifically gave Mr Grez the ability to reside in that place until March 31st of 2025. In spite of our numerous requests to peaceibly ask her to leave, she refused to do so. and uh we had no choice but to bring this action seeking the court ordering her removal from the property and retaining possession to my client the prideful owner.

This isn't about custody. It's not about child endangerment. It's about my client's legal right to retain his property.

Thank you. All right, Mr I can certainly understand as I said before uh the emotional impact that the request to leave your the family home uh and the whole home that you've shared with your child for a long period of time why that would have some emotional um connection to you and why that would be difficult um probably economically emotionally socially. However, uh this is nothing more than a common ordinary landlord tenant matter.

This is a hold over on a uh verbal lease, if you will. The parties mediated that as a part of the custody and parenting time portion of your relationship that was reduced to an agreement. uh the parties with council agreed to uh have you moved from the home on March the 31st.

Um the Mr Dash and Mr Blowred are simply asking that the court now enforce that through the appropriate contractual landlord tenant process. uh you have been given every opportunity to produce to me a landlord tenant reason why I should uh not do that why I should allow the you to stay within the home for a longer period of time and you've not given me any legal basis for doing so other than it would be hard for you it would be hard for the child uh and you would like some grace um unfortunately I can't make one side agree to something that they do not wish to. The the parties reach this agreement.

I I can only enforce what the parties agreed to. Uh and that's what I'm going to do in this particular case. Uh Mr Blumbberg, do you have a proposed judgment for me to sign today or not?

I do not, Judge. I will provide that to the court tomorrow, certainly at the earliest or maybe later today. Although it's All right.

Why don't we do that under a 7-day notice? Uh she would be required to be out uh within 10 days of today's date. That's the most the time that I believe that I would normally be allowed to give her.

Uh so ma'am, you have 10 days from today's date. Mr Blumbberg is going to send me uh the original and send you a copy of a proposed judgment. If you disagree with not with what my ruling is but what what his order says whether it different if it differs from what I have said then you have the right to object to it and you must do so in writing.

If you don't object to it I will sign it in seven days and it will become the order of the court. Do you have any questions ma'am? Um just I suppose one um a lease would have been very helpful.

the fact that there's not one um I think is a glaring oversight to all of it. Like you said, it's just one sentence. Um and I begged for a lease.

I I don't disagree with you. The lease would have been very helpful, but it's it wasn't there. And I can't go back and change history.

All I can do is base things on how the law typically works. There are lease agreements where nobody writes it down. It's not supposed to be that way, but they do that.

They people people have people let people stay in their house all the time and if they hold over after they've been told to leave we do the landlord tenant stuff. So I it's not out of the question to have a non-written lease. And so that's what you have in this particular case, a non-written month-to-month lease.

You're a holdover after you agreed to go. Uh and so I am I'm treating you exactly the same way I would treat anybody else that comes before me with the same kind of claim. Uh you have these rights.

We went through the reasons why you might stay and I found uh for the other side and I believe that they are being upheld and in the proper way to proceed. Um so all I can say is Mr Blumbberg is going to submit an order that that conforms with what I've said today. Uh you have seven days to object to that once you receive it.

If you don't object, I'll sign it. If you do object, we'll have another hearing on it. But you've got 10 days period to be out.

Okay. All right. That's all for today then.

Thank you very much. And judge, can I just ask one last thing? I want to make sure we all understand.

Well, she has the right to object to the form of the order, but not the court's ruling. I'm not sure she understood that. That's correct.

and she has the right to appeal if she wishes, but she'd have to do that uh appropriately. And I don't know whether the next court would accept it or would adjourn it or hold it in obeyance. So, all I can say is that's the ruling that I've made.