Sooner or later it happens in every facility. A dispute arises between co-tenants,
husbands and wives or partners, resulting in multiple parties claiming rights
to the unit. Usually someone demands that someone else be excluded. Often
the answer to your problem is as close as the face of the rental agreement.
Who is listed as the tenant in your storage contract? As sympathetic as
you might be to an estranged spouse or partner, as a storage facility your
obligation is to your contract tenant, the individual who signed the agreement.
Potential conflicting claims are best handled at the outset of any tenancy
by having proper language in the contract and using common sense in signing
up the tenants. Here your rental agreement language should offer guidance
and protection. Most self-service storage contracts require that the tenant
store only goods owned solely by the tenant, unless written permission is
given by the facility. This language supports the storage facility's position
of favoring the contract tenant over the claims of others and can be an
invaluable defense in the event an action is filed by a non-tenant claimant.
In most cases the contract is signed by one person. Many facilities prefer
to limit the contract to one signatory, since it simplifies lien notification.
While it is generally a good idea to stick to one party, if a couple insists
on both names, and if your system can accommodate them, go ahead and list
both. It's mostly a question of public relations, but you wouldn't want
to find yourself denying a dual-tenant contract only to later face a claim
that your forced selection caused a forfeiture by the non-listed party.
In almost all multiple tenant situations the cotenants' relationship is
amicable at the time they sign up. Often either the husband, wife or partner
will sign, with the other designated as being authorized to enter. Sometimes
there won't even be an authorized entry designation, the co-tenant will
just have voluntary access by virtue of having been given the code and key.
When the dispute arises both parties will ask you to take their side.
Without a court order, you cannot unilaterally exclude a contract tenant
from access to the unit because of a co-tenancy dispute. Your contract tenant
has the contractual right to remove previously "authorized" individuals
from the list of those authorized to enter, but cannot unilaterally terminate
the rights of another contract tenant. So, where there is a single contract
tenant you must support the contract tenant. As a practical matter, be aware
that just because a name is deleted from the approved access list, that
does not guarantee exclusion from the unit, particularly where an angry
"ex" has the entry code and a key. Many facilities' entry procedures
presume that someone with the code and key to a unit is authorized to enter.
This should be explained to the contract tenant seeking to limit access,
since they have the option to change codes, locks or even to move the goods.
While self-service storage facilities make every effort to provide a secure
facility to protect tenants' goods, a facility cannot put its employees
at risk between feuding tenants. Remember, the purpose of the storage facility
is to rent space, operators are neither cops nor bailors of the tenants'
stored goods.
Dealing with a party whose access has been denied can also be a diplomatic
challenge. The operator is not in a position to make judgments about which
of the competing parties has the right to the goods. That's the role of
the courts. Compassion is often the solution, since even an angry person
responds well to understanding. The facility operator must explain to the
dispossessed party that the facility is bound by the contract and cannot
provide access without a court order permitting access. Urge the party to
consult counsel.
Occasionally the facility operator may encounter a situation in which both
claimants are contract tenants. In this case, you cannot restrict the access
of either party. From a practical perspective, it often becomes a race as
to which of them can first clear the unit. Occasionally, when an action
is filed between the tenants the court will issue an order permitting restricted
access to the unit to one or other of the tenants, sometimes even directing
an overlock of the unit pending resolution. Be sure to follow any such court
order to the letter. If in doubt, call the court clerk and ask for clarification.
Where both parties threaten suit against a facility or where a party files
suit naming the facility as a defendant, it is best to proceed with caution.
Don't panic, but do get an attorney. Since the facility position is that
of a stakeholder and does not claim its own interest in the stored goods,
the storage facility may be in a position to bring an action, or respond
with an action in interpleader. In an interpleader action the stakeholder
offers up the property to the court, and is usually dismissed from any further
liability. While this will probably require hiring an attorney, in most
states a successful interpleader stakeholder has the right to recover its
costs and fees from the disputing parties. Sometimes just a letter threatening
an interpleader action will push the parties to resolve their differences
without further expense.
In the long run a good contract and correct sign-up procedures are the best
mechanisms for preventing multiple claims. Beyond that, remember that it
is the tenants' problem and that your facility must be a neutral bystander.
Don't make promises beyond the contract terms and keep a cool head. That
way you'll be in the best position to resolve the problem and satisfy customer
concerns without exposing your facility to liability in someone else's fight.
Copyright 1996 Alta V. Walters
The Law Offices of Alta V. Walters
Phone (510) 834-8750
Fax (510) 380-5188
Send your comments to:
Back to the front page!
Self-Service Storage Alert
