Section 34-18-11
- Citation
- Section 34-18-11
- Parent Document
- Tambor v. Miller, 792 A.2d 744 (2002)
- Jurisdiction
- Rhode Island (state)
- Effective Date
- 2002-02-14
- Original Source
- https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/5138732/tambor-v-miller/ ↗
Other Sections in This Document (18)
- Tambor v. Miller, 792 A.2d 744 (2002)
- Tambor v. Miller, 792 A.2d 744 (2002)
- Tambor v. Miller, 792 A.2d 744 (2002)
- Tambor v. Miller, 792 A.2d 744 (2002)
- Tambor v. Miller, 792 A.2d 744 (2002)
- Tambor v. Miller, 792 A.2d 744 (2002)
- Tambor v. Miller, 792 A.2d 744 (2002)
- Tambor v. Miller, 792 A.2d 744 (2002)
- Tambor v. Miller, 792 A.2d 744 (2002)
- Tambor v. Miller, 792 A.2d 744 (2002)
- Tambor v. Miller, 792 A.2d 744 (2002)
- Tambor v. Miller, 792 A.2d 744 (2002)
- Tambor v. Miller, 792 A.2d 744 (2002)
- Section 34-18-11
- Section 34-18-11
- Section 34-18-11
- Section 34-18-11
- Section 34-18-11
Full Text
846 charsThere is no evidence in the record to demonstrate that there ever was any rental agreement, written or oral, between the Millers and Rani. The mere fact that Rani occasionally brought the Miller’s garbage out for collection, without more, is insufficient even to imply that any such agreement ever existed. Cf. Rafolin Construction Co. v. Lippman, 116 Misc.2d 926, 457 N.Y.S.2d 712 (N.Y.City.Civ.Ct.1982) (hold-’ ing that a tenant’s roommate was a legal tenant where that roommate had openly *746occupied the premises for eleven years and where the landlord had accepted rental checks from him.) Consequently, because Rani never was a party to any rental agreement with the Millers, she was not their tenant and was not entitled to receive damages, attorney’s fees or any portion of the security deposit under the Residential Landlord Tenant Act.