A: The landlord did several things wrong:
(a) he/she failed to reduce the agreement to writing, saying, for example, that the niece had to comply with all of the rules and regulations, that she was responsible for the rent, and generally fully memorializing the arrangement.
(b) the landlord failed to fully qualify the niece and failed to have her sign a rental agreement (or occupancy agreement) before taking possession. However, none of this means that the landlord is not without a remedy.
The original resident is still the tenant under the rental agreement and still responsible for the rent. It is quite possible that the niece is also a “tenant” in a legal sense. The landlord could and should be sending out 72-hour notices to the space naming both the resident and the niece. If the landlord has the phone number of the original resident, he/she should let them know what is going on. Under 90.630 if three or more 72-hour notices are sent with any 12 month period, the landlord may then issue a 30-day non-curable notice of termination. I suggest at least 4 such notices, just to be on the safe side. A more risky (and untested) approach, is to simply issue a 30-day notice of termination under the general (i.e. non-manufactured housing section of the law) landlord tenant law. It is my opinion that the landlord would be within their right to do so, since the occupant is not the owner of the home and the owner of the home is not the occupant. The manufactured housing section of the law – which requires that all notices be “for cause” does not technically apply here because of this distinction. However, before proceeding down this path, the landlord should obtain legal advice.