SFGate – A 100-year-old San Francisco woman staved off eviction for at least another week when a judge granted her eleventh request for a stay since March, giving her lawyer more time to come up with a plan to keep her in her home for the remainder of her life.
The stay will expire at 5 p.m. Tuesday. But Canada’s lawyer, Dennis Zaragoza, said he has a plan of action to ensure that Canada can remain in the Page Street apartment she has called home since 1965.
Zaragoza said he will continue to ask for seven-day reprieves until he makes a formal request on Oct. 11 for the court to hear a motion for an indefinite stay for Canada. In the meantime, he plans to gather evidence to bolster an argument that his centenarian client should be granted an indefinite stay.
Canada’s battle comes after the owners of her unit said she violated the “life estate” agreement that gave her the right to live in her apartment at a fixed rate of $700 a month for life.
“I’m a little bit at a loss as to what the court is thinking,” said Peter Owens, one of the owners of the unit. “I’m not sure what the purpose of the stays are at this point.”
Owens says Canada has been living with her niece, Iris Merriouns, in Oakland since 2012 — a violation of the elderly woman’s life-estate agreement. Merriouns denies the claim.
I’ll tell you what the court is thinking Peter, they’re thinking they’re not gonna be the ones to kick out a 100 year old lady. Old Pontius Pilate trick, passing the blame game and avoiding being the one to make the tough decision. The court is just trying to avoid coming down on her, so what’s another week or two? Maybe she’ll die? Tell me another reason why they would put it off a week and not just make a ruling? I sure can’t think of any.
But to be honest, I’m with the landlords here and that’s as someone who’s been told to leave my place before/around when my lease was up. If she was living there every day, that’s one thing, the life estate agreements lets you live out your days there and if she was visiting her niece every so often, no big deal. Hell, even if she was staying at her niece’s place for the better half of 5 years, I’d still be down with her only paying $8,400 a year for rent on a place that should probably go for 8 times that just because good on her for trying to scam the system, kudos.
The reason I’m probably not on her side is that clearly she wasn’t there for a good portion of the past five years because the owners wouldn’t sound so surprised by the ruling and the court wouldn’t be telling her to peace out soonish. Furthermore, it’s an opportunity for people who only read the headlines to protest her removal and have zero connection to Iris Canada (which btw, sounds like a fake name). Not family, not neighbors, not classmates, not friends, straight up randos that easily are 70 years younger than her. You know what that banner in the above picture says? “Eviction = Death. Resistance = Life.” What the hell does that even mean? If she wasn’t living there for YEARS and was using it as her own personal storage locker for the 20th century, ya gotta tell her to get her stuff out and make the move in with her niece. Even if she was there just one night a week, I’m okay with that. But you draw out the crazies and are just blatantly breaking a rule that was already designed in your favor. See ya later. Time to go.
P.S. Good luck getting her out now, you just put a century old woman in the hospital