Couple Evicts Roommate After His Children Pee All Over Their House
A couple evicted their roommate due to his children's disruptive behavior
The basement began smelling like 'sour milk and vomit' after the roommate moved in with his three young kids, all under the age of 7
The final straw came when the kids peed all over the laundry roomA couple turned to Reddit for support after giving their roommate notice to vacate due to his children's disruptive behavior and unsanitary living conditions.
The pair initially agreed to let their friend Adam move into their basement with his three young sons, as his other landlord didn't "allow" the children to stay with him.
'We asked Adam why his kids weren't welcomed at his old place, he said that 2 of the 3 kids are not his,' the poster wrote. 'He was with a girl for 2 years on and off and had a baby with her. However, the people he lived with don't like him playing daddy to the oldest when they aren't his kids."
Although the explanation seemed "very strange," they agreed that his children could stay over two nights each week. However, the situation quickly took a turn for the worse.
While Adam got the "whole basement," the couple lived on the "top floor," and the "main floor" was used as a common area. "Adam was told that common areas are kept clean by all parties, and everyone is expected to clean their half of the house themselves," the poster noted.
'The first few months were okay, despite having to remind him about cleaning and the smell that was coming from the basement,' the user continued, likening the stench to "sour milk and vomit."
However, one morning, the user woke up in a state of "horror" when they "found raw eggs and shells all over the house!'
When confronted, Adam's oldest son, who is 7 years old, 'admitted that he went into my fridge and couldn't help himself when he saw the big 30 pk of eggs.'
The problems didn't stop there. The children began sneaking upstairs while Adam slept. The woman said 'they were breaking things, stealing things, eating things, and even going to the top floor where we live.' Adam apologized and promised to improve each time, but the behavior persisted.
"My final straw was when I woke up to my brand new Costco pack of ice cream sandwiches half eaten, melted and smooshed into multiple surfaces of the house," the user added.
The couple tried various methods to control the situation, including locking doors and installing baby gates. 'It started with a lock on the basement door, so Adam could keep the kids downstairs while he swept,' the poster shares. 'Then we had to remove the lock on the bathroom door because they started locking themselves in and peeing on all surfaces of the bathroom.'
The breaking point came when the poster, who is pregnant, discovered the laundry room covered in urine. She described the scene vividly, writing, 'I grabbed the bottle of detergent… It was covered in pee. Pee was everywhere!!! The laundry tub was clogged with pee, on the floor, side of the washer, now all over my hands.. EVERYWHERE!!!'
Never miss a story — sign up for to stay up-to-date on the best of what PEOPLE has to offer, from celebrity news to compelling human interest stories.
In response, the couple banned Adam's two older children from the house. 'Adam apologizes and says how sorry he is that I cleaned it and that it upset me," she recalled. "Then he stated how those are his children and it's unfair to say they can't come here and he is going to bring them anyways."
This pushed the couple to their limit, and they ultimately told Adam he had 60 days to move out. Adam apologized and accepted the notice. Now, the poster is wondering whether they were being unreasonable.
'All our family and friends are happy we are kicking him out because the smell is so bad. Yet some feel we were attacking the kids for being 'different' and stating that locking them out of rooms was insensitive," she wrote.
However, most commenters agreed that the couple was not in the wrong, stating that Adam "completely disrespected" their home and their rules.
Read the original article on People
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


CBS News
12 minutes ago
- CBS News
Denver police confront marchers upset with ICE in chaotic exchanges downtown, block group from accessing I-25
Police in Denver responded in full force on Tuesday night to marches downtown after an early evening protest at the Colorado State Capitol. CBS Video captured near the intersection of 20th Street and Little Raven Street in Denver showed a large crowd of demonstrators and smoke just before 10 p.m. At one point in the video, a marcher threw an object that looked to be a pepper ball back at police. At least one person was detained on Tuesday night. Police also blocked the entrance to Interstate 25 at Broadway so marchers couldn't enter, and there was another large police presence at Market Street and 20th. Break-off groups from an earlier peaceful protest against Immigration and Customs Enforcement grew more chaotic as the night went on. Denver police told CBS Colorado rocks and bottles were thrown at officers near Coors Field. Some video was circulating online showing smoke. CBS Colorado contacted police to find out what it was. Their final report is not available so it's not known what was used, but they confirmed to CBS Colorado that no tear gas had been used. Similar confrontations have been happening in several other cities across the country, including Los Angeles. Protests and marches have been going on there for days as demonstrators have been clashing with police. Many protests -- including in Texas, in Chicago, and now in Denver -- have come about in response to the situation in California.


Washington Post
13 minutes ago
- Washington Post
A federal appeals court is set to hear arguments in Trump's bid to erase his hush money conviction
NEW YORK — President Donald Trump's quest to erase his criminal conviction heads to a federal appeals court Wednesday. It's one way he's trying to get last year's hush money verdict overturned. A three-judge panel is set to hear arguments in Trump's long-running fight to get the New York case moved from state court to federal court, where he could then try to have the verdict thrown out on presidential immunity grounds. The Republican is asking the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to intervene after a lower-court judge twice rejected the move. As part of the request, Trump wants the federal appeals court to seize control of the criminal case and then ultimately decide his appeal of the verdict, which is now pending in a state appellate court. The 2nd Circuit should 'determine once and for all that this unprecedented criminal prosecution of a former and current President of the United States belongs in federal court,' Trump's lawyers wrote in a court filing. The Manhattan district attorney's office, which prosecuted Trump's case, wants it to stay in state court. Trump's Justice Department — now partly run by his former criminal defense lawyers — backs his bid to move the case to federal court. If Trump loses, he could go to the U.S. Supreme Court. Trump was convicted in May 2024 of 34 felony counts of falsifying business records to conceal a hush money payment to porn actor Stormy Daniels, whose affair allegations threatened to upend his 2016 presidential campaign. Trump denies her claim and said he did nothing wrong. It was the only one of his four criminal cases to go to trial. Trump's lawyers first sought to move the case to federal court following his March 2023 indictment, arguing that federal officers including former presidents have the right to be tried in federal court for charges arising from 'conduct performed while in office.' Part of the criminal case involved checks he wrote while he was president. They tried again after his conviction, arguing that Trump's historic prosecution violated his constitutional rights and ran afoul of the Supreme Court's presidential immunity ruling , which was decided about a month after the hush money trial ended. The ruling reins in prosecutions of ex-presidents for official acts and restricts prosecutors in pointing to official acts as evidence that a president's unofficial actions were illegal. U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein denied both requests, ruling in part that Trump's conviction involved his personal life, not his work as president. In a four-page ruling, Hellerstein wrote that nothing about the high court's ruling affected his prior conclusion that hush money payments at issue in Trump's case 'were private, unofficial acts, outside the bounds of executive authority.' Trump's lawyers argue that prosecutors rushed to trial instead of waiting for the Supreme Court's presidential immunity decision, and that prosecutors erred by showing jurors evidence that should not have been allowed under the ruling, such as former White House staffers describing how Trump reacted to news coverage of the hush money deal and tweets he sent while president in 2018. Trump's former criminal defense lawyer Todd Blanche is now the deputy U.S. attorney general, the Justice Department's second-in-command. Another of his lawyers, Emil Bove, has a high-ranking Justice Department position. The trial judge, Juan M. Merchan, rejected Trump's requests to throw out the conviction on presidential immunity grounds and sentenced him on Jan. 10 to an unconditional discharge, leaving his conviction intact but sparing him any punishment. Appearing by video at his sentencing, Trump called the case a 'political witch hunt,' 'a weaponization of government' and 'an embarrassment to New York.'

Associated Press
21 minutes ago
- Associated Press
A federal appeals court is set to hear arguments in Trump's bid to erase his hush money conviction
NEW YORK (AP) — President Donald Trump's quest to erase his criminal conviction heads to a federal appeals court Wednesday. It's one way he's trying to get last year's hush money verdict overturned. A three-judge panel is set to hear arguments in Trump's long-running fight to get the New York case moved from state court to federal court, where he could then try to have the verdict thrown out on presidential immunity grounds. The Republican is asking the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to intervene after a lower-court judge twice rejected the move. As part of the request, Trump wants the federal appeals court to seize control of the criminal case and then ultimately decide his appeal of the verdict, which is now pending in a state appellate court. The 2nd Circuit should 'determine once and for all that this unprecedented criminal prosecution of a former and current President of the United States belongs in federal court,' Trump's lawyers wrote in a court filing. The Manhattan district attorney's office, which prosecuted Trump's case, wants it to stay in state court. Trump's Justice Department — now partly run by his former criminal defense lawyers — backs his bid to move the case to federal court. If Trump loses, he could go to the U.S. Supreme Court. Trump was convicted in May 2024 of 34 felony counts of falsifying business records to conceal a hush money payment to porn actor Stormy Daniels, whose affair allegations threatened to upend his 2016 presidential campaign. Trump denies her claim and said he did nothing wrong. It was the only one of his four criminal cases to go to trial. Trump's lawyers first sought to move the case to federal court following his March 2023 indictment, arguing that federal officers including former presidents have the right to be tried in federal court for charges arising from 'conduct performed while in office.' Part of the criminal case involved checks he wrote while he was president. They tried again after his conviction, arguing that Trump's historic prosecution violated his constitutional rights and ran afoul of the Supreme Court's presidential immunity ruling, which was decided about a month after the hush money trial ended. The ruling reins in prosecutions of ex-presidents for official acts and restricts prosecutors in pointing to official acts as evidence that a president's unofficial actions were illegal. U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein denied both requests, ruling in part that Trump's conviction involved his personal life, not his work as president. In a four-page ruling, Hellerstein wrote that nothing about the high court's ruling affected his prior conclusion that hush money payments at issue in Trump's case 'were private, unofficial acts, outside the bounds of executive authority.' Trump's lawyers argue that prosecutors rushed to trial instead of waiting for the Supreme Court's presidential immunity decision, and that prosecutors erred by showing jurors evidence that should not have been allowed under the ruling, such as former White House staffers describing how Trump reacted to news coverage of the hush money deal and tweets he sent while president in 2018. Trump's former criminal defense lawyer Todd Blanche is now the deputy U.S. attorney general, the Justice Department's second-in-command. Another of his lawyers, Emil Bove, has a high-ranking Justice Department position. The trial judge, Juan M. Merchan, rejected Trump's requests to throw out the conviction on presidential immunity grounds and sentenced him on Jan. 10 to an unconditional discharge, leaving his conviction intact but sparing him any punishment. Appearing by video at his sentencing, Trump called the case a 'political witch hunt,' 'a weaponization of government' and 'an embarrassment to New York.'