A boyfriend not named on the eviction stopped the first execution. On the second attempt, he tried a different argument: his first name was misspelled.
What begins as a routine Auburn eviction quickly turns into a lesson on the difference between a real legal defect and a manufactured one. During the first execution, Alan discovers that the tenant's boyfriend has been living in the apartment for months and has utility bills proving residency, despite not being named in the eviction. The execution is halted and returned to court for correction. When the amended case returns weeks later, the boyfriend tries a new strategy, arguing that the spelling of his first name on the paperwork is incorrect. After a quick trip to the courthouse and a judge's review, the ruling is simple: the notice was close enough, proper notice was given, and the eviction proceeds. "Close Enough" highlights how courts distinguish between mistakes that affect due process and technicalities that do not.
SEO / Page Description (Short Version):
