The Curious Case of the Nanny Who Wouldn't Leave May Finally Be Over
byKaitlin StanfordJul 02, 2014
This is certainly a strange tale. For a month now, a California live-in nanny has simply refused to leave the home of the family she used to work for — despite being fired.
But even that last fact is up for debate, apparently. According to the nanny in question, Diane Stretton, she wasn't fired at all. "Unless you can be fired after you quit," she told the news station KNX. "And I gave 30 days of notice, which we had agreed to."
Stretton claims she worked for 90 days in a row, without a day off, a cup of coffee, or a lunch break. The two days she did take off were apparently because she was sick. But according to the Bracamonte family — whose home she is apparently now squatting in — that's not exactly how things went down.
Marcella and Ralph Bracamonte, who live in Upland, Calif., with their three children, say they hired Stretton back in March in exchange for room and board. By all accounts, everything was fine until Stretton inexplicably stopped working about a month ago, due to physical ailments. Soon, the 64-year-old would only emerge from her room to eat, which forced the Bracamontes to dismiss her. But their problems were only really just beginning, since Stretton refused to leave. Because Stretton had established residency in the home, the family needed to obtain an eviction to legally vacate her.
As you might imagine, things got real awkward, real fast. And then they got heated. The family and their former nanny have been embroiled in a heated legal battle ever since, with both sides hurling very different accusations at the other.
Stretton claims that the value of her room and board was nothing compared to the actual work she was doing every day, which included cooking, heavy house-cleaning, taking care of the kids and any other errands they asked for. "I was using skills a lot of people would not have had," she claimed.
And then there were the conditions, she said. The nanny claimed there was no air conditioning and that she hardly ever gained access to the bathroom.
Through their lawyer, Marc Cohen, the Bracamontes have been vehemently denying pretty much every claim Stretton has tossed their way, and maintain that Stretton never mentioned any health problems when they originally hired her. What's more, they gave her countless warnings before firing her and even reduced her workload.
Meanwhile, various reports have claimed that Stretton's checkered past proves she's no stranger to the law. For starters, she's sued both of her sisters and her son for various reasons. And when her father died in 2000, there were apparently explicit instructions to omit her from the will. Her name even found its way onto the state's vexatious litigation list, which includes people who repeatedly file baseless lawsuits.
But it seems the Bracamontes may finally be nearing the end of their woes with the shady nanny: she has agreed to move out, with a few conditions. For one, she needs three days to move all of her things out. And two, she will only do so if the weather permits (if it's too hot, she will not budge).
If all goes according to plan, the Bracamontes may finally have their home and their sanity back by Independence Day. (Oh, the irony.)