SQUATTER'S RIGHTS
88
By: Wayne Brown
I read a quite disturbing story in the local newspaper today which set me to wondering whether or not we still live in a civilized nation which protects people with its laws or if we have moved to a society which victimizes innocent people on the basis of technicality. If all I read in this story is correct, you can break into my house and take possession of it as opposed to being charged with a crime if you go about it in the right manner.
According to the story I read, a lady who was a traveling nurse by trade locked up her home in which she lived alone and set off on a three day business trip. When she returned, a man was living in her home, had changed all the locks and posted “private property/no trespassing signs in the yard and at the entries. The woman was forced to hire a lawyer and begin a legal process in order to gain possession of the home she legally owned in the first place. Other details of the story indicated that similar occurrences are taking place art various sites around the nation.
On the surface, it would appear that the old adage, “possession is 9/10ths of the law” has merit but not for the person who rightfully is the owner. Folks engaged in the process are finding homes which are unoccupied or empty and declaring “squatters rights” upon the property thereby claiming to be the rightful owner in possession of the asset. Apparently, in the eyes of the law, this process holds some level of merit in recognizing that squatter has legal rights.
In the case of the traveling nurse, the home was not empty though it was unoccupied for three days. The nurse proved to be on a business trip and showed no intent to abandon the home and never return. Essentially, this person now occupying the house had broken into it and declared squatter’s rights. Now this poor nurse has to hire an attorney and pursue legal recourse in order to change that situation. You might say that she has been victimized and the person now occupying the house has not been charged with a crime though he clearly violated laws with regard to breaking and entering. Have we lost or minds or has the liberal culture final taken over this nation.
These occurrences fall under the regulations outlined under the terms of “adverse possession”. These regulations or laws apply to property which is in “abandoned status” and unoccupied. In legally pursuing possession, the potential new owner must met the requirements of the state law in which the property exists. In some states the laws are more liberal than others. California has the most relaxed situation requiring only that back taxes be paid and that the new occupant pay the property taxes and remain on the for five years before being granted legal possession. Texas is among the more difficult with previous owners being able to contest ownership for up to 30 years before the hostile owner is granted legal right. In either case, those trying to adversely take over the property cannot actually legally own it until all aspects of the requirements are met but they can occupy it
Apparently there have been some cases in which these squatters have taken possession of property which was vacant and in foreclosure and managed to get away with it. In those cases, the company holding the mortgage on the foreclosed property had gone bankrupt and there was no clear indication as to ownership although even under bankruptcy laws, assets are assets and the creditors of the mortgage company would hold first lien on the remaining assets, this house for example.
Who knows where the courts will go in interpreting the law in many of these situations. In the early days of this country when there was still open lands to be claimed for homestead, one can understand the “squatter” approach as being the one who came first and placed title claim upon open land. Certainly that is not the situation here. Homes are required by law to be filed on deeds and those deeds are held by the relevant owner which is normally the person living there or the company mortgaging the home loan and holding first lien on the property. Certainly the courts should recognize that situation and find in favor of the displaced owner. At the same time, those who elect to occupy property in such a manner should be rightly prosecuted for their crimes. It is ironic that the same people who would break into your property and occupy it will attempt to use “private property and trespassing” laws to protect themselves from their crimes. It is also ironic that a court of law would allow such a thing.
Regardless, we must look at the victims in this situation if indeed people have done nothing to be placed into such a situation. This traveling nurse had done nothing which would signal that she had abandoned the home. There was no indication that she was in arrears on her taxes in the news story. She simply went on a business trip. Now, in order to get the home back, she must spend money out of her own pocket to pay a lawyer and fight for that right in the court system. This woman has done nothing to deserve such a fate but she is a victim of apparent technicality under the law in this case.
This situation should cause all of us who are “property owners” a great level of concern. How can we leave town and go see Aunt Martha for a few days if squatters are waiting outside our neighborhood hoping that we will go on a trip. Surely those who represent our legal system in Congress would find such occurrences of grave concern and move quickly to enact laws designed to subvert such occurrences under the law. We can only hope that will be the case in the future.
Clearly, those who are landlords know how difficult it can be to evict a legal renter from their property. There is a lot of due process which must be carried out that even when done efficiently can delay the process of reclaiming the property by 90 to 120 days though the renter may clearly be in default on multiple rent payments to the landlord. Here again possession is 9/10ths of the law. Those landlords without any clear proof of a lease or rental agreement on their property may find it even more difficult to displace the defaulted occupant. It would seem that the protection afforded the occupant under the law in this scenario is washing over on to these “squatters” who are setting up housekeeping illegally in the homes of other people.
In effect, these people have to prove little as in the eyes of the law they are the “occupants” of the property. Of course the law seems to be ignoring how the people came to be in occupancy. The law is in effect putting the responsibility of proof on the person who has already been victimized by someone breaking into their home. They in effect have to prove that they own the house and that they did nothing to give this person occupying it. While all this plays out, the squatter gets free use of the property; the property owner is spending his/her own assets attempting to regain control and the law is basically sitting there with a glazed over look in its eye. Of course, the lawyers are happy because they have found yet another way to milk money out of the system.
What becomes of the little cabin some folks own up in the mountains which they only occupy a few weeks out of the year? Can this property be declared “abandon” thought the owner keeps the taxes paid and the property in acceptable order? How is it that someone can simply break into the cabin, change the locks and declare it theirs because they have declared it abandoned. How does that work? If it does work, then we all need to spend less time asleep and more time manning the shotguns. Apparently the squatter is still alive and well in America.
In the video included below you will see a man who has declared adverse possession under Texas law and moved into a $300,000 home in the DFW Metroplex. The home was in foreclosure. This man has basically inserted himself into the home, paid the back property taxes, and challenged either the property owner who was in default of the mortgage and the bank who owns the mortgage and the property to defy him in court to regain possession. He is betting that the former owner is in no position to challenge and that the mortgage company does not want to engage in what could be an expense law suit to regain possession of the property. If his bet pays off, he gains legal control of the property in a short period of time with only a $16 filing fee involved as his investment. While some might see this as a loophole which the man is using, we all must admit this action is not in the “spirit” of the law as it was intended to prevent property from falling into disuse for long periods of time. No doubt this issue must be addressed to remove those loopholes which make such opportunity available.
It is anyone’s guess where all of this might lead. How long can you park your car at the grocery store before someone declares it abandon, rips the locks open, and drives it away. Mind you, no laws have been broken because the car is considered “abandoned” by the person who would otherwise simply be called a “car thief” by the courts. This is a very slippery slope which could eventually make victims of us all; millionaires out of lawyers, and property owners out of criminals who have no visible means of support. This is what America has come to in the 21st century? Hopefully not.
© Copyright WBrown2011. All Rights Reserved.
<script type="text/javascript">
var _gaq = _gaq || [];
_gaq.push(['_setAccount', 'UA-30482128-1']);
_gaq.push(['_trackPageview']);
(function() {
var ga = document.createElement('script'); ga.type = 'text/javascript'; ga.async = true;
ga.src = ('https:' == document.location.protocol ? 'https://ssl' : 'http://www') + '.google-analytics.com/ga.js';
var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(ga, s);
})();
</script>vote upvote downshareprintflag
- Useful (3)
- Funny
- Awesome (2)
- Beautiful (1)
- Interesting (6)
CommentsLoading...
Totally agree!
Dang, I wish I had known it was so easy to get a home. I wouldn't have worked so hard to buy one.
Wayne - This is downright scary. Who would ever even think this could happen? Is anything being done to change the laws so this type activity can be prevented? Thanks for letting us know, I will probably never leave home again.
Absolutely unbelievable. So if someone goes on vacation we forfeit our home? That is crazy. However something weird happened to me several years ago. I came home to find an abandoned car in my driveway. i could barely get in. It remained there for more than 24 hours. Finally I called the police and was told if I had it towed and it was damaged I would be liable to the owner for repairs. And if he/she did not come get the vehicle I would be responsible for storage and towing fees.
Si this sad situation does not surprise me. I am still horrified though.
Wow! Hyphenbird this story gets worse! how can we be safe?
Yep Wayne - if there is a law that can be broken or taken advantage of - there will be someone who can and will take advantage. I am very familiar with Adverse Posession and Squatters rights - in Missouri the last time I checked the property had to be abandoned for 10 years prior to a squatter taking possession. I am shocked too - but I have seen all kinds of fraud in this industry as it is highly unregulated. I would say more - but I'd probably get sued. I'm so not kidding.
I applaud this hub so glad someone is paying attention! My livelihood depends on the real estate market. Thank you!
Hi, this doesn't surprise me, in England we often see on TV someone taking over a house for squating. Usually a home like the above mentioned in your hub, on the video, but it can be a house that is just empty because someone has gone away for a few days. This is the only time I would take the law into my own hands. I would get them out, or break in myself! if not me then I would get someone else to do it, my temper or bank balance would not allow me to just sit back and wait, glad you wrote about it, maybe the more we say about it the more something will be done, but I doubt it, cheers nell
@Just Ask Susan...Amen! Thanks much. WB
@Gypsy Willow...Dittos! Thanks! WB
@Becky Katz...It's a new age...no longer is it theft, it's just being really smart about things. LOL! WB
@Old Poolman...Obviously someone knew this nurse was leaving town and that no one else occupied the property. Sounds like an inside job, huh Mike? WB
@Hypenbird...Search the subject on YouTube...it is far more prevalent than we realize. Thanks much. WB
@RealHousewife...I certainly understand the intent of any laws regarding abandoned or unclaimed property with back taxes, etc. but this is taking the subject too far off course to make any sense whatsoever. No one should have to hire an attorney to recover what was already theirs in the first place unless they are in default or their legal agreements or have not paid their taxes and refuse to do so. Then there should still be a very strict process followed. WB
Based on what I have seen on the Internet, it appears this situation has been going on in Europe for some time now. Your point is well-taken, eventually people resort to violence to secure what they have worked hard to get. WB
I was thinking that if this happened to me, I would have to send some big sons in to take care of them so they never wanted to do this again. I have a couple of big sons and they have lots of friends. They might have to wait until the person came outside but they would have to eventually. It is a dangerous world out there.
@Becky Katz...Now you're talkin' equal opportunity, Becky! LOL! WB
In the case of adverse possession, the pendulum has swung much too far in the wrong direction, Wayne. If the nurse has a deed to the property and the back taxes have been paid, then those documents should be all she needs to reclaim her property from a squatter.
If it were me, I would find a few hulking friends with very broken noses and cauliflower ears (fighters) to back me up.
@drbj...liberalism over common sense seems to be the order of the day. We know Herman Cain is guilty because the allegations have been made...that's all that counts...just like here. Someone alleges ownership and suddenly has more rights than the rightful owner who has documentary proof? Where are we headed? WB
Oh I do understand them taking property for back taxes but I think the abuse of this is so outlandish!
It also makes me think of that guy who does the commercials where if you buy his "CD" he can explain how you can buy property at tax sales for just the taxes owed? Have you seen that one? It makes me so mad! It isn't actually a scam - you totally can buy property here for the price of the unpaid taxes after 3 years of non payment. The illusion the guy is creating is that you own the property and can make money - not exactly how it works. A person has like 7 years to come back and redeem (buy back their own property for the tax dollars from the person who bought it at the tax sale) So banks will not insure this property - you do not have clear ownership for, like years!! The original owner has an interest in it - so it's like a cloud on the title and very few, if any, lending institutions will insure your ownership. I'd love to expose that guy but I try not to mix business and pleasure - I'd get sued!
This happened to my best friend here in Arizona. He owns an old dude ranch north of Phoenix, and he uses the house as a week-end getaway. A few years ago, he discovered that a band of no-goods had occupied his house. When he told them it was his house and they'd have to leave, they told him to get a lawyer because it was abandoned.
He called the Sheriff's office, and they too told him to get a lawyer, ignoring his rights as property owner...until he mentioned seeing a sawed-off shotgun on his fireplace mantle.
Turns out they were modern day cattle rustlers and Gypsy-types. The Sheriff's office raided them and recovered all sorts of stolen goods, guns, and several hundred pounds of butchered beef. Several were arrested.
They told my friend that he was lucky to be alive.
Excellent and useful Hub, Wayne!
Willstar - Wow! Crazy! My grandparents owned 1/2 block of apartments in the city fo St. Louis - this woman applied to rent an apartment which was directly under mt grandparents apt. The woman moved in - then her boyfriend, his kids, another relative and it was insane. In a ome bedroom apt! He could not evict them - the legal process was taking months while the people ruined that apt. And had trash everywhere. He owned the building but could not make them move - one day my uncle came in from work to find my grandfather calmly reading the paper with his
feet up on his desk - he didn't even look up when my uncle asks how it was going. He simply
said, "I shot the dummy today.". (they called the offender the dummy). Omg! He did - the dummy
thought he was being funny taunting my old pap - he opened his trunk and raised a hatchet with a
grin at my grandpa - you know he was really surprised when grandpa pulled a gun out and shot him. He didn't die or anything but the whoe family moved out without being asked again! No joke!
This is what happens when real rights, like property rights, are replaced with artificial rights.
It sounds 'fair' to force employers to hire people they don't want and landlords to rent to people they don't want to rent to, but it's actually a clear violation of property rights, and this is the result...the trespassers have more rights than the owner does!
So true - and o vinously the law did agree with my grandfather and there were witnesses - they gave him the gun back the same day. It would have been much easier - painless and less costly if they would have forced the move when the rent stop getting paid! I know there were costly fees involved in a man being shot in the street - but he drove my family crazy.
Sorry to hijack your hub here WB but the conversation is interesting:) lol
@RealHousewife...Don't worry about highjacking, I'm probably earning traffic credits! LOL! WB
Some mindset but we see it often enough these days. What belongs to me is mine and what belongs to you should be mine also. Take from the rich and give to the poor. OWS. Should I continue? Probably not...
The Frog
@The Frog Prince...That's what happens when everyone feels they are entitled but owe nothing. WB
WB - I did link this:)) cracked me and Dave up - he really liked this article by the way. You did your homework! He doesn't hear of this too often happenening in Missouri.
Thanks again!!
@RealHousewife...I was shocked and troubled by the prevalence of it myself. Texas law is not that attractive on the matter yet it seems to be going on here. WB
Dave was wondering if you have a law of Right of Redemption?
In MO - each COUNTY is different - so one county might give the owner 2 years to buy back - so it's a cloudy title and no one wants to touch it....we don't know if you have a similar law? Anyway - this is the type of stuff we do for a living - I'd like to expand and search TX someday too....I'll be researching the laws real good first though;) lol
@RealHousewife...Yes, there are laws as such and Texas has some tough ones. The orginal owner in some cases has up to 30 years to reclaim the property so Texas is really not a state where the squatter opportunity is so wide-open. WB
We thought that is what you meant but legally here they call it the ROD...so I guess it means the same thing in TX....that's great because no bank or lending institution would ever want to give anyone money for a loan on that property and it wouldnt be collateral - still they could squat there until they died I guess!
Unbelievable that old statues are used to protect such ridiculous and unjust behavior by "modern" squatters. There is something terribly wrong with out legal system that such behavior is tolerated at all, much less that the onus is on the rightful homeowner to spend time and money to try and regain their rightful property. Very informational Hub. Thanks for your research.
@phdast7...Apparently we have laws that were designed to keep property from going stagnant once it was abandoned and the taxes fell into delinquency. The technicalities in those laws are allowing a broader interpretation and abuse within the system. The laws vary by state with Calfornia being the most liberal. WB
I would have thought the owner securing the property would have established the fact that the property was not abandoned. Of course, I am just being logical. Have any cases worked their way through the court system yet?
@leroy64...One would logical think so. In fact, I would ave totally doubt the story had it not made the papers as to how the woman was fighting to reoccupy her own home after a 3 day business trip. One would think the local law enforcement would have cleaned that one up quite quickly. WB
Between squatters and the increasing use of eminent domain, it is beginning to feel like an assault on the concept of personal property rights.
Do you remember the movie Pacific Heights set in San Fransisco (late 1990's)? Too scary for me . . . Michael Keeton, Melanie Griffin, Matthew Bodine -- but all the elements that happened to this poor lady. The film's tagline was: "It seemed like the perfect house. He seemed like the perfect tenant. Until they asked him to leave." Truth is stranger than fiction.
@leroy64...I saw widespread use of eminent domain when Jerry Jones built his new football stadium. A bit scary. WB
@Truckstop Sally...I remember that tagline but I don't believe I ever watched the show. WB
I hate that developers are able to crawl into bed with cities in that manner. Unfortunately, the list of developers and list of former mayors of Dallas are too similar. I suspect Arlington is the same way.
@leroy64...we were about the only town willing to build him a facility...Irving had a belly full of him years ago. But, we're progressive here in Arlington...our town slogan is "there's nothing like the smell of fresh poured concrete!" WB
It will be a decade before the real impact of that stadium will be apparent. I hope Arlington gets what was promised to the city. Projects like that are long term investments, or gambles depending on one's point of view.
I recently bought a little over an acre, had it surveyed, and a neighbor had been trespassing on it for a while, now they might have a legal right to an easement just because they repeatedly trespassed for years. Someone told me the founding fathers almost wrote "life, liberty and private property," but they changed it to happiness.
@MurcielagoHeart...That sucks. Basically the court is telling you that you bought less than you were lead to believe because someone else has more rights than you as a squatter. There's something really wrong with thinking like that. I can buy the part about the founding fathers...private property has always been up there on the list of desireables. Thanks much. WB
My grandmother lost a piece of land to a church. She let them park there for years. She didn't use it. They finally took it away from her. It was just a narrow strip, just wide enough for a car to pull nose in to her fence. They decided that they couldn't do without it.
@Becky Katz...If you have to opportunity to buy property either adjacent to or in a neighborhood near a church...run! There are few worse neighbors though they may claim to be loving christians. they don't love their neighbor. WB
Just Ask Susan Level 8 Commenter 6 months ago
Bloody ridiculous!