PDA

View Full Version : I'm off to become a house squatter



Penguin
7/19/2011, 12:27 PM
House Squatter gets Mansion for $16 (http://abcnews.go.com/Business/texas-man-claims-mansion-16/story?id=14099714)



The home was in foreclosure, and the owner abandoned the property. That's when Robinson swooped in and, after submitting a $16 filing fee at the local courthouse, claimed the law of "adverse possession" gave him the right to occupy the home.

Why didn't somebody tell me about this "adverse possession" law?

GKeeper316
7/19/2011, 12:35 PM
i just asked dad about this. he thinks oklahoma's adverse possession laws are different than texas' and what this guy did wouldn't be possible here, but he didn't do any research and conceeded that he could be wrong.

BU BEAR
7/19/2011, 12:44 PM
The guy does not own the house. He is merely adversely possessing the property and he appears to be doing so in a calculated, intelligent, and legally proper way. If he satisfies the required statutory period of adverse possession, then he can claim ownership by adverse possession.

However, if the owner (which may be the holder of the note) moves to eject him prior to end of the statutory period (I think, but am not certain, that the period is 3 or 5 years.), then he is out of the house with nothing to show for the time he spent there. His neighbors may be irritated, but they have no legal remedy against him. To put it bluntly, they have no dog in this fight.

KantoSooner
7/19/2011, 12:46 PM
As I dimly recall, here in Okieland, there are time requirements during which you have to be in 'open and notorious' (or some such) possession of the property and the owner must 'sleep' on their rights. Thus, filing without any other 'claim' to the property would not meet the test.

Been a long time since law school, though.

badger
7/19/2011, 12:52 PM
The neighbors are probably just staring down their own colossal mortgage payments and jealous that he only has to pay property taxes.

I've read that he's in real estate and this was a very calculated undertaking, not simply a case of squatting in an abandoned house.

He might come away with a huge profit in three years if he can keep this up. It doesn't sound like the original owner (abandoned the house) or the mortgage company (went under) will have the means to fight him on this.

soonerboomer93
7/19/2011, 12:56 PM
Hmmm, I'm going for a drive through the woodlands today. I got $16 in my pocket. i'd at least turn the water and electricity on even :D

soonerbrat
7/19/2011, 01:20 PM
House Squatter gets Mansion for $16 (http://abcnews.go.com/Business/texas-man-claims-mansion-16/story?id=14099714)




Why didn't somebody tell me about this "adverse possession" law?


this was happening in florida, too.... i think it was on 20/20 or some show like that. quite interesting. people were taking possession of empty houses and renting them out to other people...don't remember all the details

Penguin
7/19/2011, 01:52 PM
Modern day dirt burglars. Hellz yeah! :D

soonerboomer93
7/19/2011, 02:13 PM
this was happening in florida, too.... i think it was on 20/20 or some show like that. quite interesting. people were taking possession of empty houses and renting them out to other people...don't remember all the details

The one in florida was a bit different, the one I read about was actually for sale and was being checked on, a 3rd party was actually renting it from a company who just basically moved them in there.

Aldebaran
7/19/2011, 02:16 PM
Niiiiiiice.

soonerchk
7/19/2011, 02:22 PM
Hmmm, I wonder if I can take adverse possession of the house across the street that's been for sale for over a year...

OUMallen
7/19/2011, 02:22 PM
The article is rife with inaccuracies.

Let's just put it this way: he doesn't have a legal right to be there. And it wouldn't be any more costly for the rightful possessor than a call to 911 to have the cops remove him. There might be a court battle at some point, but he has zero, and I mean zero, right to possess the house at the moment and if the mortgage company showed up, they jsut have the cops remove him. Also, if the owner/abandoning party showed up, and the mortgage company never foreclosed, that party could have him removed too. He has to sit in the house for a loooooooooooooooooooong time without anyone ever telling him to get out.

The article is written terribly to suggest that the guy owns the house now after paying a filing fee.

GrapevineSooner
7/19/2011, 02:23 PM
The mortgage company went belly up.

Which is one of the reasons he opted for this tactic.

OUMallen
7/19/2011, 02:24 PM
Hmmm, I wonder if I can take adverse possession of the house across the street that's been for sale for over a year...

If you can sit in it for fifteen years without anyone telling you to leave!

soonerchk
7/19/2011, 02:25 PM
If you can sit in it for fifteen years without anyone telling you to leave!

It's not showing well, so probably no one would notice.

OUMallen
7/19/2011, 02:28 PM
The mortgage company went belly up.

Which is one of the reasons he opted for this tactic.

The assets of the mortgage company don't vanish into thin air. I don't like his chances. Wasted time and $16 down the tubes.

GrapevineSooner
7/19/2011, 02:31 PM
WFAA.com ran this story last week (http://www.wfaa.com/news/local/Texas-Law-Lets-Stranger-Move-Into-330000-Home-125528248.html).


Lowrie and her husband said the house down the street was in foreclosure for more than a year and the owner walked away. Then, the mortgage company went out of business.


Apparently, that opened the door for someone to take advantage of the situation. But, Kenneth Robinson said he's no squatter. He said he moved in on June 17 after months of research about a Texas law called "adverse possession."
"This is not a normal process, but it is not a process that is not known," he said. "It's just not known to everybody."


He says an online form he printed out and filed at the Denton County courthouse for $16 gave him rights to the house. The paper says the house was abandoned and he's claiming ownership.


"I added some things here for my own protection," Robinson said.
The house is virtually empty, with just a few pieces of furniture. There is no running water or electricity.


But, Robinson said just by setting up camp in the living room, Texas law gives him exclusive negotiating rights with the original owner. If the owner wants him out, he would have to pay off his massive mortgage debt and the bank would have to file a complicated lawsuit.


Robinson believes because of the cost, neither is likely. The law says if he stays in the house, after three years he can ask the court for the title.

Aldebaran
7/19/2011, 02:31 PM
I wonder if JK watched the story and noticed how dude's yard wasn't all nice and green like the neighbors, and the numbers on the mailbox were faded, too. Turrible. Just Turrible.


I bet this story has my aunt in Lewisville in full meltdown mode.

OUMallen
7/19/2011, 02:33 PM
WFAA.com ran this story last week (http://www.wfaa.com/news/local/Texas-Law-Lets-Stranger-Move-Into-330000-Home-125528248.html).

Jeez is there a specific statute that authorizes that?

You'd think the homeowner could simply have the foreclosure action dismissed and the title is still in his name. Call the cops, have them make the guy leave, and his possession is broken.

And it doesn't matter how many times the idiot says it: he doesn't own it: "Absolutely," he said. "I want to be owner of record. At this point, because I possess it, I am the owner."

False.

GKeeper316
7/19/2011, 02:49 PM
i think the law is in place from way back when there were still homesteads being abandoned left and right when all the lily white folks from back east discovered how hard it actually was to eak out a living on the frontier and packed up and went home.

OUMallen
7/19/2011, 02:55 PM
i think the law is in place from way back when there were still homesteads being abandoned left and right when all the lily white folks from back east discovered how hard it actually was to eak out a living on the frontier and packed up and went home.

Went back further than that, I was taught. Feudal England, even, if I remember right...? The idea was that the King owned all the land anyway, and it was better for everyone involved if the land was being put to use instead of being left alone.

SO, someone could adversely possess the land if they were actually putting it to use (farming, etc.) because it was good for all involved. Which leads me to theorize that is why it is called "adverse possession" and not "adverse ownership." Full ownership (fee simple) never technically changed hands back then like it does now.

BU BEAR
7/19/2011, 03:03 PM
The article is rife with inaccuracies.

Let's just put it this way: he doesn't have a legal right to be there. And it wouldn't be any more costly for the rightful possessor than a call to 911 to have the cops remove him. There might be a court battle at some point, but he has zero, and I mean zero, right to possess the house at the moment and if the mortgage company showed up, they jsut have the cops remove him. Also, if the owner/abandoning party showed up, and the mortgage company never foreclosed, that party could have him removed too. He has to sit in the house for a loooooooooooooooooooong time without anyone ever telling him to get out.

The article is written terribly to suggest that the guy owns the house now after paying a filing fee.

The guy does not own the house. He is merely trying establishing a claim, putting others on notice of his claim on the property, and starting the statute of limitations period for adverse possession. The period is either 3 or 5 years.

The neighbors cannot have him ejected. The owner and/or holder of the note and security interest can have him ejected. My guess is that the prior residents no longer care and are resigned to foreclosure if it has not already happened. Also, the note has probably been passed around so many times that the current holder of the mortgage does not realize where the property is located or that its rights are being compromised.

Here is a well written article on the topic of adverse possession and even talks about the Affidavit of Adverse Possession:

http://www.lonestarlandlaw.com/Adverse.html

OUMallen
7/19/2011, 03:07 PM
Why did you quote me? I'm confused.

But yeah.

BU BEAR
7/19/2011, 03:10 PM
SO, someone could adversely possess the land if they were actually putting it to use (farming, etc.) because it was good for all involved. Which leads me to theorize that is why it is called "adverse possession" and not "adverse ownership."

The adverse possessor does not own it until he satisfies all the elements for the statutory period of time; at which time he goes to court and receives a judgment that he is the owner. Until, the period runs, squatter is merely possessing.

You may be right on the origins of the term, but there is still good reason to call it "possessor" rather than "owner."

BU BEAR
7/19/2011, 03:11 PM
Why did you quote me? I'm confused.

But yeah.

Thought you might like the article about Texas Adverse Possession Law.

Sooner_Tuf
7/19/2011, 03:25 PM
It's 15 years in Oklahoma if the original is keeping the taxes paid. If the squatter is paying the taxes he can attempt to get title the third year. The courts aren't very friendly to this so they will try to give every chance to the bank or the original to catch up the taxes and retain their rights.

But if nobody with prior rights asserts them the squatter can take title but it is not a warranted title. Someone from long ago that can claim some sort of right, a child of an intestate estate for example.

It is going to be pretty rare that someone is going to get a nice home this way but I'm sure it has happened. Normally when something changes hands like this it is a strip of land that one party has been using for a long period of time (encroaching).

I bought an old house one time that the owner had given a neighbor behind him permission to put a driveway and half of a two car garage on his property. He was smart enough to keep his encroachments filed protecting his rights. When I bought the house and the survery indicated that the neighbpr was using a strip 15x150 I approached the neighbor and asked if he would like to buy it.

I wasn't going to force him to but I just figured since he had been using it for 20+ years he might as well own it and pay the taxes for the improvements instead of me. He got upset and got a lawyer. He turned what was a friendly inquiry into a lawsuit.

Anyway today he now has a fence 48" from his home. No driveway and had to tear down the whole two car garage as there was no way to leave any of it and still meet today's boundary code. He gets to park in the street where he has 55 feet of frontage.

I have often wondered how his conversations with his Attorney went. LoL

TheHumanAlphabet
7/19/2011, 03:28 PM
The neighbors are probably just staring down their own colossal mortgage payments and jealous that he only has to pay property taxes.

I've read that he's in real estate and this was a very calculated undertaking, not simply a case of squatting in an abandoned house.

He might come away with a huge profit in three years if he can keep this up. It doesn't sound like the original owner (abandoned the house) or the mortgage company (went under) will have the means to fight him on this.

Baj, saw him on the news. He don't look like he is in "real estate" he looks more like a Hobo. But he is quite sure of himself and has planted himself in the house. It has no water or electricity. He has just some camp equipment set up in the house.

SOONER44EVER
7/21/2011, 01:23 AM
Baj, saw him on the news. He don't look like he is in "real estate" he looks more like a Hobo. But he is quite sure of himself and has planted himself in the house. It has no water or electricity. He has just some camp equipment set up in the house.

There are many ways to get him out. If a house has no utilities on it can be condemned. The neighbors can continually call the community action center about weeds in the yard, debris etc. The property will then be fined and have liens placed on it. He'll have a very tough time keeping that house.

OUMallen
7/21/2011, 08:45 AM
The adverse possessor does not own it until he satisfies all the elements for the statutory period of time; at which time he goes to court and receives a judgment that he is the owner. Until, the period runs, squatter is merely possessing.

You may be right on the origins of the term, but there is still good reason to call it "possessor" rather than "owner."

I think you need to read my posts closer.

badger
7/21/2011, 09:03 AM
One thing that might keep him there is that you simply cannot just kick someone out of a house.

If you're having marital squabbles, you can't just change the locks and keep the spouse that made the mistake of leaving for a few hours out.

If your teenage daughter let her friend stay with her without your permission in a house you bought for her to live in at college, you can't immediately kick your friend out.

If residency is established, you to go through the evictions process, correct?

Penguin
7/21/2011, 11:09 AM
One thing that might keep him there is that you simply cannot just kick someone out of a house.

If you're having marital squabbles, you can't just change the locks and keep the spouse that made the mistake of leaving for a few hours out.

If your teenage daughter let her friend stay with her without your permission in a house you bought for her to live in at college, you can't immediately kick your friend out.

If residency is established, you to go through the evictions process, correct?


You are 100% correct. Unfortunately, I have first hand knowledge. A couple of years ago, I moved in with a girl. At that time, I didn't realize that if she missed her meds for only one day, she becomes a looney dingbat. Well, one day we got into a little argument about something stupid and whilst I was in the bathroom, she discreetly called 911. Next thing I know, a deputy is at the door wanting to talk to me.

The girl had told the deputy that my name was not on the lease and she wanted me gone. The cop axed me if I lived there. I said, "Yep." He then asked me to prove it. I pointed to my laundry on the couch and my Wii that had my name and my last 4 digits carved into it. The deputy then lectured the girl for 20 minutes about how establishing a domicile has nothing to do with legal paperwork and if she really wanted to evict me, she would have to go get a court order (which included a fee that she couldn't afford) and give me a 30 day notice to move out. Then, and only then, could she schedule a constable to drag my *** out to the street. He said something like "the police are not in the business of making people homeless." Anyways, I moved out way before anything like that drama happened.

BU BEAR
7/21/2011, 11:40 AM
I think you need to read my posts closer.

Oh, gosh yes. Because they are sooo worth the extra effort.

badger
7/21/2011, 11:42 AM
I assume that is why this guy is "living" in the house, even if there's no electricity or running water. He needs to establish residency to avoid getting tossed on the curb, regardless of his $16 paperwork. Hence, the camping chair and other personal crap...

But it wouldn't surprise me if he isn't spending too much time inside the house, considering the nosy neighbors and the lack of conveniences a no-power no-water house would bring, even a no-power no-water $300k house.

That "no trespassing" sign is probably to also keep people from realizing how much time he spends away from the house, not just to keep harassing neighbors away.

Scott D
7/21/2011, 01:11 PM
There was a situation up here where a guy left on vacation, and while he was on his vacation some squatters moved into his house (broke in), and threw all of his stuff out into the yard. It took quite the legal dealings and intervention of local media before the DPD would come to evict these people.

OUMallen
7/21/2011, 01:18 PM
Oh, gosh yes. Because they are sooo worth the extra effort.

No, so you don't look like an idiot repeating what I've already said and trying to explain something to me that I already know. No need to be an *******.

BU BEAR
7/21/2011, 01:35 PM
No, so you don't look like an idiot repeating what I've already said and trying to explain something to me that I already know. No need to be an *******.

Funny. I thought you were the one being horsey.

Now, excuse me while I fall all over myself after only now finding out how smart you really are.

sooner_born_1960
7/21/2011, 01:41 PM
Based solely on OU vs. BU, I'm giving this round to MR. Mallen.

BU BEAR
7/21/2011, 01:43 PM
Based solely on OU vs. BU, I'm giving this round to MR. Mallen.


Not that matters, but he will have to settle for an all time record of 1-0 against me based on your decision. I simply do not want any more after finding out that his schwartz is as big as mine.

OUMallen
7/21/2011, 04:01 PM
Not that matters, but he will have to settle for an all time record of 1-0 against me based on your decision. I simply do not want any more after finding out that his schwartz is as big as mine.

You're an arrogant little **********, aren't you? Either you are a complete jerkwad, or you just got out of law school. Hard to tell which.

BU BEAR
7/21/2011, 04:10 PM
You're an arrogant little **********, aren't you? Either you are a complete jerkwad, or you just got out of law school. Hard to tell which.

Ok. Since I want to let this whole thing go, I will give you this one also. 2-0 Mallen.

But, I do not wish ill for you and I don't want to call you nasty names. I hope you never get in a car wreck and I wish good health for you and your family. May you and your family prosper even in these relatively lean times that we are living through. Nothing on a message board is so important as to wish others the following:


I'm off to become a... 7/21/2011 04:02 PM OUMallen I hope you get in a car wreck today. Seriously, I sincerely hope you do and that you get hurt.