http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/82846527/?lt=hlr1

 

 

Imagine that? Having to go through the courts to kick out a home invader? At what point does a trespasser become a tenant? Jeez...

I would probably end up in jail.

 

But, if I could control myself, Why couldn't I shut off my water, power, gas, and even plug my own sewer line on my own property?

Is this real?

As I understand it, it's a bit more complicated because the squatter was also a tenant before the home had plumbing issues and the owner shut it up and left it for a year. In that time the squatter placed a claim and lien on the property and repaired the building so now it's in the court's hands.

Non withstanding, I would have forcibly thrown out the squatter and made damn sure that the house was guarded until the matter is decided.

I don't want to live on this planet anymore.

As I understand it, it's a bit more complicated because the squatter was also a tenant before the home had plumbing issues and the owner shut it up and left it for a year. In that time the squatter placed a claim and lien on the property and repaired the building so now it's in the court's hands.

Non withstanding, I would have forcibly thrown out the squatter and made damn sure that the house was guarded until the matter is decided.

 

Ah, that makes things very different. In the meantime, I'd give her a huge bill for a year's rent to counter.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sounds like the movie Pacific Heights.

As I understand it, it's a bit more complicated because the squatter was also a tenant before the home had plumbing issues and the owner shut it up and left it for a year. In that time the squatter placed a claim and lien on the property and repaired the building so now it's in the court's hands.

Non withstanding, I would have forcibly thrown out the squatter and made damn sure that the house was guarded until the matter is decided.

 

I heard something similar to this too.

So, at what point does breaking and entering cease to be a crime and become squatting? Is it the time frame or what?

 

This makes me angry.

So, at what point does breaking and entering cease to be a crime and become squatting? Is it the time frame or what?

 

This makes me angry.

I read that the situation only exists because the squatter is claiming it was in essence an illegal eviction when some pipes burst and the owner refused to repair it and instead just vacated it for almost a year.

I have 2 questions however. 1:If the squatter had to break into the home in order to repair what ever damage made it uninhabitable, is it not still B&E?,and 2: If you had the resources to just board up a house for a year,conceivably still paying for utilities and taxes if there was no mortgage, couldn't you have just repaired the problem and continued to live there or at least rent it out?

 

There is a lot more to this story than what little is reported.

In all these "adverse possession" situations the squatter will say the door was left unlocked and they just walked in. Can't charge them with B+E unless there is some supporting evidence that the did in fact break in.

 

Most likely the squatter will not have a valid claim on the property and will eventually be evicted, just has to go through the whole process just like evicting a renter. What gets everyone is why they are not treated like a trespasser. a) there is no proof the person broke in, b) a lengthy occupation of the property is involved, aka living there for awhile... the law then switches off criminal mode, and onto property/renter laws.

 

Afterall, if someone broke into your house, wouldn't you call the police right away, not 6 months later. As far as the criminal justice system is concerned, it could have been someone you said could live there, and now you are lying saying they broke in 6 months ago and started living there just so you can have them thrown out.

 

These laws were designed to prevent property owners from unethically/unlawfully evicting tenants from their property. Just like anything, squatters ride the fine line and try to exploit these laws to their fullest ability.

These laws were designed to prevent property owners from unethically/unlawfully evicting tenants from their property. Just like anything, squatters ride the fine line and try to exploit these laws to their fullest ability.

 

The laws were designed to prevent ancient claims of title making all property rights questionable. Not to prevent true property owners from unethically/unlawfully evicting tenants.

 

At some point property rights must be lost if they are not defended. This is so you don't buy a property and live there for 30 years and then get sued by somebody's great great great granddaughter's 3rd cousin exercising a claim from 1906.

I don't see how the squatter has a leg to stand on here unless the woman was not paying her taxes. You could buy a house, never live in it and let it rot away (assuming there is no HOA) as long as you are paying your taxes on it it is still yours. Now if the woman was not paying taxes on it sure then the squater could make a claim if she was taking care of the property.

The laws were designed to prevent ancient claims of title making all property rights questionable. Not to prevent true property owners from unethically/unlawfully evicting tenants.

 

At some point property rights must be lost if they are not defended. This is so you don't buy a property and live there for 30 years and then get sued by somebody's great great great granddaughter's 3rd cousin exercising a claim from 1906.

 

Adverse possession laws are in place for many purposes, including the example you set forth. They can also be used to settle property boundary laws based on historical usage of the land along borders. As in the example.. if my fence and yard has been overlapped on 1ft of my neighbors property line for 25 years and he never complained or brought it up. I can make an adverse possession claim on that overlap on that ft of overlap if he decided to bring it up now. Squatters like to try to invoke these laws in their favor, almost always ending in failure here in the US, though each State does have its own laws on adverse possession making the process confusing. In the end, it just buys the squatter time to live there a few more months.

 

Since the squatter is making the claim, she has records and proof that she has been "residing" there for a lengthy period, and there is no evidence or proof that she committed B+E, the laws in place that protect renters and other forms of residency come into play, not criminal laws. As in there is a legal process to follow before the sheriff comes and physically removes the person and possessions. That is my point.

Does she have a title, deed, lease, or contract to the property? If not, I guess I am still confused to how this isn't criminal trespass, assuming the other lady does have proof it is her property.

I don't want to live on this planet anymore.

Made me blow beer out of my nose when I read this!

Ken

In all these "adverse possession" situations the squatter will say the door was left unlocked and they just walked in. Can't charge them with B+E unless there is some supporting evidence that the did in fact break in.

 

 

If memory serves me, i believe that is still B+E. If the door is OPEN, it is not B+E. But physically opening a door that is closed, but unlocked is still B+E. If you have to open something to gain access it is B+E, regardless if it's locked or not, that is what defines the breaking part, as breaking the boundry, not physically breaking something.

 

Technically they could hit them with B+E every time a squatter left and then re-entered the house, if they have no claim to housing.

So if someone (unwanted) walks in your open door, what are they guilty of? Nothing? Trespassing?

 

She needs to get the loudest CD player she can find and alterate AC/DC and Barry Manilow 24 hours a day.