Fortunately this is never affected me, but every time I see one of these stories in the news, it angers me almost as much of it had happened to me.

Somebody please help me understand the logic of this, somebody sneaks into your home and stays there for a certain amount of time and you were not aware of it, now they have an anchor in the home?

It is inconceivable to me that the average person would not go in armed, and “escort“ these people out of their homes.

What am I missing?

quote:

Originally posted by Ronin1069:
What am I missing?

The law

quote:

The law

Well yeah, I know there is a law - but why?

Recently I watched a news story where a group of 6 waited for a family to take an extended vacation, broke into the home, set up camp, and now the home owners cannot get them out of the house.

Might be different in Texas.

None of that nonsense here.
You aren’t on the deed, lease, or legally married to someone on the deed or lease, GOODBYE!!

I thought this was interesting - but the video creator does note that this worked in his particular situation. YMMV

quote:

Originally posted by Ronin1069:
Well yeah, I know there is a law - but why?

The technical answer - public policy against making people homeless without at least due process.

Translation - Liberal legislators.

-Rob

In Texas they could be removed easily and quickly via legal process. An owner would have to know they were there and do nothing, for a long time, for them to gain any even potential rights.

I'll admit I don't know/understand the legal technicalities but it seems like I could kick open the door to my own house any time I want to and have just about anything I wanted in my hands when I did. Kinda seems like getting the authorities involved first is a losing strategy. Not trying to be a chest thumper but I don't know how people put up with this. I mean, why do you have to be on vacation, why can't this happen when you run to the store? BS

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:
In Texas they could be removed easily and quickly via legal process. An owner would have to know they were there and do nothing, for a long time, for them to gain any even potential rights.

I'm curious - how quick would that work in Texas?

I assume OP didn't mean adverse possession when he said squatter's rights, but here in MD, your only legal remedy against run of the mill squatters is a wrongful detainer action, which can take weeks at a minimum (more likely months) depending on the jurisdiction.

-Rob

quote:

Originally posted by Dzozer:
I thought this was interesting - but the video creator does note that this worked in his particular situation. YMMV

Hmmm...out-squatting the squatters. I like it!

I'd bet there is a business opportunity there, maybe set up a franchise operation?

I think there's a little breakdown in communication/terminology.

In the local lexicon of California a "squatter" is someone who has gained, or is attempting to gain, an ownership right in the property by "adverse possession".

Someone who is merely on the property, without permission, and makes no claim to ownership, is merely a trespasser.

So, back to the OP's question.

The legal right to adversely possess or "squat" on a property comes from the public policy interest that abandoned land should not be left abandoned forever. Land is a finite resource, and its productive use benefits society as a whole. If land were to get abandoned (people dying without heirs, for example) and never get recovered, on a long enough timeline all land would eventually become untouchable abandoned land owned long ago by someone long forgotten.

Squatting/Adverse possession then becomes the mechanism by which abandoned land gets pulled back into use and circulation. The mechanism is designed specifically so that the person who will eventually claim ownership of the land by squatting on it must openly possess and use the property for some length of time (5 years-ish in some jurisdictions). This allows other people with an interest in the property to object, but also requires that the squatter have some skin in the game by actually using the property.

So, if a person has put some skin in the game (made repairs, paid property taxes, not hiding their actions, etc.), and the property's true owner comes along and demands that they leave, then it would make sense that some due process would have to take place. The true owner would prove that they are the true owner, otherwise squatters could just bump each other off of property willy nilly.

Now, if you come home to your house after you've been on vacation, what you've got are trespassers. You call the cops, and they get arrested for trespassing.

If the cops arrive and these trespassers look like they are "living" there (and not just dropping by occasionally to use your hot tub), but really can't articulate that they have a "right" to be there, then you'd get directed to make a petition for ejectment. As BurtonRW mentioned above, we don't make people homeless without due process, and it's not the cop's job (or within his authority) to make the call whether these people have a right to be there. Doubtless there are tons of incidences where someone calls foul on someone who, up to that point, was rightfully living in the property (a friend or family member invited to stay, a person renting a room without a lease, etc.). Ejectment is, generally, a fast process with a lower burden of proof for the land owner.

However, if the person in the property makes a claim that they legally have right to be there (they have a lease, they were a live-in girlfriend, they've been there for years and have been maintaining an abandoned house), then you get to go through an Unlawful Detainer action where you get to prove to the court that you indeed have a right to kick these people that supersedes their right to live in the home.

And how would the Castle Doctrine concept not be applicable to such situations?

A few years ago (in the city that employed me as a police officer), we had a hospital that closed and the municipality's regulations made it too difficult to tear the place down and construct something like an apartment building or condos which could provide a profit for the property owner. The "abandoned" building was soon occupied by transients, that enjoyed the benefits of a place to buy, sell, and use drugs out of public view, enabled them to live in an environment that sheltered them from the weather, and provided a base of operations to commit crimes in the surrounding area. For far too long, the police response was limited to checking for "trespassers", who wouldn't be prosecuted by the "victims" (property managers/owners), until an underage girl was murdered in the location by associates that thought (wrongly) she was a "snitch."

Only after THAT tragedy, did the property owners tear the nuisance down (because of the threat of civil liability), but for a long time afterwards they were unable to do any other improvements (construction) that would have returned a profit. A very frustrating situation for those who had to continue paying property tax on the assessed value of an empty lot, located in a very expensive neighborhood!!!

quote:

Originally posted by Aeteocles:
The legal right to adversely possess or "squat" on a property comes from the public policy interest that abandoned land should not be left abandoned forever. Land is a finite resource, and its productive use benefits society as a whole. If land were to get abandoned (people dying without heirs, for example) and never get recovered, on a long enough timeline all land would eventually become untouchable abandoned land owned long ago by someone long forgotten. .

I am not a lawyer (and I am pretty sure you are) but isn't that the exact same argument as for 'escheat', whereby unclaimed financial assets go to the state after a set period of inactivity?

Assuming the 'escheat' thing has validity, why wouldn't the same logic apply to unused non-financial property, and have it go to the state instead of random individuals?

quote:

Originally posted by 2BobTanner:
And how would the Castle Doctrine concept not be applicable to such situations?

It wouldn't be?

They'd already be there, and have already posed no threat to you. You arriving at the property and trying to eject them would make you the provoker. In fact, if they are claiming that they are residing in the property as squatters, they might use castle doctrine against you. Castle doctrine typically concerns a person's right to be safe in their "residence", not necessary concerned with who "owns" the property: for example, a landlord who breaks into a tenant's house isn't going to get a castle doctrine break for being the owner on the deed.

The castle doctrine concerns the use of force in your residence to protect yourself from intruders. It's not a murder ticket to recover property.

quote:

Originally posted by joel9507:

quote:

Originally posted by Aeteocles:
The legal right to adversely possess or "squat" on a property comes from the public policy interest that abandoned land should not be left abandoned forever. Land is a finite resource, and its productive use benefits society as a whole. If land were to get abandoned (people dying without heirs, for example) and never get recovered, on a long enough timeline all land would eventually become untouchable abandoned land owned long ago by someone long forgotten. .

I am not a lawyer (and I am pretty sure you are) but isn't that the exact same argument as for 'escheat', whereby unclaimed financial assets go to the state after a set period of inactivity?

Assuming the 'escheat' thing has validity, why wouldn't the same logic apply to unused non-financial property, and have it go to the state instead of random individuals?

The public policy position is that the government does not make productive use of land. As a land owner, it only needs so many national parks and military installations or government buildings, each of which is a continuing tax burden on the government. In business terms, land for the government is cost center, not a revenue center.

The government doesn't want the continuing financial burden to maintain land. It'll happily take your abandoned checking account or utility refund, but it's not going to take a dilapidated house and pay the property taxes and maintain it against liability from others.

The guy in the video is WAY TOO NICE. Imagine him collecting debts and repos. Lets see the NY method for eviction.

You also have the situation where the "squatters" have a document showing that they have a lease or have bought the property.

That has been used in several locations (I've seen some of the stories) and have taken long legal battles to get them out.

Someone breaks into my house while I’m gone and tries to steal it they’d be gone the next day, guaranteed.