• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

lady 'forced' to live with squatter

I have seen squatters in action in CA... and boy it's a sad state of affairs when you can't even kick someone that illegally broke into your home. There are cases where squatters have lived for MONTHS to a year+ before being ordered out by the court to evict the premises.
 
Keep in mind that squatters typically target homes that they think are abandoned. I don't see the harm in a squatter using a building that nobody else wants to use.

That being said, they should be forced to leave the house when the owner gets back. That part is just ridiculous.
 
I can not even wrap my head around how screwed up things must be legally to not be able to remove someone from your own household like this.
 
It should be legal to shoot squatters on sight. The notions of squatters' "rights" is obscene.
 
squatter-rights.jpg
 
Juddog said:
Keep in mind that squatters typically target homes that they think are abandoned. I don't see the harm in a squatter using a building that nobody else wants to use.

That being said, they should be forced to leave the house when the owner gets back. That part is just ridiculous.
Click to expand...

I can see the part about abandoned buildings, BUT, if I own my home, and by all legal means it's mine (no back taxes, etc.), even if it's been sitting there for 20 years with nobody in it, just there in case I want to sleep there, it's mine. Nobody should be allowed in it.
 
what's to prevent the rightful homeowner from changing the locks and then calling the cops when the squatter comes back trying to get in?
 
What's to stop any burglar from saying they thought the house was vacant and they only intended to squat if they get caught breaking in?
 
As I understand it, a squatter can only have adverse possession after occupying the property continuously for 15 years (which isnt applicable in this cae). After that, the owner has two legal ways to remove the squatter:

Although a squatter ordinarily does not have legal right or title to the property, the law forbids a citizen from removing the squatter by force. Instead, there are two possible legal means to remove someone who is residing on a property unlawfully.

First, the squatter is guilty of criminal trespass if they enter property after they have been told not to by the owner, responsible party, or occupant, or if they remain on the property after they have been told to leave by the owner, responsible party, or occupant of the property. In this instance, the squatter can be removed by the local police and charged with a misdemeanor.

Second, if the police are unwilling to remove the squatter, a civil action may be filed. The action may only be brought by the owner of the property or an occupant. Once an action is filed, the person bringing the action must prove they have a superior right or title to the property and the squatter must be served with a civil complaint. Assuming the squatter cannot prove they have an interest, such as through adverse possession, the owner or occupant can ask the court for a writ of restitution that allows the squatter to be evicted by the sheriff or authorized officer. The owner or occupant should not attempt to remove the squatter themselves because the law disfavors self-help evictions and often the evictor can be sued.
Click to expand...

I wonder if the owner has taken the first step?
 
"You make $40,000 a year and will be dead before you pay off your mortgage? OMG, u r the 1%!!!!! I gonna liberate you from your greeds!!!"
 
More info here:

A Detroit woman says when she returned to her home last week after being away for a year, she found a woman living there who neighbors say has been staying in the house for a few months, MyFoxDetroit.com reported.
...
Peterson claims the squatter, who was a tenant of Peterson's and leased the home in 2010, changed the locks, reworked the plumbing, replaced her appliances, put a lien on the house and will not leave.
...
The alleged squatter's name is documented all over the house as Missionary-Tracey Elaine Blair, a write-in candidate for president. She denied that she was squatting and said she has a lease.
...
MyFoxDetroit.com reported that Peterson leased the house to tenants in 2010, including this alleged squatter, but had to evict everyone when it was found not fit to live in.

The station also reported the alleged squatter filed papers with the city claiming the property was abandoned.​
Click to expand...

​
 
Oceanas said:
More info here:


A Detroit woman says when she returned to her home last week after being away for a year, she found a woman living there who neighbors say has been staying in the house for a few months, MyFoxDetroit.com reported.
...

Peterson claims the squatter, who was a tenant of Peterson's and leased the home in 2010, changed the locks, reworked the plumbing, replaced her appliances, put a lien on the house and will not leave.
...
The alleged squatter's name is documented all over the house as Missionary-Tracey Elaine Blair, a write-in candidate for president. She denied that she was squatting and said she has a lease.
...
MyFoxDetroit.com reported that Peterson leased the house to tenants in 2010, including this alleged squatter, but had to evict everyone when it was found not fit to live in.

The station also reported the alleged squatter filed papers with the city claiming the property was abandoned.
​
Click to expand...

Thanks for posting the real facts. As soon as I saw the original story was by Fox News I knew it was just complete and utter bullshit.
Sadly the OP is just a dupe.

Here's another take on the story.
The original owner couldn't or wouldn't maintain the building and it became unlivable and so she abanded it for a year. One of her previous tenants occupied the place and paid to fix it back up to livable standards. Now the owner wants to move back in and not pay for the repairs and kick out the person who fixed it up.
Apparently the law does allow for abandoned buildings to be repaired by people and then they can keep it.
 
Last edited:
techs said:
Thanks for posting the real facts. As soon as I saw the original story was by Fox News I knew it was just complete and utter bullshit.
Click to expand...
Well, my link is also from Fox News, but it takes its info from what I think is the original article, which I think is this.

It has a bit more info...

Heidi Peterson always dreamed of living in a historical home. In May of 2010, she bought one in Detroit's Boston-Edison District for $23,000.
Click to expand...
For $23,000 it was probably not very livable to begin with.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top