• 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

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
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...

What? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills after reading your post. Its not their building. The person has no right to be there, whether its occupied or not. If I came home to someone in my house, yes, I would kick their ass out and call the cops. Squatting is trespassing, AND breaking and entering. Both of those things were illegal last time I checked.
 
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.
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.
Click to expand...

Guess it going to be a case for the courts to decide if both have supporting laws.
 
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.
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.
Click to expand...

So what? My take on this is, Thanks for fixing my house, however, I didn't authorize this and yeah, its still my properting now GTFO. Until the law or courts takes it away from you, its still yours.
 
slag said:
What? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills after reading your post. Its not their building. The person has no right to be there, whether its occupied or not. If I came home to someone in my house, yes, I would kick their ass out and call the cops. Squatting is trespassing, AND breaking and entering. Both of those things were illegal last time I checked.
Click to expand...

Since the original OP is clearly propaganda we don't have many facts. However, clearly the woman allowed her property to become uninhabitable and left it for a year. We don't know if she paid taxes on it. If she met the law for abandoning her property than she has no complaint. We don't know if the city has been trying to contact her. We don't know if what, if any, foreclosure has occurred.

In this case we have no idea the person who claims to be the original owner still owns the property. So before people jump to the conclusions this propaganda piece obviously wants them to jump to, maybe they should freaking think objectively for just a moment.

Common sense would indicate if she had proof she owned the home she could just go to the police and show it to them and they would kick out the squater. So, I bet she doesn't and there is at least some question as to whether she still legally owns it.


http://realestate.msn.com/article.aspx?cp-documentid=25647288
At least 100 cities have laws allowing people to take over and rehabilitate abandoned homes.
 
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.
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.
Click to expand...


so not living in your home for a year is abandonment? the OWNER did not authorize the squatter to fix the house. the OWNER is not liable at all for any money the squatter spent while trespassing.
 
techs said:
Since the original OP is clearly propaganda we don't have many facts. However, clearly the woman allowed her property to become uninhabitable and left it for a year. We don't know if she paid taxes on it. If she met the law for abandoning her property than she has no complaint. We don't know if the city has been trying to contact her. We don't know if what, if any, foreclosure has occurred.

In this case we have no idea the person who claims to be the original owner still owns the property. So before people jump to the conclusions this propaganda piece obviously wants them to jump to, maybe they should freaking think objectively for just a moment.

Common sense would indicate if she had proof she owned the home she could just go to the police and show it to them and they would kick out the squater. So, I bet she doesn't and there is at least some question as to whether she still legally owns it.


http://realestate.msn.com/article.aspx?cp-documentid=25647288
At least 100 cities have laws allowing people to take over and rehabilitate abandoned homes.
Click to expand...


your hatred of foxnews is sad but yet kinda comical.

From your own link

Home-abandonment laws in this country essentially say owners must clearly demonstrate they have given up rights to a property. Long-term nonuse of a property isn’t quite enough to illustrate that,
Click to expand...
 
OutHouse said:
so not living in your home for a year is abandonment? the OWNER did not authorize the squatter to fix the house. the OWNER is not liable at all for any money the squatter spent while trespassing.
Click to expand...

That's the part we don't know. The original op is clearly a fox news propaganda piece and is missing any real info.

Was the woman paying taxes on the place? Did the city foreclose? Was she in violation of city codes? Clearly she abandoned the property for a year. Does the law say you lose the place after a year of not paying taxes?

There is a lot of stuff we don't know. However, if you go to the police with proof you own the property and the squatter doesn't have a lease or rent stubs then the police routinely kick out the squatter. So I am sure there is a lot more here than meets the eye.
 
OutHouse said:
so not living in your home for a year is abandonment? the OWNER did not authorize the squatter to fix the house. the OWNER is not liable at all for any money the squatter spent while trespassing.
Click to expand...

I know people that have taken vacations that last over a year... so I don't accept 'one year' as long enough. 5? maybe.
 
spidey07 said:
How about never? It's their property and can do with it as they please.
Click to expand...

I meant just for it being considered abandoned (if it's in disrepair). Even if it's a $50,000 fixer upper, if it's habitable, I agree, never.

I mean, plenty of people own multiple homes and might not visit one for at least a year. I know my uncle has a beach house and went 3 years without having a chance to spend anytime there.

Damn.. This has me thinking.

Beach House Squatting.
 
TechBoyJK said:
I meant just for it being considered abandoned (if it's in disrepair). Even if it's a $50,000 fixer upper, if it's habitable, I agree, never.

I mean, plenty of people own multiple homes and might not visit one for at least a year. I know my uncle has a beach house and went 3 years without having a chance to spend anytime there.

Damn.. This has me thinking.

Beach House Squatting.
Click to expand...

Once again, we don't know if the woman was contacted by the city, if there was a foreclosure, etc.
All the story says is she was away for a year. I can think of many legal reasons why she may have lost her property in that time.
Unless the story gives more info there is no way to make a judgement.
 
techs said:
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.
Click to expand...

That's one hell of a mess.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top