Man leaves home for a week, then 15 squatters move in

Page 8 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

AMDZen

Lifer
Apr 15, 2004
12,589
0
76
Does anyone know if these weird laws exist in other modern countries? Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, France, etc...?

Australia and NZ have similarly fucked up laws, yes. Not sure if its like this exactly.
 

bfdd

Lifer
Feb 3, 2007
13,312
1
0
I'd just sneak(break) in and break their fucking knees then leave. When they all got carried off to the hospital I'd take my place back and burn their shit.
 

Sho'Nuff

Diamond Member
Jul 12, 2007
6,211
121
106
My parents have land outside of Raleigh, NC. They were visiting and while walking through the woods saw that the neighbors kids had decided to clear some of OUR land and make it into a frisbee golf course. My mom had to handle things with the neighbors because my dad was so upset but the simple truth is that if they continued to use the land for 20 years after we had said not to and we didn't post signs or threaten legal action, they could take that land (only the space used for the frisbee course) from my folks.

OR, you could have said, "Ok, you can play frisbee golf here" and not have to worry about the doctrine of adverse possession (AP) at all. Still have to deal with the buggers clearing your land though.
 

dfuze

Lifer
Feb 15, 2006
11,953
0
71
We’ll go if the court tells us to but until then we’re staying. If he wants his things he’ll have to wait. If I find a job then I’ll start paying rent like a normal person.
Gotta love the attitude, he'll have to wait if he wants his stuff :rolleyes:

And to her stupid idea of paying rent, he doesn't want rent, he wants his house for him to live in!
 

AreaCode707

Lifer
Sep 21, 2001
18,445
127
106
OR, you could have said, "Ok, you can play frisbee golf here" and not have to worry about the doctrine of adverse possession (AP) at all. Still have to deal with the buggers clearing your land though.

I'll give frisbee golf permission to anyone who wants to clear my land!
 

sygyzy

Lifer
Oct 21, 2000
14,001
4
76
In the article, one of the squatters said he is broke but once he gets a job he'll pay rent. This shows how messed up his logic is. Why would the Gupta, the owner, event want to accept rent from this guy?
 

sygyzy

Lifer
Oct 21, 2000
14,001
4
76
Considering the squatters changed the locks, it should be pretty easy to prove this.

I am not following your logic. Since the squatters changed the locks this means the door could not have been open? Go leave your door unlocked right now. I'll come over and change the locks then lock you out. What have you proven?
 

CPA

Elite Member
Nov 19, 2001
30,322
4
0


They don't have any money but can afford to change the locks?

Looking at the pictures, I highly doubt he had been living in there or was getting it decorated.


Why does that f'in matter. It's his property. He pays the mortgage, pays the taxes, pays the utility. They should have absolutely NO RIGHT to be in there.
 

CPA

Elite Member
Nov 19, 2001
30,322
4
0
Even in Texas I doubt he'd be able to storm in now and 'cap' 15 students.

That state is not to 'brainy' though, fuck they outlawed HELOCS because their citizens can't manage their own money.

lol, while I agree it's stupid that you can't get a HELOC here in TEXAS, it did help minimize the effect of the housing downturn on the state.
 

Eli

Super Moderator | Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
50,419
8
81
Wow.

This completely boggles my mind. And I thought US laws were bad......
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,125
30,076
146
3 things I've learned from this thread:

--UK laws are more fucked than I imagined.
--Most of ATOT is willing to exact extreme violence without batting an eye, or so they claim
--Randy Quaid needs work.
 

Ichinisan

Lifer
Oct 9, 2002
28,298
1,235
136
There is no "page 4" if you have your settings right. ;)

Link to the post number in the upper-right corner to direct someone.

That, or reiterate the info (there was no electricity).

Must have happened after the article. The article shows them enjoying the owner's DVD collection.

[edit]
Mark R said that the law prevents the owner from having the electricity disconnected, even if he's paying for it.

That CAN'T be true!
 
Last edited:

spacejamz

Lifer
Mar 31, 2003
10,866
1,515
126
Must have happened after the article. The article shows them enjoying the owner's DVD collection.

[edit]
Mark R said that the law prevents the owner from having the electricity disconnected, even if he's paying for it.

That CAN'T be true!

straight out of Pacific Heights...that movie just wanted to make you beat the crap out of Michael Keaton....
 

Mark R

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
8,513
16
81
It should have gone down like this
1. Guy gets home realises it is full of squatters phones the police
2. Police arrive, confirm the guy is actually the legal owner of the property and then requested that the squatters leave
3. If the squatters do not leave the police should then arrest them for commiting the offence outlined in section 7 above.

If the squatters did leave upon request I am not sure of the procedure, in my mind they should go down to the police station while the owner checks for any damage or theft. If there is damage or theft then the squatters should be arrested under that legislation but if there is no damage and no theft then there should be no criminal action. Of course the owner could try and go through small claims court to get back expenses like water/gas/electricity but that would probably cost more than its worth.

The problem is that the exceptions in the law are extremely specific:
"Displaced residential occupier" means that you are currently living in that building as your only home, and had left the property only for normal domestic purposes (e.g. a 'normal length' vacation). There are many exceptions to this. e.g. if the property is a vacation home, then you cannot be a 'displaced residential occupier' unless you were actually vacationing there at the time the squatters took over; nor are you a 'displaced residential occupier' if you have moved out, and are staying with family, so that the property can be revamped. similarly, a landlord is not a 'displaced residential occupier' if squatters take over between leases. The trick here, is that it is not the property 'owner' that is the DRO - it is the person who is living there as their main home at the time.

While technically, you would not be committing a crime if you broke in and force the squatters out, if you were a genuine DRO - you can't expect the police to rule on this - as it is actually very uncommon for squatters to actually take over a house which is in use. A cop could easily justify arresting you on suspicion of breaking-in, unless you had your lawyer plead a formal statement to a judge - and then called the police once you had the signed statement from the judge.

"Protected intended occupier" means a person with a signed contract entitling them to move into the property at very short notice - where the contract has been verified and a certificate signed by a judge. E.g. if a tenant signs a lease on Monday, to move in Friday - but squatters take over on Tuesday - then the prospective tenant can go to court, testify to the judge that they were to move in, offering the signed lease agreement as evidence, then the judge could sign off a certificate making the tenant a PIO, allowing them to force the squatters out.
 
Last edited:

AstroManLuca

Lifer
Jun 24, 2004
15,628
5
81
So wait, could you hang out in an apartment complex and wait for someone to walk outside without locking their doors to have a quick smoke, then quickly run into their apartment and lock them out, then claim squatters' rights?
 

Mark R

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
8,513
16
81
So wait, could you hang out in an apartment complex and wait for someone to walk outside without locking their doors to have a quick smoke, then quickly run into their apartment and lock them out, then claim squatters' rights?

The apartment resident would be a 'displaced residential occupier' so would legitimately be able to break in.

The problem is that the police would be very reluctant to help you, unless you could prove that you were living there at the time, and using the apartment as your only home. If you've got a lot of good neighbors, and/or know the building superintendent, they you may be able to get them to convince the cops. However, if the cops can't find evidence of break-in, then they would probably ask for some kind of proof, like a sworn statement pleaded to a judge, before allowing you to go ahead.

Squatters in the UK very rarely take over properties that are actually being lived in at the time - because they have few legal rights in those circumstances, and its not worth the hassle for only a few days. For that reason, cops are very suspicious of people who claim that they were kicked out of their home, where they were living, by squatters.

By contrast, if you were to find an apartment that the tenants had moved out of yesterday - and was still on the market, with no new lease signed - then you're basically home free :p as the owner would have no rights to kick you out without a formal court hearing, which could take weeks.
 
Last edited:

Zenmervolt

Elite member
Oct 22, 2000
24,512
21
81
Eh, don't know how they got the land since it wasn't an open or hostile possession unless there's more information that we're not being told about.

It was definitely hostile in the legal sense; from a legal perspective the use is hostile if it is nonpermissive. Jlee's article never mentions the owner giving permission at all and since permission is an absolute defense against adverse possession that would result in a directed verdict without the case ever going to a jury, it's pretty clear that the neighbors' use of the land was indeed hostile.

As for it being open and notorious, that is likely what was in question. Still, it's worth noting that actions can be "open and notorious" even if the owner of the land never finds out about them so long as those actions are such that the title holder would reasonably be expected to know about them if the owner actually monitored the land. That is, an action is "open and notorious" if it would be obvious to a casual visitor to the land that someone was using it; the use need not be obvious to an absentee owner.

This was something we spent quite a bit of time on in my real estate classes and it was interesting seeing some people get really worked up over it, but the simple truth is that if you buy a piece of land, you damn well better keep an eye on it over the years. The excuse that it was a couple of miles away is a bunch of BS.

I completely agree. While I don't agree with the amount of protection given to the squatters in the UK, the statutes of limitations in the US are at minimum 5 years (assuming that the occupation is not under color of title, but we're not talking about occupation under color of title here), with the majority of states (27) requiring 15 years or more of continuous occupation before someone can make a claim of adverse possession.

Really, all adverse possession does is allow land to become abandoned property just like anything else. There's a basic duty to patrol one's property and adverse possession prevents claims from becoming stale and encourages the productive use of land.

My parents have land outside of Raleigh, NC. They were visiting and while walking through the woods saw that the neighbors kids had decided to clear some of OUR land and make it into a frisbee golf course. My mom had to handle things with the neighbors because my dad was so upset but the simple truth is that if they continued to use the land for 20 years after we had said not to and we didn't post signs or threaten legal action, they could take that land (only the space used for the frisbee course) from my folks.

Signs wouldn't do anything to prevent an adverse possession claim in NC (based on the statutes). You'd have to actually remove them from the land, either more politely by telling them to move, or more formally by filing criminal or civil trespass charges. Merely threatening legal action is likewise insufficient if they do not actually physically remove themselves from the property.

ZV
 

bfdd

Lifer
Feb 3, 2007
13,312
1
0
3 things I've learned from this thread:

--UK laws are more fucked than I imagined.
--Most of ATOT is willing to exact extreme violence without batting an eye, or so they claim
--Randy Quaid needs work.

Just a question, do you qualify breaking their knee caps as "extreme violence?" It seems like an appropriate level of violence to direct at these 15 people. I mean they are fucking with his home, his things and his life.
 

Zenmervolt

Elite member
Oct 22, 2000
24,512
21
81

xanis

Lifer
Sep 11, 2005
17,571
8
0
I just told my dad about this and showed him the article. His response: "Sounds like it's time for some good-old, down-home justice."

:D
 

Zenmervolt

Elite member
Oct 22, 2000
24,512
21
81
OR, you could have said, "Ok, you can play frisbee golf here" and not have to worry about the doctrine of adverse possession (AP) at all. Still have to deal with the buggers clearing your land though.

Written, not merely spoken though. And I'd want a signed copy for my own records. Verbal permission is too damn hard to prove in court if the need arises. :p

ZV