Squatter's rights?: Family endures court saga to move into their own home

[doug1980]

Wow I would be pissed. Makes me leary about having a place up here that I only visit every now and then.


After doing some research all 50 States have some sort of law protecting the "squatter" Florida and Alaska have the least amount of time for a squatter to legally take title of the land. Crazy!!!

http://www.peninsulaclarion.com/stor...72931168.shtml

[Pal334]

It is a shame that worthless folks like that can do almost anything they want to

[SARKY]

It's nothing a good woodchipper wouldn't have sloved

[doug1980]

I am hoping someone can help me understand why this law is in place. Lets say I buy some land up here, now we move to the lower 48. We come up here once a year to enjoy our little cabin but for only a short period. Now lets say we have 20 acres and a "squatter" decides to pitch a tent on my land in the back "40" We have no clue he is even there for 7 years, but now legally he would own the land. How can that be fair? Reading the laws it says the squatter must remain on the property for the full 7 years, if he was told by the owner to leave or was given permission by the owner he can not gain ownership of the land. But what happens if the owner never realizes that a squatter is there? I guess this whole thing makes no sense to me. I guess it is too avoid land that has been abandoned just sitting there unused, but then again who cares if it isn't being used.

[oldsoldier]

I am hoping someone can help me understand why this law is in place. Lets say I buy some land up here, now we move to the lower 48. We come up here once a year to enjoy our little cabin but for only a short period. Now lets say we have 20 acres and a "squatter" decides to pitch a tent on my land in the back "40" We have no clue he is even there for 7 years, but now legally he would own the land. How can that be fair? Reading the laws it says the squatter must remain on the property for the full 7 years, if he was told by the owner to leave or was given permission by the owner he can not gain ownership of the land. But what happens if the owner never realizes that a squatter is there? I guess this whole thing makes no sense to me. I guess it is too avoid land that has been abandoned just sitting there unused, but then again who cares if it isn't being used.

The answer in a nut shell Stupid liberal politicans

[SARKY]

This turd, claimed to have a lease and the police bought that!??? Now how STUPID are the police in that area???? And what about the damages done to the property? will they make this piece of crap pay for that????

[doug1980]

This turd, claimed to have a lease and the police bought that!??? Now how STUPID are the police in that area???? And what about the damages done to the property? will they make this piece of crap pay for that????

The real sad part was once the owners found her they gave her 30 days to get out went through the courts and everything. Then after that she was still there and then produced this fake lease. Either way the cops should have realized that she was not the owner and was clearly tresspassing, broken into the home on top of breaking stuff. I only have a 2 year degree in Law Enforcement so I'm no expert but sounds like she should have went to jail. Very simple matter if you ask me. But be warned I guess if you go on vacation someone can move into your house and draw up a lease and take over your home legally....at least on the Kenai in Alaska.

Even if they try to sue her for damages I doubt they'll ever see any money.

[LostOutrider]

The answer in a nut shell Stupid liberal politicans

So, you have anything to back this up or do you just enjoy typing out the phrase 'stupid liberal' as the cause for anything in our political system that you dislike or that doesn't directly benefit you?

I mean, it could've been really smart liberal politicians who were looking to squat in houses and pushed this through as a way to facilitate their diabolical liberal agenda. Or maybe it was just stupid centrist politicians who didn't want to admit the squatters had manifest destiny to live somewhere they did not initially own? Wouldn't it be hilarious if the squatter planted a flag first, claiming the house as discovery!

Okay, maybe not hilarious, but definitely smirk-worthy. I think the politicians are pretty smart, really, no matter what nifty (if meaningless) soundbite label they use to get elected. Brilliant even, because they can continue to do stupid stuff like this and still have a job.

Of course, then again, if you read the article . . . the owner admits that he didn't much pay attention to the property, to the high bills being run up at a house he thought was empty. Maybe if he was paying better attention to his own property, taking care of his own business and such, he wouldn't have let it progress to the point where she appeared to be just another tenant of his - thus making this difficult for the police and courts to know exactly how to react. I'm not blaming the victim - if she's found by law to be in the wrong then burn her at the stake. I do think it is pretty stupid of him, though, to not take care of his own stuff. Negligence tends to influence the level of pity and understanding I feel for a victim.

[Rick]

Careful, gentlemen. This is why political discussions are banned. They tend to get unfriendly in short order. Let's walk away from this one, shall we?

[LostOutrider]

Aw shucks, boss.

[Ken]

Bottom Line: If you own a home and someone decides to "move in" without written and signed proof that you, the landlord, gave them possession of the premises (rent, lease, etc.) you should be able to remove them immediately by whatever means are necessary, including violent means.

If the landlord is sued and proven to be wrong, the other party has property to go after if they sue.

If the "occupier" is wrong, as they almost always are, they are allowed to trash the place, run up utility bills, and cost the owner thousands. And since they have nothing, the landlord has no recourse.

The courts are out of control in these matters.

I've seen cases where a girl moves in with a guy. A week later, the girl cries "domestic abuse" and the guy is removed from his own home and barred from returning or shutting off utilities. The girl often has possession of the home for months, and lets her "new" boyfriend move in so that they can run up all the utility bills, eat everything in sight, sell off anything of value in the house, and get away with it. When the owner finally gets his "day in court" he can't even prove any of it because all the evidence of what he owned has been destroyed.

Pitchforks and torches, Sarky.

[SARKY]

Careful, gentlemen. This is why political discussions are banned. They tend to get unfriendly in short order. Let's walk away from this one, shall we?

Social Injustice is not political as it crosses all lines socio, race, religion, and class. People are abused and we can't speak about it?

[Ken]

Outrider, I gotta' disagree.......... If someone owns property, that fact can be made pretty clear to the police and the courts in about 5 minutes.
I don't give a sh!t how much they've ignored their property. It belongs to them, and nobody else has the right to take it over. Period.

However, the courts don't give a damn about the owner in most cases. I wouldn't necessarily call them "liberal" - instead, I call them MISGUIDED!

They worry about everyone EXCEPT the owner, and it's the owner who almost always gets screwed in our system. And that there's another problem. Judges just aren't held accountable for their bias and incompetence.

When people in the private sector screw up, they're held accountable for their actions (unless they REALLY screw up and qualify for a government bailout and bonus ). But our "royalty" class - judges and legislators - get away with it all the time. At least we can vote our legislators out of office. Judges can screw up for life.

[crashdive123]

Social Injustice is not political as it crosses all lines socio, race, religion, and class. People are abused and we can't speak about it?

That's not what he was referring to. The conversation was turning into a liberal vs conservative political discussion. That is what he stopped, and why the thread is still open.

[canid]

i support squatter's right up to a point [people have to live somewhere, even if they don't have the means] but as soon as a landowner wants to develop unused land, or to move onto or rent out unoccupied land, it's time for the squatters to move out.

another serious concern is property damage [edit: just noticed that was brought up already]. many squatters are not honest people who smply need a dry place to sleep. not all of them can be trusted to respect a premises they might use. how do you recover losses from a vagrant without financial means, often a job or even means of contact?

there's certainly no excuse for hassling and inconveniencing landowners.

if this where a case of a person wanting to inhabit undeveloped land, or respectfully inhabit an unused structure i would be right in their corner, but i'm not so blind as to believe most squatter/landowner struggles are exemplary of such situations.

[LostOutrider]

Outrider, I gotta' disagree..........

Brother, there's nothing to disagree with me about here (I imagine I could find you a few other threads, though, if you're bored tonight.) Like I said in my post, "if she's found by law to be in the wrong then burn her at the stake."

Squatter is in the wrong here, I just don't have a whole lot of sympathy for the guy since it appears he was negligent in taking care of his own stuff. If the squatter is found guilty, then bring down the hammer.

[Rick]

I was a bit puzzled myself as to why an increase in the electric bill didn't raise a red flag for him.

My brother-in-law has a number of rental units. He had a guy that decided not to pay rent. Evict me, he said. So, my BIL and his son (all 6'6" 340lbs of him) evicted him. Head first. followed by his property. My nephew told him he should be grateful they let him live.

I said, is that legal? He said, define legal....

[oldsoldier]

Agreed Ken Misguided was likely the better choice of wording BUT thats why you get the big bucks.

[Rick]

Lawyers get bigger deer? Well I swan.

[pocomoonskyeyes]

First I want to say that I respect each and everyone who has posted in this thread....Everyone! However I HAVE been one of these "Squatters" albeit on a corporations land and not an individual. I would never do that to anyone. I did pitch a camp, and stay for many months on land I did not own nor even know the owners or have their permission. I have been Removed, although I just hid, waited and went back. I stayed for a few more months. I had nowhere else to go, they were not using the property,I did no harm to the property(actually improved the safety of it),nor did I attempt to wrest possession from them. I am so tempted to just delete this message right here and now....but won't. I don't know what to say or really what I am trying to say, Maybe just that not all squatters are bad. Not all are thieves. Not all are scum su¢king low-lifes. Yes, I was homeless,yes I was what some would call a bum, hobo, ne'er-do-well, or whatever label you choose. However I just wanted to live.Plain and simple. I didn't steal, kill, rape,or any crime that I could think of except for Trespassing, and Vagrancy. Now I guess if you are going to take up arms against Squatters or vagrants then perhaps I should be among the first, since I openly admit it. I do not say this in an antagonistic way,not trying to create discord, just trying to be as humble as I possibly can. I just think that each one of these incidences should be taken on an individual basis. I can even see a possibility that perhaps some are overlooking.
What if I own some land,have no family,and die...Who gets the land if I did not leave it to someone in a will? In most places it is whoever comes up with the back taxes owed. Maybe a "squatter" ? I don't know. I hope I did not offend anyone, but there are reasons that some of these "stupid laws" are there. Do I think that this case is/was done right? No I don't. The law should protect the land owner. I would want them to protect me if I was the land owner in this case.