$100/ft²?

Who would fight for such a wretched hovel?

bluorangefyre: Weren't all the neighbors mad, truthfully, because he didn't look like them?

Don't you wish your neighbor was hot....like...me?

bluorangefyre: I remember seeing this very briefly on Inside Edition. Weren't all the neighbors mad, truthfully, because he didn't look like them?

I live next to Flower Mound. It's mostly Californians.

reminds me a little of the guy who suicided over his dog after a HOA hounded him horribly. so many people suck so hard it's amazing earth does not implode.

Ah yes.. the welfare state is alive and well here in farktardland.

Hey.. It's GREAT that a homeless, jobless bum can squat in a 300 grand house for almost free.

I'm sure this guy has been paying all the bills like electricity, water, gas.. Oh wait? He hasn't? You mean the big mean ol' bank has to pay these bills while this leech freeloads off them?

Either that or the utilities are cut off and he's shiatting in buckets and dumping it in the backyard.

I'm sure this guy has insurance in case his candles light the house on fire.. oh.. he doesn't?

Oh well thats ok.. this is farktardland.. where EVERYBODY, even the homeless DESERVE houses that they can't pay for.

wildcardjack: bluorangefyre: I remember seeing this very briefly on Inside Edition. Weren't all the neighbors mad, truthfully, because he didn't look like them?

I live next to Flower Mound. It's mostly Californians.

Who's naming these subdivisions? What kind of shiatty name is Flower Mound?

\lives down the road from Windy Acres

fark this guy. For all this talk over it being a good deal, the guy is a scammer who offers classes on how to do this. Basically he was using his actions here as a way to advertise his success and get people to pay for seminars/paperwork kits on adverse possession.

Keeping the house in good shape doesn't offset the fact you're pedaling snake oil.

That's not adverse possession. Adverse possession is where you use a portion of property that you don't actually have title to for decades (it's typical for the period of time to be 25 or 30 years), usually under some good faith mistake about title or property lines, and the rightful owner doesn't use the property or lock you out during that time.

That McMansion was built within the last 10 or 15 years. I don't know if good faith color of title or claim of right is required in Texas, but given the attitudes toward property there, I'd be surprised if it weren't.

You can't just move into an empty house, sleep there for a week and obtain possession for it. The owner probably also has a case for unjust enrichment/back rent, and would have a claim for any damage caused by the asshole's trespassing.

I have rental properties. Someone once figured they would try for a long protracted fight in court and not pay rent for a few months...

I figured I would spent a month worth of rent in having them kicked out by local muscle. Let them file appeals and fight the good fight from the street corner.

/they didnt.
//criminals know better than to mess with people that defend themselves.

spicorama: I have rental properties. Someone once figured they would try for a long protracted fight in court and not pay rent for a few months...

I figured I would spent a month worth of rent in having them kicked out by local muscle. Let them file appeals and fight the good fight from the street corner.

/they didnt.
//criminals know better than to mess with people that defend themselves.

Unlawful eviction (aka forceful entry and detainer) is a crime in many states. I'm not saying that to suggest that you're not entitled to rights as a landlord, but the law doesn't permit self-help evictions or vigilante behavior.

master_dman: Ah yes.. the welfare state is alive and well here in farktardland.

Hey.. It's GREAT that a homeless, jobless bum can squat in a 300 grand house for almost free.

I'm sure this guy has been paying all the bills like electricity, water, gas.. Oh wait? He hasn't? You mean the big mean ol' bank has to pay these bills while this leech freeloads off them?

Either that or the utilities are cut off and he's shiatting in buckets and dumping it in the backyard.

I'm sure this guy has insurance in case his candles light the house on fire.. oh.. he doesn't?

Oh well thats ok.. this is farktardland.. where EVERYBODY, even the homeless DESERVE houses that they can't pay for.

Seeing that all homeless people can't afford to pay for any home, does that mean you think the homeless should remain homeless and never have a place to live?

spicorama: I have rental properties. Someone once figured they would try for a long protracted fight in court and not pay rent for a few months...

I figured I would spent a month worth of rent in having them kicked out by local muscle. Let them file appeals and fight the good fight from the street corner.

/they didnt.
//criminals know better than to mess with people that defend themselves.

We had a family come back from vacation and find out their house had squatters in. The squatters had filed the paperwork and tried to set the whole thing up as a civil matter (thus ensuring the police couldn't run them for trespassing).

The idea was "Pay us X dollars and we go away or we can force you to take us to civil court. In the meantime your family has to go live in a hotel, etc."

Our local police chief went to the local judge and said it looked like drugs were being sold out of the home. Kicked down the door and hauled them all out. That let the homeowner move back in, he changed the locks, and that was that. Although the squatters did try to file a brutality complaint though since the arrest process involved him taking a police baton to the face.

/the local courts didn't seem bothered by that or the fact no drugs were found

Here in Raleigh some scammers tried to file fake deeds for several homes (each worth $1 million+) that were in bank ownership. The deed office said they had to accept them since they'd followed the rules, they just didn't own the properties. They were eventually arrested for forging documents, trespass, acquiring property by false pretense, etc, but they were trying to rent out the properties to other people before that happened.

They were caught when they filed a fake deed for a home that wasn't bank-owned but up for sale by the current owner, and when they showed up claiming ownership he got the police and local media investigating into it.

SchlingFocker: They're excited and happy he's out because they're haters.

Also, wasn't this the black guy?

Magorn: Although, if, as we are taught in Property, the law is always biased toward the most productive, most beneficial use of land, why SHOULD we respect a bank's title to property they are essentially committing waste on, to the deteriment of someone making product use of it?

As per the early article, the person living in the house walked away. This guy moved in before the bank was able to resell the house (you can't just seize a house on the 2nd of the month and sell it on the 3rd when the mortgage check fails to arrive).

So the bank forecloses on the house, asserts ownership, and then boots this guy out. I don't really see that as the bank letting it sit idle or failing to do anything productive with it. They were limited due to the fact the courts only move so fast.

master_dman Smartest
Funniest
2012-02-07 11:38:58 AM


Ah yes.. the welfare state is alive and well here in farktardland.

Hey.. It's GREAT that a homeless, jobless bum can squat in a 300 grand house for almost free.

I'm sure this guy has been paying all the bills like electricity, water, gas.. Oh wait? He hasn't? You mean the big mean ol' bank has to pay these bills while this leech freeloads off them?

Either that or the utilities are cut off and he's shiatting in buckets and dumping it in the backyard.

I'm sure this guy has insurance in case his candles light the house on fire.. oh.. he doesn't?

Oh well thats ok.. this is farktardland.. where EVERYBODY, even the homeless DESERVE houses that they can't pay for.



Good...good...I can feel the hate growing inside you...

Adverse possession takes a hell of a lot longer than 8 months. And in most states, the squatter also has to be paying property taxes.

Magorn: Although, if, as we are taught in Property, the law is always biased toward the most productive, most beneficial use of land, why SHOULD we respect a bank's title to property they are essentially committing waste on, to the deteriment of someone making product use of it?

If the bank wasn't ready, able and willing to re-sell the property after foreclosure, why foreclose at all? Why not either accept a reduced payment from the borrower, which is at least an income stream, or sign a lease with the defaulted borrower and allow them to continue living there while you get prepared to sell the place?

It's an interesting public policy and political argument, but the law is clear that legal title grants the owner the right to exclude all others who do not have a valid title or possessory right to the land, and who don't have legally recognized adverse possession. Title is title.

Say that a landlord has an apartment complex and one of the apartments has been unoccupied for five years. I can't just move my stuff in and then defend against eviction six months later by saying that the law favors actual, beneficial use of the property. Seisin isn't absolute or eternal, but it's protected very strongly by long-standing law and you need a better argument than "well, he's not using it right now" to justify interference with freehold property rights.

jackiepaper: Fark adverse possession and the 1L property law class it rode in on.

I tried to find Blackacre so I could burn it to the ground.

SchlingFocker: ha-ha-guy: As per the early article, the person living in the house walked away. This guy moved in before the bank was able to resell the house (you can't just seize a house on the 2nd of the month and sell it on the 3rd when the mortgage check fails to arrive).

So the bank forecloses on the house, asserts ownership, and then boots this guy out. I don't really see that as the bank letting it sit idle or failing to do anything productive with it. They were limited due to the fact the courts only move so fast.

It's been 8 months. Most homes are sitting on the market for much longer than that.

The banks aren't paying to keep them up, they aren't keeping the utilities turned on.

The houses are sitting empty and deteriorating. Pretty much the worst thing that can be done with these houses is what's being done.

While this guy has his adverse possession claim in the bank did not have a clean title and couldn't sell the house. Also no one is buying a house with a squatter problem. Oh and anyone they sent in to do maintenance was at risk for a confrontation with this guy.

So how is the fact it took the bank 8 months to get the eviction notice from the court, the banks fault? Lets recap nice and slow:

1) The home was not eligible for resale when this guy moved in (meaning the bank was not yet able to foreclose or had not yet had all the paperwork on the foreclosure processed)
2) The bank then forecloses, they now have a squatter problem
3) Then they boot the squatter

The day the guy left is the first day the bank has had total control over the house. The first day they could move in a renter or a buyer. The bank did not have any control over how long it took to resolve the civil matters around the foreclosure and then the squatter. If in 8 more months it still has a for sale sign out front, then we can talk.

/this guy is the reason it sat for 8 months
//without having to deal with his BS claim and get a court order to get his ass out the door, the bank could have sold the house by now

While I don't necessarily agree with what this guy is doing, I do enjoy hearing about someone sticking it to Bank of America.

indylaw:
Unlawful eviction (aka forceful entry and detainer) is a crime in many states. I'm not saying that to suggest that you're not entitled to rights as a landlord, but the law doesn't permit self-help evictions or vigilante behavior.

We are not talking about a renter who has overstayed his lease.

As a Floridian, if I open my front door and there is a stranger in my house, I most certainly have the right to pull a weapon on him. Florida case law supports it.

SchlingFocker: The houses are sitting empty and deteriorating. Pretty much the worst thing that can be done with these houses is what's being done.

so we should all just be able to move into foreclosed homes that are "sitting there" so long as we maintain them?

i'm lost on this train of thought.

As someone who purchased a home that was sitting empty for 1 1/2 years before going on the market, let me tell you how well Bank of America keeps up their properties....

Mold, frozen pipes, leaking toilets causing holes in ceilings....

But, I did get this place for a steal and have fixed it up over the past 2 years, so I am getting a kick.

/csb
// has no respect for BofA

CheekyMonkey: wildcardjack: bluorangefyre: I remember seeing this very briefly on Inside Edition. Weren't all the neighbors mad, truthfully, because he didn't look like them?

I live next to Flower Mound. It's mostly Californians.

Who's naming these subdivisions? What kind of shiatty name is Flower Mound?

\lives down the road from Windy Acres

The town's name comes from an Indian burial mound that is normally covered with wild flowers. It's perfectly reasonable compared to Highland Village, which is between Flower Mound and Lewisville lake.

/Don't ask about White Settlement.

ha-ha-guy:

/the local courts didn't seem bothered by that or the fact no drugs were found

*Checks your profile, to know where to never live*

*or visit...*

SchlingFocker: Smiths: so we should all just be able to move into foreclosed homes that are "sitting there" so long as we maintain them?

The argument is being made that, from a societal and fiscal standpoint, having a shiatload of houses sitting empty and unused for a year or more is bad.

The argument that's been bandied about is that there should be a legal framework to ensure homes aren't sitting empty for months or years until being sold.

It's an exorbitant amount of waste for a nation to accept.

but the solution is to allow and condone squatters so long as they "maintain" the property?

Can we say the squatters and banks are both wrong? It sounds like you're supportive of the squatters' "rights" to sit in the property since they are maintaining it.

everyone is wrong in this situation.

He doesn't understand adverse possession. It fails the tests to meet that. The only reason he was in the house for 8 months was because that's probably how long it took for the court to get through everything. And maybe that's the point. But he only prolonged the inevitable. If you see this as some sort of victory, you really have a small-minded view of life.

nomadusn: While I don't necessarily agree with what this guy is doing, I do enjoy hearing about someone sticking it to Bank of America.

Why? They're a business. They lent this guy the money he needed to buy a house. No one forced him to buy. He agreed to the terms. He signed the papers. Then he didn't hold up his end of the arrangement and became a schmuck. Frankly, I would have been happier to see BoA kick him in the stones. I don't understand why people adopt this "us against them" attitude. See it for what it is: this guy is a deadbeat. If you want to get angry at BoA and see them dealt with appropriately for the multitude of reasons they should be hated, that's cool. I just don't see how a guy behaving like a jackass helps with that cause.

master_dman: Ah yes.. the welfare state is alive and well here in farktardland.

Hey.. It's GREAT that a homeless, jobless bum can squat in a 300 grand house for almost free.

I'm sure this guy has been paying all the bills like electricity, water, gas.. Oh wait? He hasn't? You mean the big mean ol' bank has to pay these bills while this leech freeloads off them?

Either that or the utilities are cut off and he's shiatting in buckets and dumping it in the backyard.

I'm sure this guy has insurance in case his candles light the house on fire.. oh.. he doesn't?

Oh well thats ok.. this is farktardland.. where EVERYBODY, even the homeless DESERVE houses that they can't pay for.

1) He saved that bank more money by living in that house, than by not living in that house. Houses around here have lost 100K in value in only a year because banks evict people and let the house sit with *no* care whatsoever. A bank will never make that kind of money on a standard mortgage for this place.

2) Housing prices are still grossly over valued even with the market drops over the past couple of years. Despite that, the banks are still trying to get "bubble" prices out of their properties (which leads to them sitting for *years* resulting in situation #1).

Most people agree that letting real property sit until it's destroyed (some banks are bulldozing foreclosed homes after letting them rot) instead of getting what you can out of it, which is still a fair sum of money, and realize that you're way ahead anyway because Uncle Sam thought that you were "too big to fail" and gave you tax payer money, is a pretty stupid move.

tl:dr: Banks are cutting off their nose to spit their face because they're greedy farkwads. Americans end up being collateral damage by losing the ability to purchase real property. Thus no one has sympathy for the banks.

As long as $0 of tax money was spent in court over this, I'm perfectly happy with the squatter.