If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Orlando Sentinel)   You too can own a $2.1 million home in Florida for free. Just live in it for seven years on squatter rights and it's yours   (orlandosentinel.com) divider line 282
    More: Florida, squatters, marine transfer operations, Broward counties  
•       •       •

20617 clicks; posted to Main » on 24 Jan 2013 at 12:57 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



282 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-24 02:43:01 PM

WeenerGord: jst3p: If I had sustainable investment income and no family I think it would be fun to attempt to gain title to homes in this fashion and if successful sell it to a "working poor" family for a fraction of its value and move on to the next one.


Yeah, I bet you would. You're a real Robbin Hood, aincha


Not a Robin Hood, a benefactor to mankind. Keeping a neighborhood from going bad due to crumbling homes. Securing abandoned properties against becoming a crack house or worse. Have you not seen what becomes of abandoned homes? This guy is no Robin Hood, he'll be "a saint" if he goes thru with it. It is a rare thing when a situation arises where everybody wins. Adverse Possession is usually one of them.
 
2013-01-24 02:44:33 PM
Someone with his name has been boasting about his new home on Facebook, even calling it Templo de Kamisamar.

i220.photobucket.com

Approves.

/bad spelling ftw
 
2013-01-24 02:45:58 PM
Let's see how long he lasts when the tax-man comes a knocking for those property taxes!!!!
 
2013-01-24 02:46:33 PM

VespaGuy: EVERYBODY PANIC: You ask why? Here's just one answer: If nobody maintains a home in a good neighborhood, it falls apart, depressing the entire neighborhood's property values. Wait, here's a second reason: If good people don't take possession and maintainthe place, real hellions will move in and destroy the place. Summation: Society is best served if homes are kept in good repair, and Adverse Possession exists mostly for the many reasons it serves society so well.

And how does adverse possession differentiate between hellions and "good people"? This particular case involves an unemployed 23 year old. I'm not so sure that maintenance and improvements are in this house's future...


Olay... "hellions" destroy things and have no intentions of long-term occupancy. "Good People" follow the rules, maintain the homes and make long terms plans. In TFA, the bank has already been awarded the house by the courts, so the biggest problem here is that the guy grabbed the wrong abandoned house.
 
2013-01-24 02:48:09 PM
www.topofarmer.com

If you can't bother to be in a house for 7 years, you probably don't need it. It would solve the "housing crisis" or drive the banks poor trying to keep up the property.
 
2013-01-24 02:50:20 PM

Rich Cream: Prank Call of Cthulhu: Another problem that can be easily solved with a suitably motivated neighbor, a ski mask, and a bat with a nail in it.

One neighbor was willing to buy the house. I'll do the bat thing for half that.

/word


Ha! I'd do it for the lulz and a trip to da milk bar.
 
2013-01-24 02:52:06 PM
must be nice to have a spare 2.5 mill around so you can avoid a nuissance. Also FL law is messed up if Bank of America can't file criminal trespassing charges on the guy. He has no lease. He has no right of possession. He has not been in the house for 7 years. He is tresspassing.
 
2013-01-24 02:54:45 PM

lennavan: ArcadianRefugee: Why? They'd just sell it in turn, if they had any sense. Otherwise, "working poor" becomes "completely broke" when they have to start paying the taxes on the place.

Presumably a working poor family is currently paying rent somewhere. If he sold it to them for $1, their monthly payments might actually go down. I might recommend a different way of picking on jst3p:

jst3p: If I had sustainable investment income and no family I think it would be fun to attempt to gain title to homes in this fashion and if successful sell it to a "working poor" family for a fraction of its value

So rather than tell the working poor families how to do it themselves so they have a place to live in the meanwhile, you're gonna go ahead and spend the time and obtain the home for free after which you sell it to poor people and make a buck off of them even though you got it for free? You BASTARD.



Yeah, and then when he finally gets back to his own home and rental property and finds squatters have moved in and stripped the copper and are claiming adverse possession on him? HAHA!.jpg
 
2013-01-24 02:59:04 PM

topcon: Oh good, another one of these articles again.

Please post links of anyone who has successfully taken legal possession of a $2 million house in this fashion.


4.bp.blogspot.com
trolling
 
2013-01-24 03:00:30 PM
a Brazilian national who refers to himself as "Loki Boy,"

So do you have to cross Bifrost to get to this house?
latimesherocomplex.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-01-24 03:00:54 PM

EVERYBODY PANIC: WeenerGord: jst3p: If I had sustainable investment income and no family I think it would be fun to attempt to gain title to homes in this fashion and if successful sell it to a "working poor" family for a fraction of its value and move on to the next one.


Yeah, I bet you would. You're a real Robbin Hood, aincha

Not a Robin Hood, a benefactor to mankind. Keeping a neighborhood from going bad due to crumbling homes. Securing abandoned properties against becoming a crack house or worse. Have you not seen what becomes of abandoned homes? This guy is no Robin Hood, he'll be "a saint" if he goes thru with it. It is a rare thing when a situation arises where everybody wins. Adverse Possession is usually one of them.


This home wasn't abandoned, the bank owns it and was presumably paying the bills and maintaining it. This guy is a deadbeat who wants something for nothing and is preventing the bank from selling the house with his presence. He likely broke in and lacks a home or steady income if his own. He will be evicted as soon as the bank gets around to it.
 
2013-01-24 03:01:55 PM

deanis: Getting something for nothing. The American Cuban Dream. USA USA USA

trolling
 
2013-01-24 03:03:12 PM

FTDA: topcon: Oh good, another one of these articles again.

Please post links of anyone who has successfully taken legal possession of a $2 million house in this fashion.

[4.bp.blogspot.com image 456x300]
trolling


That was pretty funny actually.
 
2013-01-24 03:09:58 PM
This being Florida I'm surprised he hasn't been shot as a home invader.
 
2013-01-24 03:13:46 PM
You would think that banks that obtain houses through forclosure would be able to find someone willing to "house sit" in exchange for a place to live. Possibly even the people they just evicted.
 
2013-01-24 03:14:05 PM

jst3p: FTDA: topcon: Oh good, another one of these articles again.

Please post links of anyone who has successfully taken legal possession of a $2 million house in this fashion.

[4.bp.blogspot.com image 456x300]
trolling

That was pretty funny actually.


jst3p: FTDA: topcon: Oh good, another one of these articles again.

Please post links of anyone who has successfully taken legal possession of a $2 million house in this fashion.

[4.bp.blogspot.com image 456x300]
trolling

That was pretty funny actually.


I put, "trolling," in small type under the pic and was hoping it wouldn't be spotted. Another attempt backfires due to good eye site.
 
2013-01-24 03:18:47 PM

Evil Mackerel: This being Florida I'm surprised he hasn't been shot as a home invader.


I don't know about Florida, but in Colorado someone has to be in your residence illegally before you can shoot them and get away with it. Since no one was living in the house, it's no one's residence.
 
2013-01-24 03:23:44 PM

ElBarto79: refuses them entry they are SOL. The bank would have to go through eviction proceedings and get him out first. Of course no one is going to buy a house with a squatter in it anyway so this is kind of a moot p


Thanks - didn't understand how something like that would work.
 
2013-01-24 03:24:19 PM

ElBarto79: Deep Contact: If he leaves the house to get food from a dumpster, can the bank police change the locks on the doors while he's gone?

Yes, typically squatters will have more than one person in the house though so it is never unoccupied. I have a friend dealing with a squatter couple at her parents house, the guy works, the girl has not left the property in 3 months.


Have her parent's tried ha-ha-guy's 'drug war for good, not evil' approach?

Is it also possible to serve squatters with rental agreement papers, and if they fk up the rental agreement, evict them?
 
2013-01-24 03:25:08 PM
images.tvrage.com
 
2013-01-24 03:29:37 PM
 
2013-01-24 03:37:15 PM

amquelbettamin: Let's see how long he lasts when the tax-man comes a knocking for those property taxes!!!!


But when the taxman comes to the door, Lord the house looks like a rummage sale!
 
2013-01-24 03:38:42 PM

Honest Bender: Sugarmoobs: Its not their business as long as the property in question does not go in to disrepair and brings down their own home values.

Actually, it's still not their business...


$500 says you do not own a home (unless you're trolling). If you have a tremendous amount of your net worth wrapped up in something you're goddamned right you have an interest in ensuring other people don't adversely affect it. If you own a stock and someone is jacking with it's value in an ethically questionable way you'd take an interest in that too.

//Yeah, I know, we're supposed to hate anyone with money. But contrary to Fark wisdom a LOT of people with money worked their ass off to make it.
 
2013-01-24 03:43:12 PM

jst3p: WeenerGord: jst3p: If I had sustainable investment income and no family I think it would be fun to attempt to gain title to homes in this fashion and if successful sell it to a "working poor" family for a fraction of its value and move on to the next one.

Yeah, I bet you would. You're a real Robbin Hood, aincha

I probably wouldn't but to be fair I only said I think it would be fun.



Not surprised that you would find stealing another person's home to be "fun"
 
2013-01-24 03:45:10 PM

rufus-t-firefly: ArcadianRefugee: rufus-t-firefly: Fark her. Maybe she should just worry about her own business and stop sticking her nose where it doesn't belong.

Concern that a 23-yo who calls himself "Loki Boy" might bring down her property value seems, to me, to be "her own business".

So might a black or Hispanic family moving into the neighborhood. Should she try to keep that from happening?


I think you are trying a little too hard on this one. Do you really take people who go by ridiculous monikers seriously?
 
2013-01-24 03:46:12 PM

ElBarto79: The problem for the banks is the property market is depressed in Florida. The bank could easily take a million dollar loss if they were to sell it now, and that's if it sells at all. From that perspective it makes sense to keep paying 30k a year in taxes and maintenance and see if prices go up. Honestly the 5-10k it costs to evict a squatter is nothing more than a minor annoyance to them, which is probably why they aren't rushing to evict him. Especially if he is maintaining the property and paying the bills.



What if he's stripping out the copper and trashing the place?
 
2013-01-24 03:47:53 PM

WeenerGord: jst3p: WeenerGord: jst3p: If I had sustainable investment income and no family I think it would be fun to attempt to gain title to homes in this fashion and if successful sell it to a "working poor" family for a fraction of its value and move on to the next one.

Yeah, I bet you would. You're a real Robbin Hood, aincha

I probably wouldn't but to be fair I only said I think it would be fun.


Not surprised that you would find stealing another person's home to be "fun"


By definition it isn't stealing. Either you know that and are being deliberately dishonest or you don't understand the difference. In either case you bore me.

Have a nice day.
 
2013-01-24 03:52:40 PM

notatrollorami:
$500 says you do not own a home (unless you're trolling). If you have a tremendous amount of your net worth wrapped up in something you're goddamned right you have an interest in ensuring other people don't adversely affect it. If you own a stock and someone is jacking with it's value in an ethically questionable way you'd take an interest in that too.

//Yeah, I know, we're supposed to hate anyone with money. But contrary to Fark wisdom a LOT of people with money worked their ass off to make it.


I own a home and don't give a crap what my neighbors do, as long as it isn't loud, smelly, or otherwise dangerous to me. I bought my house to live in, not to "flip".
 
2013-01-24 03:57:55 PM

WeenerGord: ElBarto79: The problem for the banks is the property market is depressed in Florida. The bank could easily take a million dollar loss if they were to sell it now, and that's if it sells at all. From that perspective it makes sense to keep paying 30k a year in taxes and maintenance and see if prices go up. Honestly the 5-10k it costs to evict a squatter is nothing more than a minor annoyance to them, which is probably why they aren't rushing to evict him. Especially if he is maintaining the property and paying the bills.


What if he's stripping out the copper and trashing the place?


This is a common problem when evicting people. His adverse possession claim would certainly fail if he's destroying the property, beyond that though I'm not sure what they could do. Since he doesn't actually own the house maybe they could get him on vandalism or something?
 
2013-01-24 03:59:28 PM

jst3p: WeenerGord: jst3p: WeenerGord: jst3p: If I had sustainable investment income and no family I think it would be fun to attempt to gain title to homes in this fashion and if successful sell it to a "working poor" family for a fraction of its value and move on to the next one.

Yeah, I bet you would. You're a real Robbin Hood, aincha

I probably wouldn't but to be fair I only said I think it would be fun.

Not surprised that you would find stealing another person's home to be "fun"

By definition it isn't stealing. Either you know that and are being deliberately dishonest or you don't understand the difference. In either case you bore me.

Have a nice day.



Dishonest? WTF do you get dishonesty from anything I said, or are you projecting?

I'm judging you and anyone else in this thread who is gloating over stealing another persons home.

I wonder if the former owners of all the homes that the banks stole from them are having nice days.

Why don't you cheer them up and invite them all to come live with you, rent free, in your homes and rental properties? It would be a nice thing to do.
 
2013-01-24 04:00:37 PM

jst3p: FTDA: topcon: Oh good, another one of these articles again.

Please post links of anyone who has successfully taken legal possession of a $2 million house in this fashion.

[4.bp.blogspot.com image 456x300]
trolling

That was pretty funny actually.


second.
 
2013-01-24 04:05:44 PM

WeenerGord: jst3p: WeenerGord: jst3p: WeenerGord: jst3p: If I had sustainable investment income and no family I think it would be fun to attempt to gain title to homes in this fashion and if successful sell it to a "working poor" family for a fraction of its value and move on to the next one.

Yeah, I bet you would. You're a real Robbin Hood, aincha

I probably wouldn't but to be fair I only said I think it would be fun.

Not surprised that you would find stealing another person's home to be "fun"

By definition it isn't stealing. Either you know that and are being deliberately dishonest or you don't understand the difference. In either case you bore me.

Have a nice day.


Dishonest? WTF do you get dishonesty from anything I said, or are you projecting?

I'm judging you and anyone else in this thread who is gloating over stealing another persons home.


Gaining title to a home via legal means, be it foreclosure or adverse possession, by definition isn't stealing. Perhaps you aren't dishonest, just ignorant.
 
2013-01-24 04:07:54 PM
Problem solved
assets.nydailynews.com
 
sp
2013-01-24 04:24:53 PM
It is important to note that a prospective adverse possessor may be transformed into a trespasser if asked to leave the property by its rightful owner. The term "owner" refers to the original legal owner of a property rather than the adverse possesor of a property. If a person defies an order to leave the property (personally communicated by the owner of the property) or if the trespasser does anything to cause destruction to the property, that trespasser is guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree (Florida Statutes section 810.09). Furthermore, if the trespasser is armed with a firearm or other dangerous weapon during the trespass, that person is guilty of a felony in the third degree.
 
2013-01-24 04:31:41 PM

ElBarto79: Honestly the 5-10k it costs to evict a squatter is nothing more than a minor annoyance to them, which is probably why they aren't rushing to evict him.


And why even bother to evict until you're ready to sell the home anyway? Just send him a letter saying "you can stay there until we tell you to go." Doing so defeats adversity, and therefore any adverse possession claim.
 
2013-01-24 04:35:08 PM

jst3p: WeenerGord: jst3p: WeenerGord: jst3p: WeenerGord: jst3p: If I had sustainable investment income and no family I think it would be fun to attempt to gain title to homes in this fashion and if successful sell it to a "working poor" family for a fraction of its value and move on to the next one.

Yeah, I bet you would. You're a real Robbin Hood, aincha

I probably wouldn't but to be fair I only said I think it would be fun.

Not surprised that you would find stealing another person's home to be "fun"

By definition it isn't stealing. Either you know that and are being deliberately dishonest or you don't understand the difference. In either case you bore me.

Have a nice day.

Dishonest? WTF do you get dishonesty from anything I said, or are you projecting?

I'm judging you and anyone else in this thread who is gloating over stealing another persons home.

Gaining title to a home via legal means, be it foreclosure or adverse possession, by definition isn't stealing. Perhaps you aren't dishonest, just ignorant.



The letter of the law, and the spirit of the law, are not the same. Perhaps you are merely hiding your shame behind semantics.
 
2013-01-24 04:35:26 PM

Insatiable Jesus: Rich ratfarkers pissed that a brown person is ratfarking the system? LOL LOLOLLLLLLOL


So a light-skinned Brazilian, who is almost certainly descended from slaveowners, was able to acquire the wealth to come to this country through the same racism and oppression that benefitted whites in Amerikkka, is now somehow made more justified in doing this solely because of his skin color?

You've really not thought this out, have you?
 
2013-01-24 04:35:38 PM
10:1 odds that BofA finally decides to evict the squatter and in doing so manages to successfully evict the neighboring homeowner, discarding their possessions, and changing the locks on all the doors. Then it will be discovered that the neighboring homeowner does not have a mortgage through BofA. BofA will stick to their guns and sue the homeowner for the cost of disposing of the homeowner's possessions. BofA will win that lawsuit.

/Mark my words
 
2013-01-24 04:37:53 PM
How can you prove you've been there for seven years?
 
2013-01-24 04:43:26 PM

iollow: How can you prove you've been there for seven years?


You have to file for adverse possession. Presumably, it's 7 years form that date.
 
2013-01-24 04:46:08 PM

topcon: Please post links of anyone who has successfully taken legal possession of a $2 million house in this fashion.


Here's a rather old case from London. There have been a few others along the same lines.

The important aspects of adverse possession in the UK are that you ave to do it peacefully, openly and clearly. So, for example, if your back garden runs into a field and you put a fence up, what's inside the fence become yours after seven years as long as the farmer who owns the field doesn't challenge you in that time.

In the case I linked to, the local council simply forgot that they owned the property for sixteen years (that's some fine record keeping work there, Lou) and since the squatter had been living there openly and without any challenge, he got it.

It's actually quite a sensible concept in a world where precise property boundaries were not and often still are not defined, because it avoids a lot of potential legal bickering.
 
2013-01-24 04:47:14 PM

SN1987a goes boom: How did he not gain entry by breaking and entering? It seems like he is committing multiple crimes here.


Perhaps a door or window were left open? TFA seems clear that there are no witnesses who can say he broke and entered.
 
2013-01-24 04:47:31 PM

WeenerGord: The letter of the law, and the spirit of the law, are not the same. Perhaps you are merely hiding your shame behind semantics.


The spirit of the law is to encourage and reward productive use of land which is a benefit to society.
 
2013-01-24 04:51:35 PM

jst3p: WeenerGord: The letter of the law, and the spirit of the law, are not the same. Perhaps you are merely hiding your shame behind semantics.

The spirit of the law is to encourage and reward productive use of land which is a benefit to society.



I bet it was also "perfectly legal" when the bank stole it from the last owners, too. Did that also encourage and reward productive use of land which is a benefit to society?
 
2013-01-24 04:53:39 PM

EVERYBODY PANIC: You ask why? Here's just one answer: If nobody maintains a home in a good neighborhood, it falls apart, depressing the entire neighborhood's property values.


So forget the police, the SWAT teams, the lawyers, the bank. Set the HOA on him.
 
2013-01-24 04:57:12 PM

WeenerGord: jst3p: WeenerGord: The letter of the law, and the spirit of the law, are not the same. Perhaps you are merely hiding your shame behind semantics.

The spirit of the law is to encourage and reward productive use of land which is a benefit to society.


I bet it was also "perfectly legal" when the bank stole it from the last owners, too. Did that also encourage and reward productive use of land which is a benefit to society?


The bank did not steal the house from the homeowners. The homeowners and the bank entered into a contract. The homeowners breached the contract and foreclosure was the legal result. One of the primary functions of government is to enforce contracts. Consistent and fair resolution of contract disputes is a benefit to society.
 
2013-01-24 05:02:33 PM

ArcadianRefugee: iollow: How can you prove you've been there for seven years?

You have to file for adverse possession. Presumably, it's 7 years form that date.


That doesn't entirely make sense though, I thought a lot of adverse possession cases were people accidentally encroaching on someone's property. Say you have two neighboring farms on large tracts of land. Farmer 1 builds a shed, 15 years later farmer 2 discovers the shed is actually on his property and makes plans to tear it down. Farmer 1 can claim adverse possession since no one said anything for so long.
 
2013-01-24 05:04:33 PM
If you are planning on attempting to obtain property through adverse possession, keep in mind that there are a few states that allow non-judicial foreclosure. Here in Mississippi, it is fairly simple to foreclose on property.

You have to run a legal notice in the newspaper for three consecutive weeks and post a notice at the courthouse. After the three weeks run, you then perform a foreclosure auction at the courthouse steps. Usually the lender will purchase the home. Thus, title in the land goes right back to the bank at the auction. This allows the bank to quickly file for eviction/ejectment.
 
2013-01-24 05:08:11 PM

jst3p: The homeowners breached the contract



Not in every case. In some cases, the banks breached the contracts. Haven't you heard about this in the news? There has probably been a fark thread about it.
 
2013-01-24 05:13:42 PM

WeenerGord: jst3p: The homeowners breached the contract


Not in every case. In some cases, the banks breached the contracts. Haven't you heard about this in the news? There has probably been a fark thread about it.



Then I would expect the homeowners to seek legal recourse. You are talking about the exception not the rule though and I don't know what point you are trying to make now. It seems like you are grasping at straws, or you have been trolling me this entire thread and you are running out of gas.
 
Displayed 50 of 282 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report