Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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
    More: Florida, squatters, marine transfer operations, Broward counties  
•       •       •

20634 clicks; posted to Main » on 24 Jan 2013 at 12:57 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2013-01-24 12:59:18 PM  
Oh, so *that's* step two...
 
2013-01-24 12:59:40 PM  
I would never spend 2 years in FL.
 
2013-01-24 01:00:26 PM  
Another problem that can be easily solved with a suitably motivated neighbor, a ski mask, and a bat with a nail in it.
 
2013-01-24 01:01:37 PM  
Problem: Squatters.
Solution: Don't fail to step foot in your house even once in 7 years.
 
2013-01-24 01:01:58 PM  

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
 
2013-01-24 01:01:59 PM  
Enjoy paying the property taxes.
 
2013-01-24 01:02:34 PM  
Imagine a world without adverse possession.
 
2013-01-24 01:02:46 PM  
Can he get the power/water tunred on?

If not is he allowed to live there?
 
2013-01-24 01:03:13 PM  
What are the property taxes going to be on that?
 
2013-01-24 01:03:33 PM  

thurstonxhowell: Problem: Squatters.
Solution: Don't fail to step foot in your house even once in 7 years.


He's 23 years old. I think he plans on staying there seven years.

/trespassing, I don't understand how it's not that. One entity can show papers of ownership (supposedly), the other can't.
 
2013-01-24 01:03:46 PM  
i'm assuming he has no money. How does he pay for electricity, water, internet? porn?
 
2013-01-24 01:04:08 PM  
So while he is squatting does he have to pay the property taxes? And if he leaves can they just board up the place to prevent him from getting back in?
 
2013-01-24 01:04:33 PM  
I think the guy who narrates the video mainly does work voicing over corporate training videos.
 
2013-01-24 01:04:44 PM  
HA HA YOUR IN FLORIDA NOW
 
2013-01-24 01:06:11 PM  
FTA: Bank of America didn't respond to the Sun Sentinel's inquiry. And neither did Barbosa, a Brazilian national who refers to himself as "Loki Boy," after the Norse god of mischief.

Too funny. Ah, Florida. Is there anything you can't do?
 
2013-01-24 01:06:12 PM  

abhorrent1: Enjoy paying the property taxes.


If he's not listed as owner then why would he owe taxes? They send the bill to the bank.
 
2013-01-24 01:06:42 PM  
Until the Government sends him a tax bill and takes it away anyway.
 
2013-01-24 01:07:02 PM  

abhorrent1: Enjoy paying the property taxes.


Good luck figuring out the property tax to begin with since he came by the property neither by sale nor foreclosure, according to the law...

http://www.bcpa.net/taxcalc.asp
 
2013-01-24 01:07:03 PM  
It's FL, he isn't a us citizen. How hard could it be to make him get lost in a swamp, with heavy shoes.
 
2013-01-24 01:07:18 PM  
Bank of America owns it right now. The problem seemed to be that Bank of America could bring up the matter in civil court but so far seems unwilling to do so. The only reason this is in the papers is because a rich neighbor is upset that she has to live next to a "riff raff".
 
2013-01-24 01:08:10 PM  

Sorias: Until the Government sends him a tax bill and takes it away anyway.


Even if they added up all the taxes for the seven years it takes for him to claim ownership, it takes at least three more years to foreclose by way of taxes. He will be there for at least a decade before anyone has a legal method of moving him.
 
2013-01-24 01:08:48 PM  
So he's a Brazilian national with no job. Possibly a former student who didn't update his status when he dropped out of school. What's to keep them from yanking his Visa and sending him home? I'm sure BoA has enough local politicians on speed dial. Any one of them could send him packing.
 
2013-01-24 01:08:55 PM  
Until they take it away for non payment of the Property Taxes
 
2013-01-24 01:09:13 PM  

Sorias: Until the Government sends him a tax bill and takes it away anyway.


In the circle, the circle of life!
 
2013-01-24 01:09:27 PM  
If the guy maintains the property and taxes and such (not likely), why should the neighbors care? Its not their business as long as the property in question does not go in to disrepair and brings down their own home values. They should be blaming Bank of America, not this schmo.
 
2013-01-24 01:09:28 PM  
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.
 
2013-01-24 01:10:06 PM  
How did he not gain entry by breaking and entering? It seems like he is committing multiple crimes here.
 
2013-01-24 01:10:06 PM  
Getting something for nothing. The American Dream. USA USA USA
 
2013-01-24 01:10:14 PM  
So, could some bigger/badder squatter come along, forcibly remove this guy, and claim the place for himself?
 
2013-01-24 01:10:23 PM  
He not breaking any laws. Funny how the rich get all pissy when people use laws to get away with things.
 
2013-01-24 01:10:26 PM  
The neighbor should just go squat there also. Are the laws to handle multiple squatters? If two people squat, and one goes out to the store, does their 7 year timer reset?
 
2013-01-24 01:10:41 PM  

Rich Cream: abhorrent1: Enjoy paying the property taxes.

If he's not listed as owner then why would he owe taxes? They send the bill to the bank.


If/when he actually gets a deed he will.
 
2013-01-24 01:11:14 PM  

Sugarmoobs: If the guy maintains the property and taxes and such (not likely), why should the neighbors care? Its not their business as long as the property in question does not go in to disrepair and brings down their own home values. They should be blaming Bank of America, not this schmo.


Let me guess: You've never owned a house before.

A jobless 23 year old can't even begin to properly maintain a $50,000 house, let alone a $2 million one.
 
2013-01-24 01:11:19 PM  
Part of adverse possession is you must treat the property as your own.. and that includes paying the real estate taxes on it.
 
2013-01-24 01:11:34 PM  
What's the tax situation on something like that. Not only will there be property taxes on a $2.1 million home, but that house's value counts as income, too. He didn't have it before, now he does. He's going to have to come up with probably close to a million bucks to keep it. And I'm guessing that if he's squatting in it, it won't be able to be marketed or sold for anywhere close to the "value" mentioned. He might end up really screwing himself with the tax man...
 
2013-01-24 01:11:53 PM  
I should claim "adverse possession" of the office bathroom. Lord knows I've exercised squatter's rights on that thing for over seven years!
 
2013-01-24 01:13:15 PM  
The only problem with this "problem" is that no one involved cares. The police don't care, the bank that owns it don't care, the squatters don't care. So why should I?
 
2013-01-24 01:13:23 PM  

Spanky_McFarksalot: He not breaking any laws. Funny how the rich get all pissy when people use laws to get away with things.


This. I work my ass off and will probably never in my life be able to afford a 2 million dollar home, let alone one I can ignore for 7 years. The squatter didn't take it. THEY pissed it away.
 
2013-01-24 01:13:24 PM  

abhorrent1: Rich Cream: abhorrent1: Enjoy paying the property taxes.

If he's not listed as owner then why would he owe taxes? They send the bill to the bank.

If/when he actually gets a deed he will.



Then he starts the tax foreclosure process which can take several years. And if he skips out on the tax bill after ten years, so what? (to him of course)
 
2013-01-24 01:13:33 PM  

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...
 
2013-01-24 01:14:11 PM  

signaljammer: Imagine a world without adverse possession.

i.imgur.com
 
2013-01-24 01:14:19 PM  
And as someone with a related job to the industry, I've dealt with adverse possession before.

It's not just cut and dried that you own something after seven years, not even close. There's way more to it than that, and it never happens in this fashion. Judges frequently side with the original owner of something if even it's been on someone else's property for decades.
 
2013-01-24 01:14:26 PM  
Rich ratfarkers pissed that a brown person is ratfarking the system? LOL LOLOLLLLLLOL
 
2013-01-24 01:15:02 PM  

abhorrent1: Enjoy paying the property taxes.


This. In Florida, to claim adverse possession, you have to pay property tax on the property.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2013-01-24 01:15:05 PM  
Imagine a world without adverse possession.

In Massachusetts you can get a court order protecting your land from adverse possession. ("registered land")

No one saw him breaking into the 5-bedroom house, so it's a civil matter.

Florida must have criminal trespass laws. What the police mean is, they don't want to deal with it.
 
2013-01-24 01:15:27 PM  

Sugarmoobs: why should the neighbors care?


He is a foreigner.

My sister lives in Florida and hasn't paid her mortgage in about 2 years.
 
2013-01-24 01:16:06 PM  

lennavan: The only problem with this "problem" is that no one involved cares. The police don't care, the bank that owns it don't care, the squatters don't care. So why should I?


We don't care about him. It's the injustice!

/of what? whatever you want
 
2013-01-24 01:16:18 PM  

Frozboz: FTA: Bank of America didn't respond to the Sun Sentinel's inquiry. And neither did Barbosa, a Brazilian national who refers to himself as "Loki Boy," after the Norse god of mischief.

Too funny. Ah, Florida. Is there anything you can't do?


Is he a member of the Vagos?
 
2013-01-24 01:16:30 PM  

Rich Cream: thurstonxhowell: Problem: Squatters.
Solution: Don't fail to step foot in your house even once in 7 years.

He's 23 years old. I think he plans on staying there seven years.

/trespassing, I don't understand how it's not that. One entity can show papers of ownership (supposedly), the other can't.


It is trespassing. But, per TFA, Bank of America hasn't gotten around to kicking the squatter off their land yet.
 
2013-01-24 01:16:48 PM  

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


A person getting in the way of properly getting this house into actual homeowners hands. What's better for this neighborhood, a squatter or a homeowner? What does skin color have to do with this?
 
2013-01-24 01:17:30 PM  

ZAZ: In Massachusetts you can get a court order protecting your land from adverse possession. ("registered land")


In Connecticut, they can kick you out of your home because they want to build a shopping mall and your home totes gets in their way.
 
2013-01-24 01:17:48 PM  
Well, this might be a good case for "swatting". See what the guy looks like, say you saw someone with a gun break in...Swat shows up takes him out.....problem solved.

/wonder if this would happen in a state with the Castle doctrine that you can protect your house with deadly force....start squatting in someones vacation house...they show up and just shoot you.
 
2013-01-24 01:18:49 PM  

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


Haha yeah, I have no idea how or why this is legal but it is kinda funny to watch the rich folks hem and haw over "OMG poor people"
 
2013-01-24 01:19:26 PM  
And the real owner, Bank of America, isn't responding to questions about the home.

I wonder if they can actually prove ownership. It seems pretty strange that they haven't evicted this guy, yet.
 
2013-01-24 01:19:42 PM  

deanis: A person getting in the way of properly getting this house into actual homeowners hands.


I imagine if the bank doesn't care enough to have squatters removed, they also don't care enough to get the property actually sold. So I'm not so sure they're actually in the way.
 
2013-01-24 01:20:41 PM  
If this goes anything like that guy who tried to squat in a (half million dollar house in Texas?) about a year ago, here's how the thread will go:

It'll get 600 replies.

About 10 people will ask "HOW CAN I DO THAT?"

Then, that's the last you'll hear of it, because this shiat never goes anywhere. I think they did an update on the guy in Texas, and, of course, he was eventually removed.
 
2013-01-24 01:20:59 PM  
Hmmm. I'm in Florida and poor, maybe today I will go house hunting.
 
2013-01-24 01:21:29 PM  

quizzical: It is trespassing. But, per TFA, Bank of America hasn't gotten around to kicking the squatter off their land yet.


Ah. So. Civil matter = need charges.
 
2013-01-24 01:21:34 PM  

NutWrench: And the real owner, Bank of America, isn't responding to questions about the home.

I wonder if they can actually prove ownership. It seems pretty strange that they haven't evicted this guy, yet.


It's not strange, it's pretty typical. It takes a while to evict people. The house isn't magically in some ownership limbo.
 
2013-01-24 01:21:38 PM  
wow. 7 years for adverse possession in florida? that's a little crazy.

it's 10 or 30 years in louisiana (good faith with just title in 10 years, 30 years w/o title or in bad faith) (we also call it acquisitive prescription. an elegant term for a more civilized age).
 
2013-01-24 01:21:45 PM  
Others in the area: why not move in too? Since he's required to have been there for 7 years to claim ownership, he doesn't ave legal right to toss anyone out any more than he can be tossed, so just move on in.

Right?
 
2013-01-24 01:22:26 PM  

Too_many_Brians: Hmmm. I'm in Florida and poor, maybe today I will go house hunting.


Wait for this guy to look the other way and squat his shiat. amirite?
 
2013-01-24 01:22:57 PM  

liam76: Can he get the power/water tunred on?

If not is he allowed to live there?


Quick answer: Yes. I know several Adverse Possession folks. They do it within existing law. Some eventually win the house, some don't. File the appropriate paperwork with the county, move in, andhave the utilities turned on by using the form with which you AP's the house. Easy. Lawful. Every state has a different system, but it can be domne anywhere in the US or in any former British colony.
 
2013-01-24 01:24:21 PM  

Rich Cream: quizzical: It is trespassing. But, per TFA, Bank of America hasn't gotten around to kicking the squatter off their land yet.

Ah. So. Civil matter = need charges.


It's Florida! Just sell the house and the new owner can just shoot the guy as a trespasser. "Stand your ground" and all that.

/or castle doctrine, whichever
 
2013-01-24 01:24:25 PM  

thurstonxhowell: Problem: Squatters.
Solution: Don't fail to step foot in your house even once in 7 years.


lol'd
i mean really.. wtf are we even talking about here
 
2013-01-24 01:26:00 PM  
I imagine he owes the last 7 years in back taxes, then. Or it goes to a foreclosure auction.
Back to BOA, and he can reoccupy it.
 
2013-01-24 01:26:00 PM  

pute kisses like a man: wow. 7 years for adverse possession in florida? that's a little crazy.

it's 10 or 30 years in louisiana (good faith with just title in 10 years, 30 years w/o title or in bad faith) (we also call it acquisitive prescription. an elegant term for a more civilized age).


It might be stated as 7 years, but in reality it's not. It can still go to court, and frequently people trying to claim adverse possession don't win. I've heard of cases of 70, 80 years, property passed down through generations, where someone finally wants to get title or land, re-subdivide land, claim fences, buildings, etc, who can't.
 
2013-01-24 01:26:23 PM  

EVERYBODY PANIC: liam76: Can he get the power/water tunred on?

If not is he allowed to live there?

Quick answer: Yes. I know several Adverse Possession folks. They do it within existing law. Some eventually win the house, some don't. File the appropriate paperwork with the county, move in, andhave the utilities turned on by using the form with which you AP's the house. Easy. Lawful. Every state has a different system, but it can be domne anywhere in the US or in any former British colony.


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.
 
2013-01-24 01:27:01 PM  

ArcadianRefugee: Rich Cream: quizzical: It is trespassing. But, per TFA, Bank of America hasn't gotten around to kicking the squatter off their land yet.

Ah. So. Civil matter = need charges.

It's Florida! Just sell the house and the new owner can just shoot the guy as a trespasser. "Stand your ground" and all that.

/or castle doctrine, whichever


Be sure to put him in a hoodie with skittles in the pocket.
 
2013-01-24 01:27:13 PM  

quizzical: It is trespassing. But, per TFA, Bank of America hasn't gotten around to kicking the squatter off their land yet.


This. Adverse possession doesn't work the way this article (and most people) make it out to be. If a rep from Bank of America were to go to the house, bust down the door and tell the guy to get lost, it ends that easily. The guy is trespassing and doesn't own the home. He can declare anything he wants, but as long as that 7 years hasn't passed, he's got nothing.

I wonder if BoA can use this to their advantage? Maybe let the guy pay taxes and upkeep on it until they managed to sell it at auction. Then I'd kick the guy out, close the deal and save a few bucks that way.

NutWrench: I wonder if they can actually prove ownership. It seems pretty strange that they haven't evicted this guy, yet.


Now THAT might be the real issue. With all the shuffling and repackaging of mortgages, maybe they can't.
 
2013-01-24 01:28:08 PM  

lennavan: ZAZ: In Massachusetts you can get a court order protecting your land from adverse possession. ("registered land")

In Connecticut the United States, they can kick you out of your home because they want to build a shopping mall and your home totes gets in their way.



FTFY
 
2013-01-24 01:28:35 PM  

ArcadianRefugee: Rich Cream: quizzical: It is trespassing. But, per TFA, Bank of America hasn't gotten around to kicking the squatter off their land yet.

Ah. So. Civil matter = need charges.

It's Florida! Just sell the house and the new owner can just shoot the guy as a trespasser. "Stand your ground" and all that.

/or castle doctrine, whichever



Not sure that plan was completely thought through.


/skittles lol
 
2013-01-24 01:28:42 PM  

pute kisses like a man: wow. 7 years for adverse possession in florida? that's a little crazy.

it's 10 or 30 years in louisiana (good faith with just title in 10 years, 30 years w/o title or in bad faith) (we also call it acquisitive prescription. an elegant term for a more civilized age).


I think 30 years is too long. Why should useful property be off-limits for a generation? Why should anyone who can go anywhere near that long without exercising any meaningful use of property just keep it?

Seems like the real squatter in cases like this is the owner who purporta to own land he doesn't use and doesn't set foot on for years on end.
 
2013-01-24 01:28:52 PM  

Rich Cream: thurstonxhowell: Problem: Squatters.
Solution: Don't fail to step foot in your house even once in 7 years.

He's 23 years old. I think he plans on staying there seven years.

/trespassing, I don't understand how it's not that. One entity can show papers of ownership (supposedly), the other can't.


An abandoned property can be gained via adverse possession in every state. Florida has a form you fill out and file with the county. Between the time of abandonment and the time a court awards the property back to the mortgage company, AP is lawful and winnable. Tell me, who owns the property? The answer is that it is in the name of the guy who ditched it, and not the bank. The "person of title" (former owner) can have the guy evicted, butr never bothers to do so. The bank has no rights to the property until the courts award the property to the bank, which takes a couple of years right now.
 
2013-01-24 01:29:12 PM  
I'd just burn the house down.
 
2013-01-24 01:29:41 PM  

jst3p: EVERYBODY PANIC: liam76: Can he get the power/water tunred on?

If not is he allowed to live there?

Quick answer: Yes. I know several Adverse Possession folks. They do it within existing law. Some eventually win the house, some don't. File the appropriate paperwork with the county, move in, andhave the utilities turned on by using the form with which you AP's the house. Easy. Lawful. Every state has a different system, but it can be domne anywhere in the US or in any former British colony.

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.


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.
 
2013-01-24 01:31:00 PM  

Too_many_Brians: Hmmm. I'm in Florida and poor, maybe today I will go house hunting.


There's dozens of houses in my neighborhood that have been empty for at least 2 years.

Of course, not a single one of them have an ounce of anything that was made of copper left in them.

/The wife and I went to look at a house the other day that not only the regular stuff (AC, pool pumps, and well aerator equipment) stripped, but the copper thieves also took the time to pull the well pump out of the ground and steal it too.
 
2013-01-24 01:31:22 PM  

groppet: So while he is squatting does he have to pay the property taxes? And if he leaves can they just board up the place to prevent him from getting back in?


In Florida, an adverse possessor must file a particular form with the county, occupy the dwelling, pay all taxes and HOA dues where applicable, and make visible improvements over the course of 7 years. If the form is filled out correctly and filed, it is not considered by law to be squatting.
 
2013-01-24 01:31:32 PM  
Rich folks upset that they have to live near the unwashed masses.

Nothing to see here.
 
2013-01-24 01:31:43 PM  

ArcadianRefugee: jst3p: EVERYBODY PANIC: liam76: Can he get the power/water tunred on?

If not is he allowed to live there?

Quick answer: Yes. I know several Adverse Possession folks. They do it within existing law. Some eventually win the house, some don't. File the appropriate paperwork with the county, move in, andhave the utilities turned on by using the form with which you AP's the house. Easy. Lawful. Every state has a different system, but it can be domne anywhere in the US or in any former British colony.

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.

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.


I wouldn't do it in million dollar homes, I would imagine that the property taxes on a reasonable place is less than a working poor family pays in rent. On my 210k rental property the property taxes are $1,300 a year. I just think it would be a fun and unique way of helping people.
 
2013-01-24 01:31:54 PM  
The dudes gonna get a few months of free rent. BOA will finally figure out they own the place. They will file the paperwork, dude will get evicted and/or arrested.
 
2013-01-24 01:31:56 PM  

NutWrench: And the real owner, Bank of America, isn't responding to questions about the home.

I wonder if they can actually prove ownership. It seems pretty strange that they haven't evicted this guy, yet.


Exactly. My guess is that they either can't find the original paperwork, or it was robo-signed.
 
2013-01-24 01:32:43 PM  

topcon: Sugarmoobs: If the guy maintains the property and taxes and such (not likely), why should the neighbors care? Its not their business as long as the property in question does not go in to disrepair and brings down their own home values. They should be blaming Bank of America, not this schmo.

Let me guess: You've never owned a house before.

A jobless 23 year old can't even begin to properly maintain a $50,000 house, let alone a $2 million one.



I've been in my house 13 years. I may have missed it in the article where it says he has no job and does not take care of the property.

(rereads article)

Nope. You're still wrong.

I did say it was not likely he was paying taxes or maintaining it. But hey you run with what you want to.
 
2013-01-24 01:32:57 PM  
It's just aggravating, she said, considering how hard she worked to be able to afford a house in the neighborhood.

I support him just to spite this snooty coont. I might send him a pizza.
 
2013-01-24 01:33:03 PM  

EVERYBODY PANIC: groppet: So while he is squatting does he have to pay the property taxes? And if he leaves can they just board up the place to prevent him from getting back in?

In Florida, an adverse possessor must file a particular form with the county, occupy the dwelling, pay all taxes and HOA dues where applicable, and make visible improvements over the course of 7 years. If the form is filled out correctly and filed, it is not considered by law to be squatting.


How do you gain access without "breaking in" and what makes a property abandoned and thus eligible for filing the paperwork?
 
2013-01-24 01:33:21 PM  

EVERYBODY PANIC: An abandoned property can be gained via adverse possession in every state. Florida has a form you fill out and file with the county. Between the time of abandonment and the time a court awards the property back to the mortgage company, AP is lawful and winnable. Tell me, who owns the property? The answer is that it is in the name of the guy who ditched it, and not the bank. The "person of title" (former owner) can have the guy evicted, butr never bothers to do so. The bank has no rights to the property until the courts award the property to the bank, which takes a couple of years right now.



OK. Key word will be "abandonment". Likely not the case, just waiting for processing.
 
2013-01-24 01:33:48 PM  
Yes, go ahead. And when you get caught prior to the state's adverse possession period you'll be charged with burglary, criminal trespass, theft, on the criminal side, then a massive civil suit for trespass plus years worth of rent.

Brilliant plan, chief
 
2013-01-24 01:33:55 PM  

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.
 
2013-01-24 01:34:30 PM  

gshepnyc: pute kisses like a man: wow. 7 years for adverse possession in florida? that's a little crazy.

it's 10 or 30 years in louisiana (good faith with just title in 10 years, 30 years w/o title or in bad faith) (we also call it acquisitive prescription. an elegant term for a more civilized age).

I think 30 years is too long. Why should useful property be off-limits for a generation? Why should anyone who can go anywhere near that long without exercising any meaningful use of property just keep it?

Seems like the real squatter in cases like this is the owner who purporta to own land he doesn't use and doesn't set foot on for years on end.


Whose opinion is it that the land isn't being used in a useful fashion? I could own 500 acres of prime vacant wooded land. Maybe I enjoy preserving wildlife. Maybe I hunt on it once a year. Maybe I plan on subdividing it in 20 years to pay for my retirement when house prices go up again (in theory.)

These things aren't for you to decide, it's for the owner of the land to decide.
 
2013-01-24 01:35:18 PM  
"Police were called the day after Christmas"

Fark, less than a month so far. Let me know when he sees 120 days.
 
2013-01-24 01:35:22 PM  

Sail The Wide Accountancy: Bank of America owns it right now. The problem seemed to be that Bank of America could bring up the matter in civil court but so far seems unwilling to do so. The only reason this is in the papers is because a rich neighbor is upset that she has to live next to a "riff raff".


Correction: Bank of America does not own the property, and cannot set foot on the AP property until awarded the property at the end of the foreclosure process. The abandoned home is still in the name of the original purchaser, and only the original purchaser can have anybody evicted.
 
2013-01-24 01:35:31 PM  

signaljammer: Imagine a world without adverse possession.


Given how eminent domain is criminally misused in the States, it's perversely funny to see a legally savvy squatter pull this.
 
2013-01-24 01:35:50 PM  

dwrash: Part of adverse possession is you must treat the property as your own.. and that includes paying the real estate taxes on it.


Not every state requires that
 
2013-01-24 01:36:19 PM  
I doubt this 23-year-old Brazilian can afford the upkeep or improvements on the house, much less the taxes. Now wonder the neighbors want him out of their hair.
 
2013-01-24 01:36:21 PM  

jst3p: I wouldn't do it in million dollar homes, I would imagine that the property taxes on a reasonable place is less than a working poor family pays in rent. On my 210k rental property the property taxes are $1,300 a year. I just think it would be a fun and unique way of helping people.


A similar way lawyers are helping people is telling families to refuse to move out of their homes unless the bank can prove the bank owns it. The paperwork on mortgages being sold, resold, bundled and whatnot is such a clusterfark, lots of times they can't produce it. If you tack on your idea to that, there might be a lot of families helped out.
 
2013-01-24 01:36:33 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.


I would also narrow it down to three working poor families and make them dance for my amusement. The most amusing family wins right to buy the house.
 
2013-01-24 01:38:29 PM  

jst3p: EVERYBODY PANIC: liam76: Can he get the power/water tunred on?

If not is he allowed to live there?

Quick answer: Yes. I know several Adverse Possession folks. They do it within existing law. Some eventually win the house, some don't. File the appropriate paperwork with the county, move in, andhave the utilities turned on by using the form with which you AP's the house. Easy. Lawful. Every state has a different system, but it can be domne anywhere in the US or in any former British colony.

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.


Blessing upon you, good sir. There is a movement here in Florida to do exactly that. You should see all the crumbling structures here. Better to AP them, gain title, fix them up and sell them to folks who won't abandon them, or as good, to rent them cheaply, getting struggling folks off the street.
 
2013-01-24 01:39:18 PM  
Here's the bottom line:

Adverse possession doesn't work anything like the article, or previous articles like this, would have you to believe.

There's a reason why you can find several articles about squatters like this one, but never any followup articles saying "Victory! Man successfully takes possession of upscale $2 million house in the Mr. Monopoly Man Pennybags Golf and Country Club!"
 
2013-01-24 01:40:00 PM  
Someone should post up signs with the house address on it that says "COME STAY FOR FREE!".

Cue dozens of homeless people filling up every square foot of the house by the end of the day. Let's see how that asshole squatter likes those apples.
 
2013-01-24 01:40:59 PM  

topcon: gshepnyc: pute kisses like a man: wow. 7 years for adverse possession in florida? that's a little crazy.

it's 10 or 30 years in louisiana (good faith with just title in 10 years, 30 years w/o title or in bad faith) (we also call it acquisitive prescription. an elegant term for a more civilized age).

I think 30 years is too long. Why should useful property be off-limits for a generation? Why should anyone who can go anywhere near that long without exercising any meaningful use of property just keep it?

Seems like the real squatter in cases like this is the owner who purporta to own land he doesn't use and doesn't set foot on for years on end.

Whose opinion is it that the land isn't being used in a useful fashion? I could own 500 acres of prime vacant wooded land. Maybe I enjoy preserving wildlife. Maybe I hunt on it once a year. Maybe I plan on subdividing it in 20 years to pay for my retirement when house prices go up again (in theory.)

These things aren't for you to decide, it's for the owner of the land to decide.


It's a house. It's meant to be lived in by people. Don't be absurd. If you own more land than you need for yourself and your family to live, you are a burden on society that has to deal with people who don't have a home or who don't have enough. You can't justify being a glutton, sorry.
 
2013-01-24 01:41:26 PM  

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.


How to you suppose a "working poor" family is going to pay the annual taxes, upkeep and utility bills for a house that size?
 
2013-01-24 01:42:07 PM  

lennavan: jst3p: I wouldn't do it in million dollar homes, I would imagine that the property taxes on a reasonable place is less than a working poor family pays in rent. On my 210k rental property the property taxes are $1,300 a year. I just think it would be a fun and unique way of helping people.

A similar way lawyers are helping people is telling families to refuse to move out of their homes unless the bank can prove the bank owns it. The paperwork on mortgages being sold, resold, bundled and whatnot is such a clusterfark, lots of times they can't produce it. If you tack on your idea to that, there might be a lot of families helped out.


It is kinda funny, I am doing pretty well in life so I have a lot to lose but were I in a different place I might be tempted to stop paying my mortgage. I know people who haven't paid for almost 2 years and the eviction process is just starting due to the huge amount of foreclosures the banks are dealing with. One person I know of through a mutual friend has been saving their mortgage payment and have a pretty hefty nest egg. They plan to rent for 5 years and then they are pretty sure someone will give them another mortgage, seven at most considering they will be able to put 20% down due in large part to not having a mortgage to pay for the last couple years.

It is a risky play but it will be a nice score if it works out for them and I doubt there will be another time where something like this could work.
 
2013-01-24 01:42:22 PM  

gshepnyc: topcon: gshepnyc: pute kisses like a man: wow. 7 years for adverse possession in florida? that's a little crazy.

it's 10 or 30 years in louisiana (good faith with just title in 10 years, 30 years w/o title or in bad faith) (we also call it acquisitive prescription. an elegant term for a more civilized age).

I think 30 years is too long. Why should useful property be off-limits for a generation? Why should anyone who can go anywhere near that long without exercising any meaningful use of property just keep it?

Seems like the real squatter in cases like this is the owner who purporta to own land he doesn't use and doesn't set foot on for years on end.

Whose opinion is it that the land isn't being used in a useful fashion? I could own 500 acres of prime vacant wooded land. Maybe I enjoy preserving wildlife. Maybe I hunt on it once a year. Maybe I plan on subdividing it in 20 years to pay for my retirement when house prices go up again (in theory.)

These things aren't for you to decide, it's for the owner of the land to decide.

It's a house. It's meant to be lived in by people. Don't be absurd. If you own more land than you need for yourself and your family to live, you are a burden on society that has to deal with people who don't have a home or who don't have enough. You can't justify being a glutton, sorry.


Oh, landowners are gluttons and a drag on society now?

That's some neat logic, Connor. See where that gets you in life.
 
2013-01-24 01:42:37 PM  
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?
 
2013-01-24 01:43:59 PM  
Did anyone mention taxes yet?
 
2013-01-24 01:44:27 PM  

ArcadianRefugee: jst3p: EVERYBODY PANIC: liam76: Can he get the power/water tunred on?

If not is he allowed to live there?

Quick answer: Yes. I know several Adverse Possession folks. They do it within existing law. Some eventually win the house, some don't. File the appropriate paperwork with the county, move in, andhave the utilities turned on by using the form with which you AP's the house. Easy. Lawful. Every state has a different system, but it can be domne anywhere in the US or in any former British colony.

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.

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.


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.
 
2013-01-24 01:44:38 PM  

abhorrent1: 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.

How to you suppose a "working poor" family is going to pay the annual taxes, upkeep and utility bills for a house that size?


Keep reading
 
2013-01-24 01:44:42 PM  

HotWingConspiracy: It's just aggravating, she said, considering how hard she worked to be able to afford a house in the neighborhood.

I support him just to spite this snooty coont. I might send him a pizza.


How is she being snooty? saying that you worked hard to earn something? tough farking crowd around here.
 
2013-01-24 01:44:43 PM  

gshepnyc: You can't justify being a glutton, sorry.


Well, I can. But I'm not a penniless hippie.
 
2013-01-24 01:44:45 PM  
Aww, sounds like somebody in the 1% is mad because somebody in the 99% is living next door.  Excuse me while I fail to give a shiat.
 
2013-01-24 01:45:01 PM  
If the bank owns the home and this guy is squatting in the house, how does the bank show the home? Is it even legal for the bank to have a realtor go inside the house with this guy squatting?
 
2013-01-24 01:45:10 PM  

topcon: Mr. Monopoly Man Pennybags Golf and Country Club


I was a caddy there.
 
2013-01-24 01:46:19 PM  

DarthBart: Too_many_Brians: Hmmm. I'm in Florida and poor, maybe today I will go house hunting.

There's dozens of houses in my neighborhood that have been empty for at least 2 years.

Of course, not a single one of them have an ounce of anything that was made of copper left in them.

/The wife and I went to look at a house the other day that not only the regular stuff (AC, pool pumps, and well aerator equipment) stripped, but the copper thieves also took the time to pull the well pump out of the ground and steal it too.


Yeah, I was thinking about that as well. The other thing for me would be mold and mildew from an abandoned house here on the west coast of Florida and the humidity.

Also, the back taxes. You are still liable for those right away, so if you get booted after a couple of months then you lose it all.
 
2013-01-24 01:46:37 PM  

EVERYBODY PANIC: Correction: Bank of America does not own the property, and cannot set foot on the AP property until awarded the property at the end of the foreclosure process. The abandoned home is still in the name of the original purchaser, and only the original purchaser can have anybody evicted.


Wrong. I mean like, really, really wrong.BOA has been awarded ownership and are on the deed as the owners.
 
2013-01-24 01:47:04 PM  
Adverse possession is a bit more complex than that.  Generally you have to live somewhere "openly and notoriously", Treat the property as if you own it (such as by paying taxes and doing upkeep on it), have a "claim of right" (ie some reason, even if mistaken, to believe it belongs to you), and do so continously for somewhere between 10 and 20 years.   Now that said, I fully expect to see a whole damn lot of AP cases come out of this foreclosure mess.  Have a friend who jumped through every hoop BOA asked her to try to get a mortgage modification, but because of paperwork snafus BOA first scheduled the house for sale before they'd actually legally foreclosed on it,  and then foreclosed, but never evicted her (she left on her own ) and the house is now sitting empty, and she's still getting the property tax and utility assessments for it, two years later.   She's very tempted to simply move back in and see what happens.  I suspect nothing will for many many years by which time she might well have an AP claim
 
2013-01-24 01:47:43 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:


Wasn't actually picking on him. And you can go ahead and sell the home for $1, but the land itself will still be assessed at whatever it's value is, which I imagine is a shiatload in that sort of neighborhood.

Lemme look.
 
2013-01-24 01:47:56 PM  
"This is a very upsetting thing," said next door neighbor Lyn Houston. "Last week, I went to the Bank of America and asked to see the person in charge of mortgages. I told them, 'I am prepared to buy this house.' They haven't even called me back."

I wonder what first aroused suspicion that this guy didn't belong there?

a Brazilian national

Ah. Guess he doesn't look like he's supposed to.

Guess what? It's none of your farking business. It's THEIR property. They don't HAVE to sell it to you any more than they HAVE to evict this guy.

Houston said she noticed the lights came on at the home right around Christmas.She knocked on the door recently and heard people rustling about, but no one came to the door, she said. At night, the front door's carriage lights are on but nothing else can be seen.

Such a nosey biatch, isn't she?

It's just aggravating, she said, considering how hard she worked to be able to afford a house in the neighborhood.

Once again, the rich are jealous of how easy the poor have it. How about minding your own farking business and enjoying your life?

"We're all going crazy, trying to figure out what to do," she said. "It's unbelievable that it can be done. Plus, if they've got the balls to break in the house, what's to prevent them from coming over here?

Uh, just live in your farking house and you should be fine.

Even better - go fark yourself.
 
2013-01-24 01:48:03 PM  
Eventually the unwieldy, behemoth BofA will figure out he's in there and have him removed
 
2013-01-24 01:48:13 PM  

Catlenfell: What are the property taxes going to be on that?


Link

$6,100 per $300,000 in assessed value. Puts that big animal's annual tax bill at $25,000 + per year, assuming assessed value = 50% of market.

They'll Sheriff Sale it after 2 years of unpaid taxes, so unless he's got $100k, he's not gonna make 7 years. Interesting way to illustrate the old law with a CSB.
 
2013-01-24 01:49:16 PM  
They should have something in place to get these squatters out in a matter of days.

Obviously he doesn't own the home and these 'squatting' rights were never meant to be applied to homes. Get the law changed quickly and get the guy out.
 
2013-01-24 01:49:50 PM  

Spanky_McFarksalot: He not breaking any laws. Funny how the rich get all pissy when people use laws to get away with things.


It's not his home. He doesn't own it. The neighbor is right to complain. If asshole wants the home, he can buy it from the true owner.

/count on Skank of America to drag its feet with illegals, and put the bum rush on citizens, though
 
2013-01-24 01:49:55 PM  
it's my money i want it now!
 
2013-01-24 01:50:07 PM  

EVERYBODY PANIC: liam76: Can he get the power/water tunred on?

If not is he allowed to live there?

Quick answer: Yes. I know several Adverse Possession folks. They do it within existing law. Some eventually win the house, some don't. File the appropriate paperwork with the county, move in, andhave the utilities turned on by using the form with which you AP's the house. Easy. Lawful. Every state has a different system, but it can be domne anywhere in the US or in any former British colony.


Thanks, i thought by "paperwork" inthe article they meant a print out of the law or something.

This makes muich more sense now.
 
2013-01-24 01:50:51 PM  
The taxes on the house in 2012 were $39,000. Up from $35,231 in 2011.
 
2013-01-24 01:51:16 PM  

jst3p: EVERYBODY PANIC: groppet: So while he is squatting does he have to pay the property taxes? And if he leaves can they just board up the place to prevent him from getting back in?

In Florida, an adverse possessor must file a particular form with the county, occupy the dwelling, pay all taxes and HOA dues where applicable, and make visible improvements over the course of 7 years. If the form is filled out correctly and filed, it is not considered by law to be squatting.

How do you gain access without "breaking in" and what makes a property abandoned and thus eligible for filing the paperwork?


As an adverse possessor, you go to the county, file the form, and then you are legally required to maintain and 'improve' the property, which includes changing the locks. VTW: The form is called DR452:  img14.imageshack.us
 
2013-01-24 01:51:17 PM  

oldfarthenry: I should claim "adverse possession" of the office bathroom. Lord knows I've exercised squatter's rights on that thing for over seven years!


Is your possession of the bathroom open and notorious?
 
2013-01-24 01:51:21 PM  

pag1107: Eventually the unwieldy, behemoth BofA will figure out he's in there and have him removed


It could be that they know he is there and don't care yet because he is what keeps the pipes from being ripped from the walls. I wonder if they can wait until the 11th hour then act to convict him, when they are ready to deal with the property.
 
2013-01-24 01:51:30 PM  

Petit_Merdeux: Did anyone mention taxes yet?


squatters don't pay taxes, problem solved

you jelly?
 
2013-01-24 01:51:56 PM  

deanis: HotWingConspiracy: It's just aggravating, she said, considering how hard she worked to be able to afford a house in the neighborhood.

I support him just to spite this snooty coont. I might send him a pizza.

How is she being snooty? saying that you worked hard to earn something? tough farking crowd around here.


To start with, she was suspicious of this "Brazilian national" living in this house, assuming he didn't belong there.

Then, she's pissed that BoA won't talk to her about buying the house so she can throw the guy out.

Fark her. Maybe she should just worry about her own business and stop sticking her nose where it doesn't belong.
 
2013-01-24 01:51:56 PM  

jst3p: pag1107: Eventually the unwieldy, behemoth BofA will figure out he's in there and have him removed

It could be that they know he is there and don't care yet because he is what keeps the pipes from being ripped from the walls. I wonder if they can wait until the 11th hour then act to convict evict him, when they are ready to deal with the property.

 
2013-01-24 01:52:28 PM  

topcon: gshepnyc: topcon: gshepnyc: pute kisses like a man: wow. 7 years for adverse possession in florida? that's a little crazy.

it's 10 or 30 years in louisiana (good faith with just title in 10 years, 30 years w/o title or in bad faith) (we also call it acquisitive prescription. an elegant term for a more civilized age).

I think 30 years is too long. Why should useful property be off-limits for a generation? Why should anyone who can go anywhere near that long without exercising any meaningful use of property just keep it?

Seems like the real squatter in cases like this is the owner who purporta to own land he doesn't use and doesn't set foot on for years on end.

Whose opinion is it that the land isn't being used in a useful fashion? I could own 500 acres of prime vacant wooded land. Maybe I enjoy preserving wildlife. Maybe I hunt on it once a year. Maybe I plan on subdividing it in 20 years to pay for my retirement when house prices go up again (in theory.)

These things aren't for you to decide, it's for the owner of the land to decide.

It's a house. It's meant to be lived in by people. Don't be absurd. If you own more land than you need for yourself and your family to live, you are a burden on society that has to deal with people who don't have a home or who don't have enough. You can't justify being a glutton, sorry.

Oh, landowners are gluttons and a drag on society now?

That's some neat logic, Connor. See where that gets you in life.


See how neatly you try to tailor facts of a case to fit your overall ideology? I'm sure you think you are impressive. You aren't. "where that gets you in life" indicates that it soothes you to imagine that people who disagree with you are failures at living. Where I am in life: I have an office overlooking Midtown Manhattan, a very comfortable apartment (that I've never abandoned for 7 years) and I do very well, thank you.
 
2013-01-24 01:54:00 PM  
That must be  a big home indeed, if you can fit a Brazilian people inside it.
 
2013-01-24 01:54:23 PM  

Rich Cream: EVERYBODY PANIC: An abandoned property can be gained via adverse possession in every state. Florida has a form you fill out and file with the county. Between the time of abandonment and the time a court awards the property back to the mortgage company, AP is lawful and winnable. Tell me, who owns the property? The answer is that it is in the name of the guy who ditched it, and not the bank. The "person of title" (former owner) can have the guy evicted, butr never bothers to do so. The bank has no rights to the property until the courts award the property to the bank, which takes a couple of years right now.


OK. Key word will be "abandonment". Likely not the case, just waiting for processing.


If the owner moves out and stops paying his mortgage, that's abandonment. The bank must file for a bankruptcy and get a judge to award them the property. That can take up to three years. An AP'er can move in file the paperwork, fulfull the terms of AP, and take it to court, fight the bank and sometimes win.
 
2013-01-24 01:54:47 PM  
and people said that the Occupy movement was a waste of time :D

WRONG

Occupy Florida!
 
2013-01-24 01:55:00 PM  

ExperianScaresCthulhu: Spanky_McFarksalot: He not breaking any laws. Funny how the rich get all pissy when people use laws to get away with things.

It's not his home. He doesn't own it. The neighbor is right to complain. If asshole wants the home, he can buy it from the true owner.


The bank is the true owner.

Let's say the bank decides "fark it" and sells it to the guy for a dollar. Is she still right to complain?
 
2013-01-24 01:55:40 PM  
Step 1: Open window

Step 2: Insert
wolfevolution.webs.com (picking up an angry wolf and shoving it through a window can be a bit tricky. I suggest you practice this)

Step 3: Repeat 3-5 times

Step 4: Laugh as squatters exit the house.

Step 5: Remove angry wolves.
 
2013-01-24 01:55:41 PM  

Prank Call of Cthulhu: That must be  a big home indeed, if you can fit a Brazilian people inside it.


It took way too long for this joke. Fark, you're off your game today.
 
2013-01-24 01:55:57 PM  
FWIW, much of the actual application of adverse possession deals with boundary questios and disputes.

Say you've got an established fence line with your neighbor. It's been "yours" for as long as anyone remembers, since you bought, since they bought. You've taken care of it, improved it, started a garden on it, maybe built a shed.

Now a new guy buys the property next door. He claims that the fence is in the wrong spot and he really owns 10 feet of "your" property.

How do you settle it? Maybe lots of surveys, looking for geographical markers, digging through old records, etc. Those may reveal conflicting info, especially old surveys.

But adverse possession settles it pretty easily. If you've been treating it like it's yours, it's yours.
 
2013-01-24 01:56:18 PM  

Frozboz: FTA: Bank of America didn't respond to the Sun Sentinel's inquiry. And neither did Barbosa, a Brazilian national who refers to himself as "Loki Boy," after the Norse god of mischief.

Too funny. Ah, Florida. Is there anything you can't do?


Admit it: you would have a sad if Florida wasn't here.
 
2013-01-24 01:56:29 PM  

EVERYBODY PANIC: jst3p: EVERYBODY PANIC: groppet: So while he is squatting does he have to pay the property taxes? And if he leaves can they just board up the place to prevent him from getting back in?

In Florida, an adverse possessor must file a particular form with the county, occupy the dwelling, pay all taxes and HOA dues where applicable, and make visible improvements over the course of 7 years. If the form is filled out correctly and filed, it is not considered by law to be squatting.

How do you gain access without "breaking in" and what makes a property abandoned and thus eligible for filing the paperwork?

As an adverse possessor, you go to the county, file the form, and then you are legally required to maintain and 'improve' the property, which includes changing the locks. VTW: The form is called DR452:  [img14.imageshack.us image 784x350]


So let me get this straight. If I see a house in Florida that no one shows up to every night and there is no furniture in I can fill out that form and then call a locksmith to let me in and change the locks? Can I then use that address to file for food stamps and other public assistance?
 
2013-01-24 01:56:41 PM  
Tea-Tard "logic":

Banksters/Wall Streeters steal trillions, farking the entire economy in the process, and destroying the lives of millions. -- Good for them! It's the true entrepreneurial spirit of boot strappy millionaire job creators!

One little brown dude works the system to get himself a single house. -- BURN HIM! BURN HIM AND ALL HIS RELATIVES! BURN HIS DOG! KILL! KILL! KILL!
 
2013-01-24 01:56:47 PM  

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".
 
2013-01-24 01:57:48 PM  

NightOwl2255: EVERYBODY PANIC: Correction: Bank of America does not own the property, and cannot set foot on the AP property until awarded the property at the end of the foreclosure process. The abandoned home is still in the name of the original purchaser, and only the original purchaser can have anybody evicted.

Wrong. I mean like, really, really wrong.BOA has been awarded ownership and are on the deed as the owners.


You are correct. It has already been awarded to BOA. Guy shoulda moved quicker and stood his ground. One person I know is standing ground after the sale, but will propbably have a sheriff come a-knocking. At this point, and in this particular cae, you are perfectly correct. This property belongs to the bank now.  [I was speakin of AP in general terms]
 
2013-01-24 01:57:54 PM  

oldfarthenry: I should claim "adverse possession" of the office bathroom. Lord knows I've exercised squatter's rights on that thing for over seven years!


To acquire property rights through adverse possession, your occupation of the property must be "open and notorious." Have you kept up that part of it?
 
2013-01-24 01:58:26 PM  

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?
 
2013-01-24 01:58:27 PM  
i know that neighborhood...they are probably more upset that someone is 'stealing' a house and they didn't think of it first. they probably have stolen more money than a thousand of burglars in the county.

i live in boca...or technically palm beach county (west boca).
 
2013-01-24 01:59:23 PM  

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".


And as I asked earlier: what of BoA was to sell it to "Loki Boy" for a dollar? Would that make her STFU?
 
2013-01-24 01:59:36 PM  

bikerific: FWIW, much of the actual application of adverse possession deals with boundary questios and disputes.

Say you've got an established fence line with your neighbor. It's been "yours" for as long as anyone remembers, since you bought, since they bought. You've taken care of it, improved it, started a garden on it, maybe built a shed.

Now a new guy buys the property next door. He claims that the fence is in the wrong spot and he really owns 10 feet of "your" property.

How do you settle it? Maybe lots of surveys, looking for geographical markers, digging through old records, etc. Those may reveal conflicting info, especially old surveys.

But adverse possession settles it pretty easily. If you've been treating it like it's yours, it's yours.


If you are juiced in with the local politicians you can steal land from your neighbors too:

Link
 
2013-01-24 02:00:03 PM  

topcon: Here's the bottom line:

Adverse possession doesn't work anything like the article, or previous articles like this, would have you to believe.

There's a reason why you can find several articles about squatters like this one, but never any followup articles saying "Victory! Man successfully takes possession of upscale $2 million house in the Mr. Monopoly Man Pennybags Golf and Country Club!"


The ones who I know that have won the homes outright are smarter, lay low, never give interviews, do it by the book, understand the law and fight it in court.
 
2013-01-24 02:00:23 PM  

rufus-t-firefly: deanis: HotWingConspiracy: It's just aggravating, she said, considering how hard she worked to be able to afford a house in the neighborhood.

I support him just to spite this snooty coont. I might send him a pizza.

How is she being snooty? saying that you worked hard to earn something? tough farking crowd around here.

To start with, she was suspicious of this "Brazilian national" living in this house, assuming he didn't belong there.

Then, she's pissed that BoA won't talk to her about buying the house so she can throw the guy out.

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


If somebody wants to buy the home, why doesn't Bank of America let them buy the home? That's, literally, money in the bank. How is this a rich versus poor or (more ludicriously) a white versus brown argument??!
 
2013-01-24 02:00:56 PM  

EVERYBODY PANIC: NightOwl2255: EVERYBODY PANIC: Correction: Bank of America does not own the property, and cannot set foot on the AP property until awarded the property at the end of the foreclosure process. The abandoned home is still in the name of the original purchaser, and only the original purchaser can have anybody evicted.

Wrong. I mean like, really, really wrong.BOA has been awarded ownership and are on the deed as the owners.

You are correct. It has already been awarded to BOA. Guy shoulda moved quicker and stood his ground. One person I know is standing ground after the sale, but will propbably have a sheriff come a-knocking. At this point, and in this particular cae, you are perfectly correct. This property belongs to the bank now.  [I was speakin of AP in general terms]


Like I said, with BOA being so backed up, and apparently not knowing they even own the place, the dude will get some free rent. But, he will end up getting the boot. No way he's going to AP a house that BOA has already dumped who knows how many thousands repo'n.
 
2013-01-24 02:01:32 PM  
To all the folks who are saying that adverse possession is a relic that should be eliminated - this is not an example of why adverse possession is BAD, it's an example of why adverse possession is GOOD.

The evil that we want to avoid is un-used property that someone "owns" on paper but that they express no interest in. That's the kind of thing that blights neighborhoods and prevents useful development. If you don't act like you own something then you might as well not own it.

Part of the problem we've been seeing with these mega-banks owning too many mortgages is that they can't deal with the actual issues involved in ownership. Banks holding forclosed properties need to pay their taxes, maintain the property, defend it against adverse possession, and find a new owner or a renter. This is WORK and it costs money and time. This is supposed to be the penalty that banks pay for giving bad loans and is a disincentive to foreclosure/repossession. Many local banks would try to find a way to avoid it with the owner, but BoA is too big and lazy to try. So they foreclose and then ignore the vacant property. They deserve this consequence.

I am dubious that this guy will make it the full 7 years. But he's living rent-free in a mansion for now, and more people should do the same to force BoA to clean up its practices relating to foreclosure, renegotiating loans and selling foreclosed properties.
 
2013-01-24 02:01:44 PM  

rufus-t-firefly: ExperianScaresCthulhu: Spanky_McFarksalot: He not breaking any laws. Funny how the rich get all pissy when people use laws to get away with things.

It's not his home. He doesn't own it. The neighbor is right to complain. If asshole wants the home, he can buy it from the true owner.

The bank is the true owner.

Let's say the bank decides "fark it" and sells it to the guy for a dollar. Is she still right to complain?


The bank *hasn't* said that. Yours is a hypothetical.
What's happened is that the lady has made an offer for a lot more than a dollar. Why isn't the bank selling it to her?
She wants to give them money -- why aren't they taking it?
 
2013-01-24 02:02:03 PM  
I'm packing a bag
 
2013-01-24 02:02:30 PM  

NightOwl2255: EVERYBODY PANIC: NightOwl2255: EVERYBODY PANIC: Correction: Bank of America does not own the property, and cannot set foot on the AP property until awarded the property at the end of the foreclosure process. The abandoned home is still in the name of the original purchaser, and only the original purchaser can have anybody evicted.

Wrong. I mean like, really, really wrong.BOA has been awarded ownership and are on the deed as the owners.

You are correct. It has already been awarded to BOA. Guy shoulda moved quicker and stood his ground. One person I know is standing ground after the sale, but will propbably have a sheriff come a-knocking. At this point, and in this particular cae, you are perfectly correct. This property belongs to the bank now.  [I was speakin of AP in general terms]

Like I said, with BOA being so backed up, and apparently not knowing they even own the place, the dude will get some free rent. But, he will end up getting the boot. No way he's going to AP a house that BOA has already dumped who knows how many thousands repo'n.


Several months maybe even years of free rent and no risk? Sounds like a good idea even if he loses.
 
2013-01-24 02:02:52 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?


If she's smart, yeah. Is it right that the mere presence of a minority lowers values? No. But I'd still do what I could to keep my values up if I were her.

/within the law, of course

And as I asked earlier: what of BoA was to sell it to "Loki Boy" for a dollar? Would that make her STFU?

Probably not, given the above, but she'd at least be quieter about it.
 
2013-01-24 02:03:10 PM  

JerkStore: Not only will there be property taxes on a $2.1 million home, but that house's value counts as income, too. He didn't have it before, now he does.


He doesn't own it yet. And even when he does in seven years, it will probably end up being something more like "capital gains" than "wages, salary, tips". I am interested in the property tax angle, though--since he doesn't own it yet, does he have to pay property taxes on it?
 
2013-01-24 02:03:19 PM  

ExperianScaresCthulhu: rufus-t-firefly: deanis: HotWingConspiracy: It's just aggravating, she said, considering how hard she worked to be able to afford a house in the neighborhood.

I support him just to spite this snooty coont. I might send him a pizza.

How is she being snooty? saying that you worked hard to earn something? tough farking crowd around here.

To start with, she was suspicious of this "Brazilian national" living in this house, assuming he didn't belong there.

Then, she's pissed that BoA won't talk to her about buying the house so she can throw the guy out.

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

If somebody wants to buy the home, why doesn't Bank of America let them buy the home? That's, literally, money in the bank. How is this a rich versus poor or (more ludicriously) a white versus brown argument??!


It's their property - they aren't required to sell it to anyone.

My question is why she was suspicious in the first place? The only thing I notice is his nationality. To see the notices he's placed on the house would require going on to the property - so what made her suspicious? TFA mentions the power being switched on - is that something burglars normally do?
 
2013-01-24 02:03:42 PM  

Prank Call of Cthulhu: That must be  a big home indeed, if you can fit a Brazilian people inside it.


i lol'ed
 
2013-01-24 02:03:53 PM  

cefm: To all the folks who are saying that adverse possession is a relic that should be eliminated - this is not an example of why adverse possession is BAD, it's an example of why adverse possession is GOOD.

The evil that we want to avoid is un-used property that someone "owns" on paper but that they express no interest in. That's the kind of thing that blights neighborhoods and prevents useful development. If you don't act like you own something then you might as well not own it.

Part of the problem we've been seeing with these mega-banks owning too many mortgages is that they can't deal with the actual issues involved in ownership. Banks holding forclosed properties need to pay their taxes, maintain the property, defend it against adverse possession, and find a new owner or a renter. This is WORK and it costs money and time. This is supposed to be the penalty that banks pay for giving bad loans and is a disincentive to foreclosure/repossession. Many local banks would try to find a way to avoid it with the owner, but BoA is too big and lazy to try. So they foreclose and then ignore the vacant property. They deserve this consequence.

I am dubious that this guy will make it the full 7 years. But he's living rent-free in a mansion for now, and more people should do the same to force BoA to clean up its practices relating to foreclosure, renegotiating loans and selling foreclosed properties.


THIS makes a lot of sense to me. I would be curious if anyone could rebut in an intelligent manner.
 
2013-01-24 02:06:04 PM  

quizzical: Rich Cream: thurstonxhowell: Problem: Squatters.
Solution: Don't fail to step foot in your house even once in 7 years.

He's 23 years old. I think he plans on staying there seven years.

/trespassing, I don't understand how it's not that. One entity can show papers of ownership (supposedly), the other can't.

It is trespassing. But, per TFA, Bank of America hasn't gotten around to kicking the squatter off their land yet.


Correct... it can't be trespassing until the owner of the property tells the trespasser that they can no longer be on property and the trespasser refuses to leave.
 
2013-01-24 02:06:41 PM  

ExperianScaresCthulhu: rufus-t-firefly: ExperianScaresCthulhu: Spanky_McFarksalot: He not breaking any laws. Funny how the rich get all pissy when people use laws to get away with things.

It's not his home. He doesn't own it. The neighbor is right to complain. If asshole wants the home, he can buy it from the true owner.

The bank is the true owner.

Let's say the bank decides "fark it" and sells it to the guy for a dollar. Is she still right to complain?

The bank *hasn't* said that. Yours is a hypothetical.
What's happened is that the lady has made an offer for a lot more than a dollar. Why isn't the bank selling it to her?
She wants to give them money -- why aren't they taking it?


No, she hasn't said she has made an offer - just that she told them she wants to buy it.

And as far as why they aren't selling...I guess you should ask the farking bank. Again, they aren't required to sell it, and they aren't required to kick the guy out.

Guess that whole "free country" thing goes both ways.
 
2013-01-24 02:07:43 PM  

rufus-t-firefly: My question is why she was suspicious in the first place? The only thing I notice is his nationality.


Really? 'Cos I noticed his age much sooner than his nationality (since it was mentioned several paragraphs earlier).

Warning signs? How about the fact that he's only 23 and laying claim to a $2.5 million home. Now, I'm not saying it's impossible, but not too many 23yo's can maintain a $2.5M home.

/plus, he's Brazilian
 
2013-01-24 02:08:35 PM  
Man it just reeks of sandy vaginas in here. I mean why do you people even give two shiats? BOA are goons and Floridians are dumb asses I say good on him.
 
2013-01-24 02:09:45 PM  

jst3p: cefm: To all the folks who are saying that adverse possession is a relic that should be eliminated - this is not an example of why adverse possession is BAD, it's an example of why adverse possession is GOOD.

The evil that we want to avoid is un-used property that someone "owns" on paper but that they express no interest in. That's the kind of thing that blights neighborhoods and prevents useful development. If you don't act like you own something then you might as well not own it.

Part of the problem we've been seeing with these mega-banks owning too many mortgages is that they can't deal with the actual issues involved in ownership. Banks holding forclosed properties need to pay their taxes, maintain the property, defend it against adverse possession, and find a new owner or a renter. This is WORK and it costs money and time. This is supposed to be the penalty that banks pay for giving bad loans and is a disincentive to foreclosure/repossession. Many local banks would try to find a way to avoid it with the owner, but BoA is too big and lazy to try. So they foreclose and then ignore the vacant property. They deserve this consequence.

I am dubious that this guy will make it the full 7 years. But he's living rent-free in a mansion for now, and more people should do the same to force BoA to clean up its practices relating to foreclosure, renegotiating loans and selling foreclosed properties.

THIS makes a lot of sense to me. I would be curious if anyone could rebut in an intelligent manner.


why is this only happening in Florida? we should be doing this in every state

i got dibbs on all the CA houses
 
2013-01-24 02:10:21 PM  

waterproof151: I'm packing a bag


http://shwagr.com/posts/a-squatters-50-state-guide-to-stealing-proper t y-by-adverse-possession

Arizona blows illegal dick -- 2 years? really? Makes Montana and Nevada (5 years each) look positively glacial
 
2013-01-24 02:11:22 PM  

ScaryBottles: Man it just reeks of sandy vaginas in here. I mean why do you people even give two shiats? BOA are goons and Floridians are dumb asses I say good on him.


THIS
 
2013-01-24 02:11:26 PM  
This is the same state where a homeowner managed to successfully foreclose on a bank, right?
 
2013-01-24 02:11:56 PM  

jst3p: EVERYBODY PANIC: jst3p: EVERYBODY PANIC: groppet: So while he is squatting does he have to pay the property taxes? And if he leaves can they just board up the place to prevent him from getting back in?

In Florida, an adverse possessor must file a particular form with the county, occupy the dwelling, pay all taxes and HOA dues where applicable, and make visible improvements over the course of 7 years. If the form is filled out correctly and filed, it is not considered by law to be squatting.

How do you gain access without "breaking in" and what makes a property abandoned and thus eligible for filing the paperwork?

As an adverse possessor, you go to the county, file the form, and then you are legally required to maintain and 'improve' the property, which includes changing the locks. VTW: The form is called DR452:  [img14.imageshack.us image 784x350]

So let me get this straight. If I see a house in Florida that no one shows up to every night and there is no furniture in I can fill out that form and then call a locksmith to let me in and change the locks? Can I then use that address to file for food stamps and other public assistance?


Copy/Paste showing the actual statute and clarification of how to take raw land:

"What is adverse possession without color of title (Florida Statutes section 95.18)?

When an individual continuously occupies a property for seven consecutive years, lacking any legal document to support a claim to the land's title, he may establish adverse possession by filing a return with the county appraisers within one year of entry onto the property, and paying all taxes and liens assessed during possession of the property.

But paying the taxes alone is insufficient to establish adverse possession or cole of title (Bentz v. McDaniel, 872 So.2d 978 [Fla. 5th DCA 2004]). The property is considered possessed only if the individual does one of these:
1.
Cultivates or improves the land

2.
Protects the land by a substantial enclosure, which is usually a fence (see Mullins v. Culbert, 898 So.2d 1149 [Fla. 2005])

Regarding properties with actual homes: occupy, improve, pay taxes, etc. Hundreds do it, dozens win the property. Not for the faint of heart.
 
2013-01-24 02:12:01 PM  

I drunk what: why is this only happening in Florida? we should be doing this in every state

i got dibbs on all the CA houses



Looks like it only takes 5 years in Cali, good call!
 
2013-01-24 02:12:21 PM  
Police can't do anything because they didn't see him breaking in"

So, if I am going to rob someone's house while he is not home, police can't come and arrest me because they didn't see me break in?
 
2013-01-24 02:13:11 PM  
We hired a lawyer and stopped paying our mortgage to BOA about 6 months ago. We figure we've got at least another few years before they kick us out. Instead of renting after this, I think it might be worth looking further into this. It's not like there's a shortage of abandoned homes around here.
 
2013-01-24 02:13:48 PM  

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.


Nah, use the war on the drugs for your advantage ones. We had an adverse possession case go down where a someone moved in while the owners were out of the country for one year (sent overseas for a tour at a foreign tech center and the guy took his family with him). So it ends up where the guy they hired to tend the lawn finally catches the squatters, but the squatters try to make the thing a civil matter and tie it up in court as they industriously loot the house or whatever.

The sheriff goes to the judge and says "I have reports of drug lab like activity coming from that house *winkwink*. The judge goes "Well then you better raid it, here is a warrant *winkwink*". Of course no drugs were found, but by the time the squatter was out of his holding cell a contractor had changed the locks, boarded the house up, etc so to reenter the squatters would be to visibly B&E,
 
2013-01-24 02:14:34 PM  

EVERYBODY PANIC: But paying the taxes alone is insufficient to establish adverse possession or cole of title (Bentz v. McDaniel, 872 So.2d 978 [Fla. 5th DCA 2004]). The property is considered possessed only if the individual does one of these:
1.
Cultivates or improves the land

2.
Protects the land by a substantial enclosure, which is usually a fence (see Mullins v. Culbert, 898 So.2d 1149 [Fla. 2005])
Regarding properties with actual homes: occupy, improve, pay taxes, etc. Hundreds do it, dozens win the property. Not for the faint of heart.


So I put in a vegetable garden with a water feature, I have cultivated and improved the land. Badabing!
 
2013-01-24 02:15:29 PM  

sxacho: We hired a lawyer and stopped paying our mortgage to BOA about 6 months ago. We figure we've got at least another few years before they kick us out. Instead of renting after this, I think it might be worth looking further into this. It's not like there's a shortage of abandoned homes around here.


After the eviction I think you should try and take back YOUR house via adverse possession. That would be epic.
 
2013-01-24 02:16:50 PM  

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.
 
2013-01-24 02:16:54 PM  
I hate squatters
but in the case of another foreclosure, I like that the bank would have to deal with it
well
banks and the politicians they own..
who make the laws that allow them to be jackholes
 
2013-01-24 02:16:59 PM  

SN1987a goes boom: How did


Maybe he found the keys in the mailbox. They have been know to have been left there is some cases of mortgage being underwater.

/with a tag attached addressed "Resident, this address", and correct postage.
 
2013-01-24 02:17:03 PM  

EVERYBODY PANIC: As an adverse possessor, you go to the county, file the form, and then you are legally required to maintain and 'improve' the property, which includes changing the locks. VTW: The form is called DR452:


So many people hate bureaucracy, but little do they know what you can do with it and a little knowledge.  There is literally nothing you can't do if you're clever enough and know where to look
 
2013-01-24 02:17:36 PM  
My guess is that their only real concern is that their property values will drop from having a brown person living next door.
 
2013-01-24 02:17:45 PM  

Raoul Eaton: oldfarthenry: I should claim "adverse possession" of the office bathroom. Lord knows I've exercised squatter's rights on that thing for over seven years!

To acquire property rights through adverse possession, your occupation of the property must be "open and notorious." Have you kept up that part of it?


Door open - with the smell causing fainting spells in the cube farm?
Not since that tersely-written memo from HR.
 
2013-01-24 02:18:52 PM  

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
 
2013-01-24 02:18:56 PM  

jst3p: EVERYBODY PANIC: jst3p: EVERYBODY PANIC: groppet: So while he is squatting does he have to pay the property taxes? And if he leaves can they just board up the place to prevent him from getting back in?

In Florida, an adverse possessor must file a particular form with the county, occupy the dwelling, pay all taxes and HOA dues where applicable, and make visible improvements over the course of 7 years. If the form is filled out correctly and filed, it is not considered by law to be squatting.

How do you gain access without "breaking in" and what makes a property abandoned and thus eligible for filing the paperwork?

As an adverse possessor, you go to the county, file the form, and then you are legally required to maintain and 'improve' the property, which includes changing the locks. VTW: The form is called DR452:  [img14.imageshack.us image 784x350]

So let me get this straight. If I see a house in Florida that no one shows up to every night and there is no furniture in I can fill out that form and then call a locksmith to let me in and change the locks? Can I then use that address to file for food stamps and other public assistance?


The house doesn't need to be devoid of furniture. It can be fully furnished.
Link
 
2013-01-24 02:19:13 PM  

jst3p: I drunk what: why is this only happening in Florida? we should be doing this in every state

i got dibbs on all the CA houses


Looks like it only takes 5 years in Cali, good call!


like taking candy from retards ;-)
 
2013-01-24 02:20:27 PM  

FarknGroovn: If the bank owns the home and this guy is squatting in the house, how does the bank show the home? Is it even legal for the bank to have a realtor go inside the house with this guy squatting?


If the guy 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 point.
 
2013-01-24 02:22:50 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. 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...
 
2013-01-24 02:24:01 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


I probably wouldn't but to be fair I only said I think it would be fun.
 
2013-01-24 02:24:08 PM  

jst3p: NightOwl2255: EVERYBODY PANIC: NightOwl2255: EVERYBODY PANIC: Correction: Bank of America does not own the property, and cannot set foot on the AP property until awarded the property at the end of the foreclosure process. The abandoned home is still in the name of the original purchaser, and only the original purchaser can have anybody evicted.

Wrong. I mean like, really, really wrong.BOA has been awarded ownership and are on the deed as the owners.

You are correct. It has already been awarded to BOA. Guy shoulda moved quicker and stood his ground. One person I know is standing ground after the sale, but will propbably have a sheriff come a-knocking. At this point, and in this particular cae, you are perfectly correct. This property belongs to the bank now.  [I was speakin of AP in general terms]

Like I said, with BOA being so backed up, and apparently not knowing they even own the place, the dude will get some free rent. But, he will end up getting the boot. No way he's going to AP a house that BOA has already dumped who knows how many thousands repo'n.

Several months maybe even years of free rent and no risk? Sounds like a good idea even if he loses.


Here's one way to do it.
PART A: Grab a house soon after abandonment. File paperwork with county. Follow the rules. Watch the county website for actions by the bank. FIght it in court. If you lose, you lived rent free for two years.
Now, for PART B: Expecting to lose, keep an eye out and repeat above at a new location. Live forever without rent, moving along when necessary. If you do go to court and win, or if a bank gets messy and loses the paperwork, you win bigtime.
But every time you take another place, that place is now secured and will be maintained, to the benefit of society in general. This is a moral action on your part. You're making the neighborhoods safer and helping the banks via maintenence and securitization.
 
2013-01-24 02:25:04 PM  
motores.com.py
 
2013-01-24 02:28:12 PM  

jst3p: I wouldn't do it in million dollar homes, I would imagine that the property taxes on a reasonable place is less than a working poor family pays in rent. On my 210k rental property the property taxes are $1,300 a year. I just think it would be a fun and unique way of helping people.


Why don't you give away your rental property, then? or let them live there for free?
 
2013-01-24 02:29:02 PM  

gshepnyc: Don't be absurd. If you own more land than you need for yourself and your family to live, you are a burden on society that has to deal with people who don't have a home or who don't have enough. You can't justify being a glutton, sorry.



I bet that's just what the settlers told the Indians
 
2013-01-24 02:29:52 PM  

I drunk what: jst3p: cefm: To all the folks who are saying that adverse possession is a relic that should be eliminated - this is not an example of why adverse possession is BAD, it's an example of why adverse possession is GOOD.

The evil that we want to avoid is un-used property that someone "owns" on paper but that they express no interest in. That's the kind of thing that blights neighborhoods and prevents useful development. If you don't act like you own something then you might as well not own it.

Part of the problem we've been seeing with these mega-banks owning too many mortgages is that they can't deal with the actual issues involved in ownership. Banks holding forclosed properties need to pay their taxes, maintain the property, defend it against adverse possession, and find a new owner or a renter. This is WORK and it costs money and time. This is supposed to be the penalty that banks pay for giving bad loans and is a disincentive to foreclosure/repossession. Many local banks would try to find a way to avoid it with the owner, but BoA is too big and lazy to try. So they foreclose and then ignore the vacant property. They deserve this consequence.

I am dubious that this guy will make it the full 7 years. But he's living rent-free in a mansion for now, and more people should do the same to force BoA to clean up its practices relating to foreclosure, renegotiating loans and selling foreclosed properties.

THIS makes a lot of sense to me. I would be curious if anyone could rebut in an intelligent manner.

why is this only happening in Florida? we should be doing this in every state

i got dibbs on all the CA houses


Actually, there are two broad systems in America. In some states like Florida, the bank cannot touch an abandoned property until a court awards it to them. In California, the bankruptcy does not require court approval, and AP is near to impossible on mortgaged properties in that state.
 
2013-01-24 02:30:55 PM  

WeenerGord: jst3p: I wouldn't do it in million dollar homes, I would imagine that the property taxes on a reasonable place is less than a working poor family pays in rent. On my 210k rental property the property taxes are $1,300 a year. I just think it would be a fun and unique way of helping people.

Why don't you give away your rental property, then? or let them live there for free?


Because I do not yet have an investment income that sustains me, a requirement I laid out for my cunning plan.


Why are you busting my chops for entertaining the thought?
 
2013-01-24 02:31:27 PM  

ExperianScaresCthulhu: waterproof151: I'm packing a bag

http://shwagr.com/posts/a-squatters-50-state-guide-to-stealing-proper t y-by-adverse-possession

Arizona blows illegal dick -- 2 years? really? Makes Montana and Nevada (5 years each) look positively glacial


Arizona is THE PLACE for AP when the baks are too busy to get the paperwork done on time. Study the matter and go for it!
 
2013-01-24 02:33:55 PM  

cefm: To all the folks who are saying that adverse possession is a relic that should be eliminated - this is not an example of why adverse possession is BAD, it's an example of why adverse possession is GOOD.

The evil that we want to avoid is un-used property that someone "owns" on paper but that they express no interest in. That's the kind of thing that blights neighborhoods and prevents useful development. If you don't act like you own something then you might as well not own it.

Part of the problem we've been seeing with these mega-banks owning too many mortgages is that they can't deal with the actual issues involved in ownership. Banks holding forclosed properties need to pay their taxes, maintain the property, defend it against adverse possession, and find a new owner or a renter. This is WORK and it costs money and time. This is supposed to be the penalty that banks pay for giving bad loans and is a disincentive to foreclosure/repossession. Many local banks would try to find a way to avoid it with the owner, but BoA is too big and lazy to try. So they foreclose and then ignore the vacant property. They deserve this consequence.

I am dubious that this guy will make it the full 7 years. But he's living rent-free in a mansion for now, and more people should do the same to force BoA to clean up its practices relating to foreclosure, renegotiating loans and selling foreclosed properties.


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.
 
2013-01-24 02:38:18 PM  

jst3p: EVERYBODY PANIC: But paying the taxes alone is insufficient to establish adverse possession or cole of title (Bentz v. McDaniel, 872 So.2d 978 [Fla. 5th DCA 2004]). The property is considered possessed only if the individual does one of these:
1.
Cultivates or improves the land

2.
Protects the land by a substantial enclosure, which is usually a fence (see Mullins v. Culbert, 898 So.2d 1149 [Fla. 2005])
Regarding properties with actual homes: occupy, improve, pay taxes, etc. Hundreds do it, dozens win the property. Not for the faint of heart.

So I put in a vegetable garden with a water feature, I have cultivated and improved the land. Badabing!


For non-residential land, that's about it. There are other details, like putting up KEEP OUT signs and such.

The ultimate AP is to befriend all the old codgers in your area. You'll learn who is all alone in the world, without heirs, in homes which were paid off long ago. Hang with these folks and just wait. Visit often. Mow the lawn for free. Take them shopping once a week. First one passes away, do an AP RIGHT NOW! Who's to protest? Who's to stake a different claim? Dude, the place is yours! Wait 7 years and go before a judge demanding your title. Woo Hoo!
 
2013-01-24 02:40:52 PM  
In UK, adverse posession (or at least the UK equivalent) is rampant ... at least if the daily mail is to believed. the squatters always describe themselves as "italian." and yet, their "italian" always sounds a lot like albanian or romanian...
 
2013-01-24 02:41:10 PM  
images.businessweek.com
$2.1 million. C'mon, that's not much. We can make that up next quarter. Besides, we have to inflate those poor people's ARM balloon rates first.
 
2013-01-24 02:41:37 PM  
There's never been a better time to be a deadbeat in America.
 
2013-01-24 02:41:49 PM  

pciszek: JerkStore: Not only will there be property taxes on a $2.1 million home, but that house's value counts as income, too. He didn't have it before, now he does.

He doesn't own it yet. And even when he does in seven years, it will probably end up being something more like "capital gains" than "wages, salary, tips". I am interested in the property tax angle, though--since he doesn't own it yet, does he have to pay property taxes on it?


According this guide, you have to pay all taxes including back taxes and you have to do it on time. It's one of the things that gave me pause.
Link
 
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.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2013-01-24 05:14:09 PM  
The spirit of the law is to encourage and reward productive use of land which is a benefit to society.

I see the spirit of the law as preventing traps and technicalities, like losing the back yard you thought was yours because somebody 30 years ago put a fence in the wrong place. That is why adverse possession often requires a claim of right or payment of taxes. If you're just trying to legally steal something the law may not care to help you. If you and your neighbors thought the property line was at the fence, then make it so.

Where I live the state is immune from adverse possession. People do lose their yards from time to time. Specific cases I remember are former parkland along the Charles River and thought-to-be-abandoned railroad right of way on one of the lines south of Boston. The parkland might have been abandoned for a century. The rail lines died by the 1960s, but the state is dumping a lot of money into restoring them.
 
2013-01-24 05:19:04 PM  

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

I see the spirit of the law as preventing traps and technicalities, like losing the back yard you thought was yours because somebody 30 years ago put a fence in the wrong place. That is why adverse possession often requires a claim of right or payment of taxes. If you're just trying to legally steal something the law may not care to help you. If you and your neighbors thought the property line was at the fence, then make it so.


This is also true, in addition (according to my google-fu) it protects against land owners from previous generations claiming ownership, a sort of statute of limitations for possession disputes..
 
2013-01-24 05:20:16 PM  

jst3p: 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.



Not that rare of an exception, and many homeowners have tried legal recourse, but the banks had deeper pockets.

No, I still think that you and others in this thread are wrong for gloating about stealing homes. It's bad and you should feel bad.

/I noticed you dodged all the questions about giving away your house and properties to the poor, or letting them live there for free, because, in your words, it would be fun, and a nice thing to do.
//Not so much fun when it's your property, is it?
 
2013-01-24 05:23:20 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"


That's not what happened in the article though, and the poster to whom you're replying was suggesting he'd do what the guy in the article did. Even if I accepted your premise that the guy stole a house (which I don't), he absolutely did not steal anyone's "home."
 
2013-01-24 05:26:19 PM  

WeenerGord: Not that rare of an exception,


What percentage of all foreclosures in the US last year were improperly executed?


and many homeowners have tried legal recourse, but the banks had deeper pockets.


How many?

No, I still think that you and others in this thread are wrong for gloating about stealing homes. It's bad and you should feel bad.

/I noticed you dodged all the questions about giving away your house and properties to the poor, or letting them live there for free, because, in your words, it would be fun, and a nice thing to do.
//Not so much fun when it's your property, is it?


I dodged nothing. I originally said if I had an investment income that I could live off of and no family it would be fun. That is still my position, but those aren't the circumstances I live in today.

Sadly you haven't learned a thing since you keep throwing that term around improperly.

Ah well, you can lead a horse to water.
 
2013-01-24 05:31:02 PM  

jst3p: Ah well, you can lead a horse to water.



Sure, and when it comes to your own greed, you will chose to forget that maybe there used to be a family in that home that you are having fun squatting on.
 
2013-01-24 05:33:33 PM  

WeenerGord: jst3p: Ah well, you can lead a horse to water.


Sure, and when it comes to your own greed, you will chose to forget that maybe there used to be a family in that home that you are having fun squatting on.


In my hypothetical scenario maybe they would be the ones I sell it to. I am not the one that forced them to move.
 
2013-01-24 05:44:56 PM  

WeenerGord: jst3p: Ah well, you can lead a horse to water.


"Sure, and when it comes to your own greed, you will chose to forget that maybe there used to be a family in that home that you are having fun squatting on.

"

Ah, the "GREED word". Predictable. Greed means what? It means wanting to better oneself. Do you, good sir, ever wish to better yourself? Do you actually make efforts and use energy and time and imagination to make your own life better? If so, then tell me if anybody in this thread is greedier than yourself. Sheesh!

On your second point, why is it his concern if a family once lived in a home before he did? He did not take it from anybody, as they by choice moved away and defaulted on a loan. Yeah, if anybody here is being a bum, it's the guy who signed for the house in the first place, then cheated the bank out of the monthly payment.

I've followed this thread pretty closely and detect a certain sourpuss attitude in you, and it seems to be aimed at people taking steps to better their lives and making themselves happier by effort. Are you always this way? If you have some marvelous alternative concept for living and interacting in a society, I'd love to hear it.
 
2013-01-24 05:58:23 PM  

EVERYBODY PANIC: He did not take it from anybody, as they by choice moved away and defaulted on a loan.



I hope you're trollin, cos you KNOW that isn't true in all cases.
 
2013-01-24 06:02:07 PM  
IDK about living there in the long run.But this sounds like it would be easy way to get a "free" rental for a week or two.
 
2013-01-24 06:20:44 PM  

ArcadianRefugee: It's Florida! Just sell the house and the new owner can just shoot the guy as a trespasser. "Stand your ground" and all that.


Just have the current owner "stand his ground." If a law that stupid is legal then it's legal in all circumstances.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2013-01-24 06:38:19 PM  
You generally can not shoot somebody for simple trespass, stand your ground or not.

Within your own house stand your ground is about the same as the castle doctrine of many other states. Stand your ground and castle doctrine dispense with the need to try to run away from a fight. You still need a legal reason to shoot.

Can you convince the police, judge, or jury that the squatter was committing a violent felony? Then fire at will.
 
2013-01-24 07:23:04 PM  
i wanna stay in Clearwater
 
2013-01-24 07:25:23 PM  

BradleyUffner: 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".


You do realize that property values impact people who aren't flipping their house, right?
 
2013-01-24 07:35:57 PM  

JohnCarter: Problem solved
[assets.nydailynews.com image 635x423]


I'd think that would actually get you a few more problems, namely arson and attempted murder (if you are lucky).
 
2013-01-24 08:19:55 PM  

WeenerGord: EVERYBODY PANIC: He did not take it from anybody, as they by choice moved away and defaulted on a loan.


I hope you're trollin, cos you KNOW that isn't true in all cases.


All adverse possessions are performed by law. If somebody steals a man's property of any knd, that's not adverse possession. That's stealing, and it goes way beyond just residences. Stealing is always wrong.

I once belonged to a group of people researching many things of which AP was a minor side note. Once it was shown to be lawful, many group members took action. They studied the law and acted upon it. Some were later sent packing, but some are now nearing the 7 year mark, as they fought the banksters in court and won. One young couple did not even have to go to court, as the bank for its own reasons chose to not bother fighting them. Big newer home on an acre. Free and clear. Just waiting out the 7 years. Admit it... that's pretty awesome.

You seem to resent that people do this particular lawful act. Care to share with us why that seems to be so? As for me trolling, read my earlier posts on this thread. I know my stuff regarding AP. If it were morally or legally unacceptable, I'd not support those who do it.
 
2013-01-24 08:50:10 PM  

EVERYBODY PANIC: You seem to resent that people do this particular lawful act. Care to share with us why that seems to be so?



To hear you lot tell it, the original owners who bought the house, and lost it to the bank for whatever reason, are deadbeat losers who deserved to be forced out, and the gypsy who snuck in, and is trying to get it for nothing, is some kind of folk hero, and frankly, you all wish you could steal houses for free like that too, because it would be fun, and greed is good, especially for society. And if the neighbors don't like it, fark them.

And you can't figure out what the problem is with any of the above? Care to share with us why that seems to be so?

Seems to me that you all have some of the same ideas as the settlers who killed off the indians. That was probably legal at the time, too.
 
2013-01-24 08:53:34 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]


i.imgur.com
 
2013-01-24 09:35:23 PM  
So... Bank of America can foreclose on people's houses, but they can't get him out of there?


Waitaminute. He's not costing me anything. He's inconveniencing whoever paid the $21 million for the house and couldn't be bothered to live in it. Why do I even care?
 
2013-01-24 10:06:35 PM  

WeenerGord: EVERYBODY PANIC: You seem to resent that people do this particular lawful act. Care to share with us why that seems to be so?


To hear you lot tell it, the original owners who bought the house, and lost it to the bank for whatever reason, are deadbeat losers who deserved to be forced out, and the gypsy who snuck in, and is trying to get it for nothing, is some kind of folk hero, and frankly, you all wish you could steal houses for free like that too, because it would be fun, and greed is good, especially for society. And if the neighbors don't like it, fark them.

And you can't figure out what the problem is with any of the above? Care to share with us why that seems to be so?

Seems to me that you all have some of the same ideas as the settlers who killed off the indians. That was probably legal at the time, too.


Getting too late to play along. You think what you wish. This is still America and we're still free to disagree. In this latest post of yours, you keep trying to state things which are out of context and patently false. I do not support stealing. I do feel sorry for people who lose their homes, I do not accept the way the Native Americans were mistreated. As for greed, that is the only topic on which I would enjoy a deeper discussion with you.

I want you to try really hard and come up with a definition of your own creation for the word GREED. Show me how it applies to me and how it somehow does not apply to you. Are you up to this task? I defined it in a pretty good form earlier. Greed is the desire to improve your life. It is neither moral nor immoral. A criminal attempt to improve your life is a crime, and an effort to gain in a moral and lawful manner is not wrong in amy way. Allow me to go to an extreme: Shold I build a factory and hire a thousand people to build toothbrushes, and should I pay a good wage (as you yourself might define it), and should I end up becoming a billionaire... am I greedy?

I await your definition of GREED. With no ability to define one's terms, nothing one says has meaning and is thus, gibberish. Prove me wrong please.
 
2013-01-24 10:28:20 PM  

Valiente: signaljammer: Imagine a world without adverse possession.

Given how eminent domain is criminally misused in the States, it's perversely funny to see a legally savvy squatter pull this.


This. His neighbor is annoyed that this young Brazilian boy isn't 'cleaning her pool' if you know what I mean and I think you might.
 
2013-01-24 10:59:55 PM  
Nice try but BoA's army of lawyers will take care of it real quick.
 
2013-01-24 11:37:36 PM  

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


I think it would be fun to steal a bunch of homes that belonged to banks. Because fark em. They did their best to rip all of us off.
 
2013-01-24 11:43:47 PM  

Bucky Katt: Nice try but BoA's army of lawyers will take care of it real quick.


Just as soon as they find the right document signed by the right Linda Green

i.imgur.com
 
2013-01-25 12:32:21 AM  
Technically you have to also have never been shot during that period for trespassing. Its a disqualification.
 
2013-01-25 01:27:27 AM  

EVERYBODY PANIC: I do feel sorry for people who lose their homes,


Well that took a while didn't it?

EVERYBODY PANIC: Greed is the desire to improve your life. It is neither moral nor immoral. A criminal attempt to improve your life is a crime, and an effort to gain in a moral and lawful manner is not wrong in amy way.


You an Ayn Rand fan?

EVERYBODY PANIC: Allow me to go to an extreme: Shold I build a factory and hire a thousand people to build toothbrushes, and should I pay a good wage (as you yourself might define it), and should I end up becoming a billionaire... am I greedy?


And if you come to work one morning and find squatters have taken over your factory, demanding that you sell it to them for one dollar, should you hand it over? Because fark the rich, that's why? You don't deserve what you worked to earn, as long as there is a squatter around who also feels greed and wants to take what you have? Not saying that you said that, but others in the thread have, and you appear to be supporting their position.
 
2013-01-25 03:25:07 AM  

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

A person getting in the way of properly getting this house into actual homeowners hands. What's better for this neighborhood, a squatter or a homeowner? What does skin color have to do with this?


The bank can't sell it. Banks don't make very good realtors. It will probably stay vacant for years to come, no matter what happens.
 
2013-01-25 07:28:47 AM  

WeenerGord: EVERYBODY PANIC: I do feel sorry for people who lose their homes,

Well that took a while didn't it?

EVERYBODY PANIC: Greed is the desire to improve your life. It is neither moral nor immoral. A criminal attempt to improve your life is a crime, and an effort to gain in a moral and lawful manner is not wrong in amy way.

You an Ayn Rand fan?

EVERYBODY PANIC: Allow me to go to an extreme: Shold I build a factory and hire a thousand people to build toothbrushes, and should I pay a good wage (as you yourself might define it), and should I end up becoming a billionaire... am I greedy?

And if you come to work one morning and find squatters have taken over your factory, demanding that you sell it to them for one dollar, should you hand it over? Because fark the rich, that's why? You don't deserve what you worked to earn, as long as there is a squatter around who also feels greed and wants to take what you have? Not saying that you said that, but others in the thread have, and you appear to be supporting their position.


Good sir, you are oblivious to anything said in this entire thread. A reply would be futile. Everything you wrote is dealt with ad nausseum above.
 
2013-01-25 08:33:05 AM  

StoPPeRmobile: The bank can't sell it. Banks don't make very good realtors. It will probably stay vacant for years to come, no matter what happens.


I'd rather someone move into the vacant houses in my neighborhood. Not only don't the banks make good realtors, they don't take care of their property either. They're absentee owners of hazardous properties which after a year or so are unfit for habitation. I don't know how they're legally able to sell any of these abandoned homes and pretend that they're liveable.
 
2013-01-25 09:53:59 AM  
it's my $21 million dollar house i need it now!

i like money
 
2013-01-25 12:37:25 PM  

ScaryBottles: Man it just reeks of sandy vaginas in here. I mean why do you people even give two shiats? BOA are goons and Floridians are dumb asses I say good on him.


and everyone from your state has dick on their breath.
 
2013-01-25 01:12:20 PM  

I drunk what: it's my $21 million dollar house i need it now!

i like money


It *CAN* be arranged. Where in Florida do you reside?
 
Displayed 282 of 282 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report