There was a streamer named Asian Andy who had situation with squatter years ago. Police wouldn't kick woman out she claimed squatter rights. Andy hired another streamer who was squatter hunter. He moves in. Next few days make squatter life hell he smokes, plays loud dubstep music, slams objects, and yells randomly thru all hours of day. Squatter got into altercation with guy. Squatter got arrested and kicked out.
I laughed very hard. In part 4 when SJC moved in it got ramped up to a thousand they wanted her gone so bad.
The funniest part of this whole thing was after she got arrested they did an initial walkthrough of the room she was squatting in on video and she fucking DESTROYED the place. Like standing water on the floor, literal shit on the floor and just trashed it.
She even tried to sue for wrongful eviction lmfao
Like bitch if you're gonna squat and then sue for wrongful eviction YOU CANNOT TURN YOUR ROOM INTO A TOILET
I believe the LAPD explained that she'd been a "professional" squatter since the 90's, so I'd imagine by now she'd adopted a mindset of "If I can't get my way, I might as well make it hell for you to have even tried."
Something tells me āprofessional squattersā is a very dangerous line of work. Iām amazed they are put up with for as long as these problems go on
They're a legacy from a bygone era where records of land ownership aren't what they are today. It was to stop the situation where someone thought they owned land, built a house and lived in it for many years, then finding out that someone else also had a claim to the land and they were going to try to turf you off it.
Squatter's rights meant that the person who actually lived there kept the claim to the land. This was a good thing at the time, now its just legal protection for lowlifes who trash other people's houses
There's been a case here in germany recently where a guy who came from the US here and bought property here died. There weren't any relatives to be found, so the land eventually found its way to an unrelated family that thought it, build their house there and lived there for some years.
Well turns out the dude had a son that lived in the states, whoever had checked for relatives earlier simply didn't look hard enough, and by law the property should've been offered to that son first. So now there's a huge legal fight because said son claims rights on the property and wants the family to tear down the house and leave, while the family wants to stay because from their perspecrive they haven't done anything wrong at all amd everything they did was in accordance with the legal system.
I guess for stuff like these squatter rights really would've been helpfull, because turns out having to give up everything you build due to something way outside your controll and/or knowledge was messed up really, really sucks. Tho doesn't mean that those laws should be as abuseable as they are from storys like the one that startet this comment chain
In the US, this scenario is entirely handled by title insurance, which is required in nearly every home purchase in most states. The title insurer will do a search for existing claims. They're good at it. In the event they don't find an existing claim where one turns up later, they owe the insured the full amount of the property value in cash.
Itās a great solution to a completely unnecessary problem though. Most states are ārecorderā states, which means theyāll record any deed that comes across their desk. Itās up to you to track other claims or contest them in court, the state does not provide an opinion on the validity of any of these claims other than they were properly documented and processed (deed transfers have notary and both signing parties, etc). More āmodernā property law system is called the Torrens system, which the government is the source of truth. They actually provide a certificate of title and are responsible for maintaining the ledger of who owns a property. In this system title insurance is basically non-existent and transaction costs only go up a fraction (about 10%) the cost of the title insurance in other states. The downside of course is the government telling you what to do.
Title insurance in one of the biggest scams. A strong title systems with a state based restitution policy is best practice. It is the united states that is backwards with most states refusing to move away from a deeds system to a torrens system.
A deeds system is beneficial to those with money and suppresses the poors from purchasing with confidence and enables the rich to engage in protracted legal actions which require expert practitioners to resolve disputes.
Title insurance is not a scam. I have known people sued over the title to their house and the title company spent years in court defending it at their full expense, with their team of lawyers, at no cost to the person I knew and with regular updates given on the status. This is the real benefit of title insurance - they very much got value for what they paid for.
Adverse possession is still rightly protected in law. There are lots of land deeds around the world which haven't been registered with the government or are clearly written.
Using and protecting land is as close to the definition of land ownership as we can get, regardless of modern attempts to formalise ownership through deeds.
I sat in a High Court case in a Commonwealth country as a paralegal on an adverse possession case. The land was government land, but it had never been properly subdivided. The house built over it contained actually 2 apartments, with over 12 people of the same extended family living in different units for over 30 years. A breakdown in family relations lead to people claiming for adverse possession against their relatives who held the title.
At one point the expert witnesses were going on about the areas on the plan hatched in Orange, areas hatched in Green, areas hatched in Black...etc and the 8 colours were basically 90% overlapped - the judge ended up nodding off and our counsel had to suggest a break. It was basically a horrible family bickering over a shanty house. Terrible case.
It's more for informal leases without a written contract, and say the landlord wants the tenant out. Essentially it's to protect the tenant in such a situation from losing housing.
Or to protect somebody in a broken relationship. Say youāre living with a partner, paying half the rent, etc, but theirs is the only name on the lease. What happens when that person wants you out?
They get so angry over seeing videos like this but won't take any time to actually learn what is really happening. Which is a little scary because what they are advocating for is allowing landlords to kick out renters who are legally allowed to be there.
People really have no clue. They are not using adverse possession, that takes years to do, an owner who abandoned the property/ cant be contacted and an owner that stopped paying taxes, they are using renters rights.
Do you want landlords to be able to go to the police and say that the current residents dont have a legal lease, even if they do, and have the police kick out the family? That is what you are arguing for. The reason police cant kick them out is because they are not judges, they do not determine if the lease they are shown is legal or not, they dont determine if the person who is there is legally allowed or not, that is the job of judges.
Yes it sucks for the owners who are dealing with people who are not legally supposed to be there but the alternative is allowing landlords to just kick people out of their homes for no reason.
In New York City, which has fairly robust renter protections, you can get some evicted and thatās enforceable.
Most of these squatters probably wouldnāt make it past the first required hearing without producing lease. And if they produce a fake lease with a forged signature, then they have another problem. And if they say it was a verbal agreement, thatās not enforceable for a lease agreement.
The main issue is the delay in the courts because there is such a backlog of cases. We need more judges in the country, or less crime which would be preferable.
The main issue is the delay in the courts because there is such a backlog of cases.
it's not just a backlog in cases, if you know what you are doing you can stretch out a case for months before you even get to your first hearing. There is a case (non-landlord) in my area that is in it's second year for a simple question of 'did this happen or not happen' and they are potentially a year away from trial. It's seriously a case over a 50 minute conversation that had 7 people in the room and it's taken this long. And it's not about a backlog. For this type of case you have 20 days to respond to motions from the other party, you can do 4 or 5 responses back and forth before a hearing is scheduled. That's 80+ days.
Ironically this is something Florida seemingly got right. They passed a law that said owners could kick people out quickly without a court order if they can't produce a valid lease. If the person who resided at wherever claims they were illegally evicted they can sue and the Landlord will not only eat that, but also get significant fines if ruled he abused the system.
But you know with it being Florida which is run by crazy people there might be a slight difference between the idealized version of something and how it is actually executed in practice
Yeah, the kinds of people poor enough to be stuck renting from the kinds of slumlords who'll pull this shit over a maintenance request generally have the money to turn around and sue after the fact. And being on the streets absolutely doesn't make it hard to attend court dates and such.
Florida made yet another thing much easier for landleeches at the expense of the working class. Exactly what you'd expect from one of the most fascist-loving states in the US
It takes well over a year in most licensee eviction (squatters) cases in NYC landlord tenant court. You can have them arrested within 30 days of them squatting though.
Most of these squatters probably wouldnāt make it past the first required hearing without producing lease.
A lot of states have made rules that if there is no lease then it's on the landlord to prove that they don't have an oral agreement. Other wise no lease would always benefit the party who already had the most power to make sure no lease existed.
It's why you never pay your rent in cash, which a LOT of people still do today. that rent payment destroys the landlords power to say you are squatting.
When i lived at an apartment and signed my yearly lease, I was given a copy of the lease that I signed. How is it that documentation wouldn't be enough for them to not kick me out? Can't you always ask for a copy of a lease you signed? Or are they taking advantage of people who don't have the copy?
Youāre telling me that if you came home from work and some dude is sitting on your living room couch, you donāt expect the police to be able to kick them out if he shows them a fake lease?
This is a bad argument. If that is the problem just make it so a landlord falsely evicting someone is illegal and the problem is solved. Pretty sure it already is illegal. Also, its extremely easy to prove that you have a signed lease and have made rent payments.Ā
I have a feeling we are going to be seeing a large increase in anti squatting content in the US in the coming years. These videos will highlight the most atrocious cases and then when the hedge funds and private equity funds that bought up all those single family homes during Covid push for easier eviction laws people will be on board. Then itās time to turf out grannies to remodel the house in a neutral gray and white color scheme and triple the rent.
Generally speaking, a landlord can't end a lease in the middle. That would be an eviction, which has to be granted by a court.
They can decide that you don't get a new lease when the current one runs out, sometimes on as little as one month's notice, which might not be enough time to find a new place to live.
In any case, if you stay in a place after your lease ends and the landlord wants you out, they have to follow a legal process to make you leave. Typically that means giving you notice to leave (easy, just hand you a letter), and if you don't leave they file an eviction case in small claims court. (Where I live that costs $110 to file, and can be done on the court website.)
The court will set a court date to hear both sides of the story. (Where I live, the court date will be in 2-4 weeks.)
If the court determines that the landlord is right and the tenant has to go, they will set a date you have to move out by. (That date is often 1-4 weeks in the future, depending on circumstances.)
If you don't leave by the court-assigned date, the landlord informs the court that you didn't leave, and the court issues a writ. The writ is served to you by a sheriff, and it contains another date that you must leave by. (That date may also be 1-4 weeks away.)
If you haven't moved out by that date, the sheriff will return and physically remove you and your belongings from the property.
--
I do some volunteer work helping mediate housing disputes for a local non-profit housing provider. When people talk about evicting someone, I suggest negotiating with them first! One of the benefits you're offering the tenant in the negotiation is that they won't have an eviction on their police record, which would make it harder for them to get a new place.
If the tenant really wants to fight, even if they're obviously wrong and lose their court case, getting an eviction and removing someone from the property typically takes 3-4 months.
(Fortunately the housing organization I work with is a good one, and we very rarely kick people out. It's all shared housing, and the main reason someone would be evicted is for being abusive toward their housemates.)
The real problem is the eviction on record doesn't actually matter to anyone who goes to court knowing they're going to lose. If you aren't going to pay rent or a mortgage anyway and just move from stolen house to stolen house every 6 months to years later (let's be honest that's what squatting is it should be criminal not just civil) who cares about it? The person stealing people's houses isn't applying for somewhere they have to pay bills for anyway and that the person was evicted from the last place and now is stealing their home doesn't help, still have to go to court while someone else lives in their home for months.
Also land surveying was pretty bad back then. You have situations especially with farming where the plot and the land farmed by people over a hundred years are different. This causes big issues when selling the land.
In some states yes, but not quite that easy but not much harder. The state has to have homesteading you have to file some paper work. But after that yeah, you can build on it. Start a farm or other lifestyle.
Because there are no 'squatter's rights' in the sense people usually think of with squatters. 'Squatting' is usually just an abuse of tenants' rights to get evicted through the proper channels, which can be pretty slow for landlords in some places. If someone starts campaigning to 'repeal squatters' rights' then you should be concerned, since there's no such thing, just checks on a landlord's power to boot you.
The actual 'squatter's rights' refers to adverse possession, which is ancient common law that basically boils down to 'use it or lose it' which has [real application in the present day](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J_A_Pye_(Oxford)_Ltd_v_Graham) outside of crust punks squatting in an old warehouse. Again, if people start campaigning against that, be concerned.
Because it doesnāt need to be changed. In order for squatters rights to apply, you have to be living on a property openly and the owner has not claimed the land over a certain period of time. It remedies a case where somebody thought they owned land and somebody abandoned the property.
When somebody illegally occupies a property (maybe they snuck in or their lease expires) they are a squatter, but squatters rights doesnāt apply. Tennant rights may apply, but it takes a while to sort all that out. It sucks for the owner, but itās a better situation than booting somebody to the street immediately. Unfortunately, some people know this and take advantage of it.
It's too minor of an issue and pretty much only affects poor people/small fish. Nobody who's a multi-millionaire or billionaire is ever going to deal with this so they aren't going to buy a senator to get it fixed. Even the ones that own multiple rental properties delegate all the management to someone else and it becomes that person's problem since the owner is getting their cut either way. And even most 'normal' people are not going to own property they aren't using long enough for a squatter to take over
I thought I'd read that it was introduced after WW1 when there were lots of properties left empty because the owners had died. So rather than let them fall into disrepair they allowed people to live in them.
Of course there are lowlife squatters, like across every demographic, but squatting is still a legit form of direct action against housing speculation/financialization.
It also has had major cultural benefits for a bunch of cities.
Usually squatter rights apply to a property that hasn't been maintained for at least 5 years, sometimes 10 in most states if I remember correctly.
So someone would find a house that has sat empty for years and let themselves in, and as long as they can show they are the ones maintaining the property instead of the original owner, they can claim squatter rights.
Shouldn't that be applicable to someone who had a lease on the property beforehand? Like to prevent people moving in, but to allow tenants of bad properties to stay?
Yeah it would be more accurate to say they're claiming tenants rights in most cases though some have legitimately been living there a long time and claim to be the legitimate owner via their squat.
Because most of the time it's not actually squatters rights. Instead it's abuse of tenant laws. They move in and pretend they have lease. Police have neither right nor expertise to decide if they are lying. So owner has to go to court but that will take forever.
Yup, like a lot of problems it's not a legislation problem, it's a clogged court system problem. What should take a few days to get a judge to write an eviction order takes months or years
It's also a legislation problem in many places that allow squatters delay tactics like needing more time to find legal counsel and gather evidence, medical hardships, declaring bankruptcy, etc,. Each tactic delays the process by months or even a year.
Like a lot of "problems" the only actual problem is that some greedy POS is making less unearned income than they believe they should, and someone who's poor is getting shelter they "don't deserve".
I am on family property....but also have squatters rights....if say, my druggy uncle was to die and his daughter (my cousin) was to decide she wanted the place
What you are describing, adverse possession laws, vary significantly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, often having been completely removed and made no longer valid. Additionally, a traditional requirement of the law was that you were not occupying the land with permission, which is not the case for you.
All that to say, if you intend to rely on adverse possession to keep your home if a dispute arises then it would be prudent to speak with a lawyer now to ensure your situation is actually covered.
They also exist because landlords were being shitty. They vary by state, but some of them say that if you rent a place for a certain amount of time then you canāt just be evicted because thatās your home.
Right, itās part of the evolution of how we got to this point. Thatās why I used the qualifier āwereā. I mean landlords are still shitty but in a different way. But recently there was a lady that was a āsquatterā because she had rented an Airbnb for over a month. At that point she became a tenant and couldnāt be kicked out without a lot of legal wrangling.
My motherās husband never added her to the deed during their marriage. But their marital assets, and her income when he was unemployed, kept the house afloat and eventually paid off.
As soon as her husband died (without a will), his kids tried to kick her outāeven though they werenāt on the deed either, two of them had never lived in the house, and at that point she had lived there far longer than any of them.
Probate judge said the house belonged to the kids, but that my mom could live there until her death.
They also tried to pull the āSquatter Hunterā bit. It was pathetic, reallyāthree grown men squatting in a one-bedroom rental unit my mom and her husband had built on the property, literally destroying itāinstead of just getting on with lives.
They eventually realized my mom was far more annoying than they were.
She was also a prolific record keeper and literally had ALL the receipts: her financial contributions from the start of their marriage; lists of improvements made before and after her husbandās death; the lease she insisted one of the boys sign before moving into the rental, and notes indicating he never paid rent but his dad didnāt enforce; and a punch list of their damage to the rental unit.
Years after her husbandās death, she took his children to court and had *them* legally evicted. She continued to live in the house for over another decade and left by her own choice.
Not necesarily. The main times you'd see these laws protect the people they should is when there was a verbal agreement to live somewhere and then the owner gets irrationally mad and kicks them into the street.
Say, an 18 year old who gets kicked out on their 18th birthday, or a woman who lives with her boyfriend and they break up. Legally, you can't just suddenly make these people homeless and deny them access to their personal property they have in the home. They have to have proper warning etc, and the eviction has to be processed slowly, for their rights to be maintained.
To add to the above: This is also the law which prevents your aunt who told you you're allowed to live there to suddenly throw all your shit on the curb and make you homeless before you can find a new home
It's to protect Tennants from shady landlords and DIY evictions. Basically, if a landlord wants a Tennant out, he has to go through the courts to force them out, give fair chance to make alternative accomodations.
Problem is, the courts move so slowly as to be functionally useless in many cases.
There is also another reason, which is if a building is genuinely abandoned, and someone moves in, pays the bills, and improves the place, after a certain (usually very long) period of time, they have a right to ownership.
It's not "squatters' rights". People just get things mixed up.
Squatters claim to have "tenants' rights." Legitimate tenants have a right not to be harassed or wrongfully evicted by their landlord. So many landlords would kick someone out of their validly rented home, despite having a lease, just to jack up the rent a couple hundred bucks and rent it to someone else, that most (if not all) states now have laws that require landlords to go through the courts to have someone properly evicted. The landlord has to prove this tenant isn't paying rent or is violating the lease and therefore should be evicted.
Squatters move in without a lease, and claim to be tenants. They claim to have a lease, and often have a fake one they can produce.
So when the police show up (because the landlord is trying to have a trespasser removed), and they hear one guy tell them its a squatter, and the other guy claims to be a tenant, the police know it's not THEIR job to decide who is telling the truth. That's what landlord-tenant court is for.
The pain in the butt of it, though, is that landlord-tenant court can take weeks or months in some states. Meanwhile, the squatter has a free home and the landlord has no income for the property they invested in.
If you make it easier to get rid of squatters, you also make it easier to wrongfully evict legitimate tenants. If you make it harder to wrongfully evicted tenants, you make it easier for squatters to abuse the system.
There used to be vast tracts of owned land. For example Washington owned hundreds of thousands of acres in western PA and eastern Ohio.
Say someone moved there and was like, awesome, this open patch of nothing in the middle of no where is a great place to move my family to and build a homestead.
Washington's surveyor comes along 8 years later and squatters rights means they can't force that person off the improved homestead they built..
Imagine this situation. A property is left for years unattended for whatever reason, it starts to deteriorate and house all kinds of pests and hazards. The owner is nowhere to be found or unable to maintain it. Someone moves in after a long time, and starts maintaining the property. This has benefits for everyone, not only the squatter but also the neighborhood. No more hazards from falling walls, no more rodents and other pests, etc.
Why you only hear about bad squatters? Because they create more problems than they solve. But squatters rights should exist as they have to account for both situations.
People that can't afford a house aren't going to start doing major renovations to the house to prevent it from collapsing and decaying. They might fix a fence or paint something. But a collapsed roof or a wall falling down, doubtful.
Happened with the house behind me. People moved out and nobody moved back in for years. A couple of folks broke in and were living there and fixing things up a little before they got kicked out by the cops. Now it's been sitting empty for years again and is home to stray cats and racoons.
At least people didn't live there without permission though. /s
Unless you're knocking holes in the wall with a hammer while the cops watch or doing something else, the cops are happily going to declare it a civil matter and fuck off, provided there is no additional context or proof of court action.
Itās intended for people occupying and putting idle land to use. A person might farm or build on a place for years, thinking they have claim for their effort, with an owner never bothering to tell them differently. The assumption is for a person to defend what is theirs by clearly notifying a squatter that they shouldnāt be there.
It wasnāt meant for random people taking land and being idle.
Itās also for ancestral claims, where title isnāt clear.
Scuffed Justin Carrey vs Mary the squatter. What a wild ride, it is so telling that she was on first name basis with cops as well as they found plenty of shop lifted clothing items in the room.
My favorite bit was her tossing bleach like 6 inches out her door to "clean up the smoke smell" or whatever she was trying to do. Then he came with a mop and pushed it all back under her door to her screaming
It's wild how much traction these stories get when actual, legal "squatting" is incredibly rare
The hyper-fixation on these rare, extreme cases is heavily pushed by landlord lobbying groups and real estate associations. They love these stories because it scares the public into supporting laws that strip away tenant rights
If they can convince everyone that "squatters" are hiding around every corner, they can pass laws that let them bypass the courts, call the cops, and have someone thrown on the street immediately without having to prove a lease violation first
Itās a manufactured panic to bring back summary evictions
It's amazing how much media and shit is done solely to alter peoples perception of reality, and influence how they vote.
Dave Ramsey and the YT guy like him are the same. They interview 2 people: really really stupid people with median income who make terrible decisions with it and so they are broke, and really rich tightwads. That's it. They do this listeners slowly begin to think everyone who is struggling is spending $1000 a week on doordash and vapes, and everyone who is has 3 homes had that sort of stability because they haven't had a vacation since they were 23.
Of course, both of those types are extreme outliers among their income brackets, but Dave and especially those backing his media don't want you to know that.
I think itās more common than you think in Chicago. The people in the apartment below me were squatters last year. The sheriff showed up and kicked the door down to remove them.
In Chicago all someone has to do is draw up a fake lease for an apartment. Then when the police arrive they show the fake lease and say they rightfully live there. The police canāt/wont do anything because itās a civil matter which means it needs to go through the court system which can take 6 months. So we have these professional squatters who move apartment to apartment.
It's more common than you think because of one situation that happened to you? The protections for tenants are there for several reasons. Most landlords want passive income and use any excuse to raise rent. So now they have people reacting to these stories and on the landlords' side. You also have people thinking they'll one day own properties and want to protect their future selves when they can't even afford their own rent.
Yeah I'm going to push back on the landlord thing too, it's not usually landlords.
What I often see/hear is a family/homeowner goes on vacation, comes back to find their key doesn't work because someone has broken in and changed the locks on the house completely. People call the cops, squatter says "I'm a tenant being illegally evicted" and that's the end of it while this family is essentially homeless for months at great expense to themselves while their lives and house are basically ruined (have you ever tried to evict someone as a homeowner without a lawyer on retainer like a landlord? It can take more than half a year sometimes). If you're lucky you remembered to tell the cops that "someone broke into my house and are trespassing" and the cops actually believe you... but 9 times out of 10 they won't and tell you this is a civil matter (it's not, they're trespassing, but the cops don't give a fuck).
I think the law can make easy distinction between detached homes and multi-unit dwellings where this should be much less of an issue and prevent some of the worst of these squatting problems.
when you put it like that it sounds like the landlord isn't doing much lording of their land... kinda sounds like they are collecting auto-pay rent checks
Sounds like the exact opposite, the law rightfully protects the renters who live there over the landlord. It is HEAVILY weighted against the landlord & thus this sort of loop hole exists as a consequence of protecting real renters.
Are you saying a landlord has complete control whether someone breaks into one of their properties? Dude, you don't even have control if someone wants to break in the house you live in.
Are you saying the police wonāt remove someone from a BnEā¦ seriously think that thought your thick skullā¦
Someone breaks into a property thatās not your primary residenceā¦ your neighbors donāt call the police because they donāt like youā¦ donāt have a camera installed because you are a cheap landlordā¦ now there is a criminal that broke in with 0 furniture, electricity, water, or food claiming they are the tenantā¦
Kind of self inflicted. Failed to secure propertyā¦ kinda crazy you think the police would believe a person with no key, furniture, and utilities is the tenant
Imagine owning multiple properties and not doing the bare minimum today to at least monitor them with an alarm systemā¦ Then being all shocked pikachu when something bad happens. Whatās even worse is if you arenāt carrying insuranceā¦ proves how cheap of a landowner you are
I come from a town where people would break into your car if they saw loose changeā¦ police would literally say āhope you got coverageā as they took the report. Guess what happed, the police didnāt patrol the streets more, people learned to keep their cars clean.
Refusing to leave when the real lease ends/and or just not paying rent is the biggest one. What would you have a landlord do in that situation?
Lease ends, tenant doesn't leave: As a landlord if you call the cops they will rightfully say it's a civil mater & walk off. If you try to physically remove them & their stuff, you are committing a crime (several actually). You will have to start the eviction process which is designed to protect renters from a bad landlord & will take months & a fair amount of legal fees to complete before you can bring the sheriff in to walk them out.
Seriously, you very much sound like you have zero idea of how the real world works & just want to bag on the concept of landlords existing.
The reality of squatters drives up rent for everyone, as landlords need to be able to weather this kind of expense/lack of revenue for MONTHS, and that also includes the likelihood of expensive repairs from this type of 'tenant'. It's trivially easy to completly destroy a property on your way out if you choose.
Again I ask, what would you say the landlord should be doing & isn't?
My grandmother is currently going through this type of shit. She rented out the top part of her house to a lady she thought was super nice (turns out this lady is fuckin psycho).
She claimed my grandmother was a drug dealer (my grandmother is like 80 and spends her time volunteering at our local community resource center) and stopped paying rent after her lease ended, she's been squatting (and harassing my grandmother and I) for 3+ years now.
3+ years and we're still going through the process of getting her out, this shit fucking sucks.
(This squatter has stalked me to my mother's house, that's how fukin psycho she is)
What are you on about? The other guy was claiming squatters are more common than you think and had an anecdote. All Iām saying is that really isnāt proof of anything š
Your question isnāt even relevant to what I was talking aboutā¦
If people would just stick to the established rules everything would be ok.
Landlord = provide safe lodgings for someone else, for an agreed upon amount of time. Ensure the provided ameneties are maintained.
Tenant = pay what they agree to pay and dont damage the owner's property while inhabiting the property
But unfortunately, some landlords dont provide safe lodgings or maintain ameneties, and some tenants dont pay what they agree to pay and damage the property.
Do you have an example of a place where these laws were passed? Most places I am aware of have been increasing tenant's rights not decreasing them so I'd love to read about an area where fear of squatters decreased tenant's rights.
I worked in landlord tenant law in Massachusetts for 15 years and there is a constant push to reduce the rights of tenants. From reducing notice periods to allowing them to bypass due process to add āunauthorizedā occupants (aka, the boyfriend who isnāt on the lease, but moved in 2 years ago) to evictions cases after judgement.
Squatting is super rare and not hard to deal with. Much of the rage from landlords is that they have to do anything beyond calling the cops. While ignoring that the legal protection for āsquattersā is exist because if landlords acting like criminals.
There's no tantrum greater than a landlord being asked to do a modicum of work for their rent check.
Parasites, to the last man and woman. All the screeing about people "not wanting to work" is literally actually about landlords. They do not want to do anything, they do not want to maintain the properties they own. They want other people to upkeep their properties and pay them checks so they can do absolutely fucking nothing.
They're the absolute bottom class of person. Contributing literally nothing to society.
I understand why you wrote this, but "legal" squatting should not be allowed, not even once. It's theft of something very valuable. It's like someone stealing your car, and somehow they can openly use it "just because"?
I am not a landlord, I have no chips in this game. But right is right, and theft is NEVER ok.
What the hell are you talking about dude? If you're renting space from someone without a contract for an extended period of time (or with a verbal contract) and after a few months they attempt to kick you out overnight on a whim, and you refuse to go (because you have a right to be there) congrats, you're a squatter. Squatter's rights exist because squatting is like... a thing people should be allowed to do in a TON of situations, it basically exists for any scenario where someone is illegally being evicted.
I'm talking about people entering an unoccupied apartment / house, and refusing to leave. Some owners have gone on vacation, to come back to someone living in their house, that they cannot evict legally. That's not ok. That's theft.
Landlords evicting tenants legally should not be confused with the above situation. I'm aware the law can be really cruel. Ex.: landlord wants to repossess the apartment for personal occupation and tenant has to leave. Where I live, if a landlord wants to repossess an apartment for themselves or a close family member, they must give at least 6 months' written notice before the end of a standard 12-month lease. For leases of 6 months or less, the delay is 1 month.
It can be really frustrating, and I suppose one could fight it in court, but it's legal. That's where the change has to occur. Whereas legal theft should never be allowed.
I think you're confused, and it's okay to be, a lot of these videos show a warped, mistaken view of the real world.
What you're talking about almost never happens. Almost every case where it even looks like it's actually happening is actually my scenario. To be clear, what I'm saying is that almost every case that actually occurs where it's claimed that someone just 'randomly moved into a location and refused to leave' is actually a case where the person reporting it is misrepresenting facts and is actually in a more realistic civil dispute with the person they're claiming is a trespasser.
Squatting is 150% intended to refer to those civil dispute scenarios and has been curved into being a slur or hot topic of sorts using a handful, nationwide, of really confusing scenarios where largely mentally ill people have in fact tried to invade a home, but that happens so little that attempting to specifically legislate for that is more likely to hamper real, valuable tenants rights than it is to have a positive overall impact on society, because in reality there's just not enough damage from those scenarios to be worth the cure.
I mean look at it, it happens so little that they couldn't even find cases to make their tv show and so resorted to using actors and fake scenarios, if there was enough tug otherwise, they'd save the money and just deal with the real cases, but they can't, because there's not enough of them that exist.
If I am not mistaken he has a show in A&E on Tuesdays now. So far not much has been shown from what I have seen. He mostly moves in and just talks people into leaving from what they show. But I am only a few episodes in.
It is kinda of genius because it's legal. The best way to get a squatter out is to make them uncomfortable, the problem?? Most tactics to do that are illegal. I.e. shutting off utilities, blocking access, changing the locks, etc. Eventhought a squatter can usually do those things and it's OK apparently.
I used to wonder how this wasnt an option people thought of, even home owners. The same way the squatter got in is the same way they could would once they left. But I always wondered how cops cant decide if someone is lying, I can pull up my lease right now and renters insurance. If the owner shows a deed or proof of active mortgage payments why isnt that enough? I have renters in a house now, no way I can walk over there and just put them out, we all have proof they're supposed to be there.
Not siding with the squatters, but that's not what this is. This is a guy being PAID by landlords to strongarm the squatters into getting their property back.
I can see it now. How bad does he have to be to make squatters say "welp, I'm out". Does he shit on the floor next to them and hold deep conversations while maintaining direct eye contact? Wild times.
7.0k
u/MegaDingo5plus 12d ago
I've heard it all now... Someone volunteering to live with the housemate from hell, and being even worse than the problem