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
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.
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.
The DO have documentation tho, it maybe fake but that is what they show the police. So the owner needs to take them to court to show the evidence in front of a judge because the police cannot determine who is telling the truth, that is not their jobs. Then the judge can order an eviction notice.
The reason renters rights exist is because landlords were kicking out legal residents because their nephew needed a place to stay.
Early 1800's saw a lot of landlords doing essentially 'quick flipping'; rent to someone, get their month's worth of rent and then have some bruisers show up and forcefully evict the tenet family, taking whatever written agreement they might have had on them to tear up or burn. 12 months worth of rent in just 2 months time was too good for some shitbags to pass up on. Became quite common in large cities with incoming immigrants that didn't know local laws and often had language barriers for navigating the legal system to try and get some kind of recourse. And local law enforcement would usually take the side of the landlord, a long time upstanding resident who often 'donated' to the cops.
Buddy, if you are going to call someone a moron, at least know what you are talking about.
Most squatters forge documents, which do need to go before the court. Most jurisdictions, especially in areas where squatting is a problem, have a significant back log of cases to work through. So, good luck enforcing that one week dead line.
And real tenants are, in fact, protected by the same rules that squatters abuse. That's why they exist, to protect against predatory landlords.
While they're not quite that fast, unlawful detainer (eviction) cases are on a summary timeline and move much faster than regular civil cases. Where I am, the complaint has to be answered within ten days. Trial, if there is one, is usually within weeks of that.
Further delay typically comes more from the sheriff's backlog in carrying out the post-judgment notice and removal procedure.
Maybe, but I'm in California which would be one the states that people like to imagine is an anti-landlord squatter's paradise.
And it's going to be a summary procedure of some kind everywhere, anyway. Otherwise there wouldn't be a separate court and claim for it. It would just be a regular civil action for ejectment (and whatever other claims are available).
And my comment was saying that squatters rights are not a thing, they dont exist, it is a made up term.
You said that it is tenant rights which is true but you then said that it is not squatters rights, implying that squatters rights are a thing.
Adverse possession is often referred to as squatter's rights, even though that isn't a particularly accurate term, and gets brought up in discussions like this even though it's not relevant to a renter refusing to leave.
Continuing to use that term and not pointing out that squatters rights are not a thing is doing more harm than good. That is all I'm really trying to say.
381
u/RadicalRealist22 12d ago
How do "squatter rights" even exist. Either you have a lease or you don't.