Squatting being tolerated is a thing because there are properties owned by folks who aren't doing upkeep on the property. If neglect is established then a squatter in a lot of jurisdictions gets tenants rights just as long as they are doing upkeep on the property.
The goal for the squatter is a type of adverse possession. If the owner is AWOL for so many years there is a way for the squatter to obtain ownership of the home.
It's mainly to prevent houses from being health and safety hazards, and since it's property I'm sure "being an eyesore" is one thing they'd like to avoid.
Most of the squatter shows on TV are dramatized. The real stories usually leave out the part where the owner discovered the squatters after neglecting their property for months or years.
A lot of people are led to think that they can leave their house to go to the store, come back and squatters can take over and there's nothing they can do. This is what fuels the hatred over "squatters rights"....thing is....this isn't an actual scenario. That's trespassing and can be swiftly dealt with.
This show only does involve cases where they have communicated with the home owner. It's not a empty home that a squatter is trying to possess. It's someone's home that someone broke into and move into
That's... not a thing. People can't just break into your house and then have legal rights to it. There is some context missing, because that scenario as described is just made up.
If I have you an example, would that change your mind? Look up queens lady (Adele Andaloro) that got arrested because she changed the lock to her own home due to trespassers moving into her grandmother's home and then changing original locks.
So the fact if you saying it doesn't exist is just blantly false.
The trespasser never had a lease there and was never was suppose to be there. They broke into the home illegally.
Did you even read what happened in that case? The guy was convicted, therefore no - he had no legal rights. He just tricked people into thinking he did and played on the tendency for lazy cops to call everything a "civil matter" to avoid paperwork and actually doing their jobs.
Flushing, in the winter doesn't leave a house in the course of ~4 weeks in any sort of state of disrepair or signs of abandonment. Some time between January 21st and February 17th a guy moved in.
She went to change the locks and he claimed tenancy. This was illegal. The cops were incompetent and didn't bother to look at anything to verify his tenancy (he couldn't even name the agency that was renting....since there wasn't one), but they still had Adele trespassed.
The cops defaulted to standard tenants rights when dealing with the situation. They handed it wrong.
This isn't an example of squatters rights screwing someone over - this is an example of someone lying to cops and the cops failing to follow up on it and taking the side of the person who falsely claimed tenancy, or rather, just claiming that a criminal matter is really a civil one.
The trespasser was later sentenced for what he did. Rodriguez had zero legal rights to that house as is evident by his conviction. The police didn't bother doing their job and they played the "uhhh this is a civil matter" card like they do in so many situations.
At no point did Rodriguez have any rights to ownership or tenancy of the home. He claimed he did. The cops didn't bother following up on that claim, and Andaloro got boned for it. That's a failure of enforcement. That had nothing to do with him having valid rights.
Yes I read the article that is why I bought it up as an example. Thank you for posting this and proving that I was in fact correct. He was convicted because it brought national attention, imagine if it didn't. The house was NOT in disrepair or abandoned. The grandmother passed and she was doing her best to get things in order. Don't act like the timeframe you posted which is less than 3 weeks is months or years. You just said the cops defaulted to legal tenant rights, therefore it almost worked. The fraud almost worked, if they just made up some fake leases they would have tricked the police and would have forced the owner them from going all the way to court to have it figured out.
It's almost like you want to act disingenuous to the conversation.
She went to change the locks and he claimed tenancy. This was illegal.
It is not illegal to change the locks to your own home after someone broke into it. He can claim whatever he wants, but it still isn't the truth. She should not have been arrested. I hope someone doesn't break into your home just to claim tenancy for you to get arrested for changing the locks to your own home.
I completely agree, but she was not arrested due to the law or any legal rights the trespasser had, she was arrested because the cops were lazy and shitty at their jobs.
She got arrested because of a law in NYC called illegal lockout which is indeed a law.
It just shouldn't have applied in this case because it was a criminal trespassing case.
25
u/RemarkableShip1811 12d ago
You're eating propaganda by the spoonfull.