Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I just read a story in Detroit Free Press about a squatter taking over a bank owned house.
The story states that only the property owner can "evict" a squatter and in fact has to go through the eviction process through court as if the squatter was a legitimate renter with a signed lease. This can take months.
I don't understand. Why can't a squatter be charged with trespassing and forced to vacate the premises just like any other tresspasser?
I just read a story in Detroit Free Press about a squatter taking over a bank owned house.
The story states that only the property owner can "evict" a squatter and in fact has to go through the eviction process through court as if the squatter was a legitimate renter with a signed lease. This can take months.
I don't understand. Why can't a squatter be charged with trespassing and forced to vacate the premises just like any other tresspasser?
Adverse possession like this rarely has the result of the squatter keeping the property. They have to occupy the property without permission for a number of years, that number varying from state to state. In some states they have to pay the property taxes also. It takes a court order, and in the mean time they may do damage to the house, but usually the squatters are removed. The owner has the burden of proof and has to prove they are not a legal tenant. The whole thing doesn't seem right or fair to me. They rules are a little different if this is a summer house that the owner doesn't occupy all the time. There are some gray areas.
If the house is occupied it is different and an owner or legal tenant can just call the police and report trespassing.
Laws very state to state, within counties and municipalities.
Generally speaking, a tresspessor breaks in and in theory can be charged with a crime in many places. A squatter walks into a vacant building and moves in. Many vacant properties are not secured or if they were, don't remain secured. Squatters have rights the longer they squat in most places.
European countries has been dealing with squatter rights for centuries. It's mind boggling what's going on in Amsterdam.
It bothers me because it is a legal way to steal something unless the owner wants to go to the expense of legal proceedings. I think laws need to be changed.
It bothers me because it is a legal way to steal something unless the owner wants to go to the expense of a few common measures to protect their interests like good locks, plywood, signage and just visiting their vacant now and then rather than later having to absorb the costs of legal proceedings. I think laws need to be changed.
We had squatters in one property that we owned. They were there for a few days and luckily we had hem arrested so they left in a police car.
But they came back and broke a windown. They havent been back to stay as we curbed all their belongings.
Time is the essence of getting them out ; the sooner you know they are there, the better as otherwise time is on their side.As a landlord, if you know they are there and do nothing to prevent them coming back, you are permitting them to stay.
Ive heard of squatting but i didnt think it was a real problem. that's absolutely the most absurd law ive ever heard. right up there with evading a ticket because of entrapment from a police officer. I couldnt imagine having to deal with that situation. i dont have the patience to go through any legal proceedings with something so ridiculous.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.