
A $330,000 home for $16? Texas adverse possession law - tortilla
http://www.wfaa.com/news/local/Texas-Law-Lets-Stranger-Move-Into-330000-Home-125528248.html
======
_delirium
At least as it currently stands, this case seems to mostly have to do with
difficulties of eviction, especially when the house is in a weird ownership
status. He hasn't been living on the land nearly long enough to actually have
any real rights through adverse possession (roughly, "squatter's rights"), and
could be evicted by the owner at any time. He just seems to think, possibly
correctly, that eviction is unlikely for a variety of reasons, and so hopes to
stay long enough that adverse possession _will_ become relevant, if he de-
facto lives in the house long enough without being evicted.

The main thing that keeps him "legal" in a certain sense is that, due to
particularities of Texas law, once he's filed that document, it's a civil
dispute over ownership, not a criminal case, so police won't evict him for
trespassing unless a court resolves the civil dispute first, and orders
eviction. He's betting that nobody is going to get around to pursuing that
case, even though they would probably win if they did (since he does not in
fact own the property, either _de jure_ or through sufficiently long de-facto
possession).

~~~
dctoedt
Under Texas law it likely will take 10 years for the squatter to acquire title
via adverse possession.[1][2] In the meantime, whoever is the true owner can
sue in civil court at any time to have the squatter evicted.

I can see why the police didn't want to get involved when it was only the
neighbors who complained. If the record owner were to complain (the one who
walked away), the police might well arrest the squatter for trespassing.

[1] <http://www.lonestarlandlaw.com/Adverse.html>

[2] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adverse_possession>

~~~
tptacek
In Illinois you get 20 years, and must possess the property continuously, in
actuality, open and notoriously and exclusively. The occupation also must be
hostile. In all these regards, the burden of proof is on the person trying to
claim adverse possession.

My question for you, as a lawyer who might know this: can you beat an adverse
possession claim simply by giving the squatter permission? Would a written
notice permitting occupation for, say, 60 days, reset the clock on "continuous
hostile actual occupation"?

~~~
fleitz
Given the article it sounds like he's satisfied all of the conditions,
everyone wants him out (hostile), he's filed the paperwork (open), he's had it
written about in the paper (notorious), and he's established residence by
camping in the living room.

Even if he doesn't get the house he's still living rent free.

~~~
Estragon
Rent free, but living without water and electricity (not to mention the
respect of your neighbors) has got to suck, especially in Texas.

~~~
stcredzero
In South Carolina, I met a cabbie who was renovating a big Federal style house
in the north part of town. No furnace, and certainly no AC. He was also camped
out in the living room, and doing all of the work himself. Got a $20,000
community reinvigoration loan from the government to help him out.

------
TamDenholm
"If he wants the house, buy the house like everyone else had to," Lowrie said.
"Get the money, buy the house."

My personal opinion is good on the guy, if hes smart enough to find a way to
legally obtain a house like this then more power to him. Mrs Lowrie is just
pissed she didnt get the same opportunity.

~~~
tptacek
This person is gaming a law designed to protect homeowners from spurious
litigation†. He knows full well he has no moral right to the property
("adverse selection" codes are not an invitation to utilize unused property).
He's taking advantage of someone else's misfortune in a long shot bid to poach
property.

It seems weird to me that anyone would cheer him on. Within reasonable limits,
a shorter time based hurdle to adverse possession claim is more homeowner-
friendly. Texas is on the lower side at 10 years. The only possible outcome to
a spate of bad-faith adverse possession claims is for the state to jack the
limit up to 20 or 30 years.

† _More commonplace application of adverse possession: I build a new garage,
but somehow get the property line wrong and impinge on my neighbor. Nobody
notices. Later, I sell my house to you. A couple years after that, my old
neighbor sues you._

~~~
brudgers
> _"He knows full well he has no moral right to the property_

Throughout the Americas, the same logic that one can claim ownership of unused
land underpins most land titles - e.g. the original entitlement of most of
Texas was made on the basis that the land was underused. One need only look at
the sovereign land grants which most title histories in the US begin with.

~~~
philwelch
If you go far back enough, all land ownership is based on "might makes right".
There's always a genocide or war at some point in the process.

As it happens, the organized might (the government) has decided to maintain
and enforce a regulated market in real estate, largely to everyone's benefit.

------
benmccann
The TV station was actually helping his cause by running this story since one
of the requirements is "open and notorious use of the property." The use of
the property must be so visible and apparent that it gives notice to the legal
owner that someone may assert claim. The posting of no trespassing signs that
they talked about also improves his claim to the home.

~~~
Dylan16807
Letting the neighbors know and a sign or two is probably plenty for that. Once
you meet the requirement anything extra isn't contributing.

~~~
ToastOpt
And by running the story, the rightful owner might become aware of the
situation and take action.

------
gokhan
_"Please tell us about the time you, Kenneth Robinson, most successfully
hacked some (non-computer) system to your advantage."_

------
trotsky
Curious that the neighbors would rather have an unmaintained and abandoned
property sit vacant and all of the potential associated problems with that
rather than occupied by someone who presumably has an interest in keeping it
up.

~~~
tptacek
The neighbors would prefer that the market for houses clears, preferably at a
favorable price but in any case at _some_ price, so that the people residing
in their neighborhood have a safe enough claim in the property to invest in
it.

By locking up a property in pointless litigation, this person has taken one
house in the neighborhood and made it illiquid. The squatter is extremely
unlikely to prevail in the long run. The incentives are not set up for them
to, say, plant trees or properly rebuild roofs. In fact, the incentives are
the opposite: the rational squatter does the bare minimum required to claim
continuous actual possession, while investing in some other property where
maintenance and improvements promise an actual return on investment. The
incentive structure for squatting almost begs for meth labs.

Adverse possession isn't the state's way of making sure houses are put to good
use.

~~~
Vivtek
It's already illiquid - the current mortgaged owner has fled without putting
the house on the market. If it were a case of just a few houses, as in the
normal economy, I'd agree with you, but there are a _whole shitload_ of houses
in similar situations in the United States right now. This squatter is a
better neighbor than a crack house. (Unless he decides to diversify.)

If the neighbors really want a say in it, they're free to pony up the money,
track down the owner, and fight their own court battle to buy the place and
then rent or sell to somebody they'd rather see there. It would probably be
pretty cheap, actually, even with legal fees. But people always find it easier
to say "You can't do that" than to say "We can do that."

~~~
icebraining
But if the owner didn't pay, the mortgage company - and by extension, whoever
got the rights to that debt - can foreclose on the house and sell it, no? I
assume whatever company know owns that mortgage wants to recover their losses
by selling it ASAP.

~~~
Vivtek
Maybe. If they still have the paperwork. And if they can sell it. I mean, I
got _my_ house for $8K, of which the bank got $4K, on an outstanding mortgage
of something like $56K. And there are lots of vacant houses - the city
actually demolished one last winter that was owned by Deutsche Bank because
they hadn't even responded to letters from the city.

And that's for the mortgage holders that are still in business. This one
isn't. Presumably someone holds their assets - but my guess is they're in even
more frightful a mess.

------
thomaslangston
I'm pretty happy with the similar "squatter's rights" laws. Abandoned property
is generally a drag on a community (e.g. lower property values, danger to
children, haven for criminals). If someone is willing to provide upkeep in
such a precarious situation for years and the owner doesn't protest, I'd love
to see them take possession.

~~~
tptacek
That's not why we have squatter's rights laws. As a rational economic matter,
squatters are not incentivized to provide good upkeep; in most states, the
only thing that requires them to perform _any_ upkeep are village building
codes.

~~~
kragen
> the only thing that requires [incentivizes] them to perform _any_ upkeep are
> village building codes.

Well, and the fact that if they don't scrape and repaint the peeling paint in
the living room, they have to live in a living room with peeling paint.

I just came back from fixing my bike at a pizzería that's been squatted for
about ten years now by a group of local anarchists and other socialists, who
have converted it into a community center. Twice a week they have bike-fixing
workshops, where they teach you to fix your bike and supply you with the tools
and the parts you need. (And solicit donations.) The place is a lot better
maintained than many buildings I've been in around here.

If your beliefs about incentives and rational economic matters fail to
describe how people actually behave, you should revise your beliefs.

(Yes, squatting is risky, because you could lose everything you've worked for.
It would be particularly amusing if you were really arguing that risking
working for years and then losing everything is _irrational_ on a web site
_devoted to high-tech startups_.)

------
hammock
Just reading the article and the way his neighbors were complaining on him, I
knew he had to be black. And then I watched the video and my hunch was
confirmed.

~~~
charlieflowers
I bet you are right ... those neighbors are working a little too hard for
something that is only a minor irritant at worst, and at best could be a big
benefit to the neighborhood. There simply isn't motive for all the hours and
energy they're investing in fighting it. Unless there's some other motive
involved. Probably more like classism than racism.

~~~
ruby_on_rails
Lol, I guessed at that too, I thought classism but racism was a possible too.

Though, now that he is one of those black people it is safe to say that the
neighbors are right and people like that should not be allowed to vote
irregardless of laws written in the mid 1800's. I hope everyone makes it out
Sunday night to the neighbor hood klan meeting so we can all praise white
jesus, drink beer, and talk crap about all those seedy black people.

------
MrBlue
This is a great example of "hacking":

1) Research a system to find a vulnerability 2) Exploit the vulnerability 3)
Profit

Good for him but I think the real challenge will be keeping the house over the
next x amount of years until his name is on the title.

------
gyom
I'm guessing all these neighbors really wished they had gone into the house
and squatted. Think about it, they were right there, right close to the big
$300,000 bounty, and they just didn't know that it was there for the taking
(legally).

------
tzs
Explanation of Texas adverse possession law:
<http://www.lonestarlandlaw.com/Adverse.html>

------
city41
If his plan does succeed and he does end up with the title, won't the taxes on
the house be an enormous burden? I wonder what his plan is for that.

~~~
anamax
> If his plan does succeed and he does end up with the title, won't the taxes
> on the house be an enormous burden?

Enormous relative to what? The taxes may be less than low-end rent.

> I wonder what his plan is for that.

His plan better be to be paying the taxes now.

If no one is paying the taxes, the folks who want taxes are going to foreclose
and boot the guy out. His "squatters rights" won't help him against that.

~~~
ahlatimer
Texas property taxes are the third highest in the nation [1]. About 1.81% of
the property value annually, or $5,430 in this case with a home value of
$300,000. That's about $450/mo., which seems reasonable for low end rent in
some parts of Texas. Property taxes vary by county, so Denton may have a
higher or lower property tax than the average in Texas.

[1]: [http://dallasdirt.dmagazine.com/2010/10/05/texas-property-
ta...](http://dallasdirt.dmagazine.com/2010/10/05/texas-property-taxes-third-
highest-in-nation-percentage-of-median-value/)

------
charlieflowers
I'm laughing at the idiot neighbors. They have no motive to oppose his
ownership other than jealousy or exclusivity (snobbishness). It is better for
their neighborhood home values that the guy stay there so someone will cut the
freaking grass and keep the place clean.

------
techsupporter
I just did some perusing of the records against this property and my bet is
this guy is screwed now that the news media has picked it up. The mortgage
company didn't "go out of business." According to deed records, the mortgage
is owned by one or more of: Countrywide Home Loans, CWABS Asset-Backed
Certificates[...], and ReconTrust Company of Texas. I can't tell what the
second entity's full name might be (Denton County's deed image server is down
and the name is longer than the data page shows), but the other two are now
subsidiaries of Bank of America.

Why does this matter? Bank of America never actually foreclosed, so the
original owner[1] is still the owner of record. The original owner can still
contest the adverse possession in short order without dealing with the
mortgage mess, assuming he cares to do so. In addition, BofA can foreclose and
then evict the current occupant.

1 - Not naming the current owner here, but it is a public record.

------
stcredzero
I spent one Saturday helping a friend to pound in fenceposts for a minimal
fence because of this Texas law.

If you ever have to do this, buy a lead pipe. Otherwise, the top of a
fencepost is an annoying high target to hit with a sledgehammer! You simply
put the lead pipe around the metal fencepost and you use it like a pile-driver
against a couple of flanges close to the bottom.

If the neighbors are too stupid/lazy to contact the owner of record and do
something about this, instead of complaining to the cops who have no authority
in this case, then they deserve to have their desires frustrated.

------
cshesse
Why don't the neighbors find the guy with the deed to the house, and pay him a
few k$ to throw out the squatter?

------
dancavallaro11
" _Avidavit_ of adverse possession"?

------
nolite
those jealous fucks

------
sitkack
You can do this with code as well. Migrate from sourceforge, put an -ng on the
name and put it on github.

