Plus, if they've got the balls to break in the house, what's to prevent them from coming over here?
Huh?!? I'm always amazed at the ease of fear-mongering that some people come to. The squatter didn't break into an occupied home (assuming he broke in at all), he occupied a vacant abandoned home. At least he's trying to publicly live there and make it his, which may help reduce more malicious squatters from occupying that home and using it for criminal purposes (this has happened with abandoned homes in Las Vegas, NV).
At least now the neighbour can claim a 100% occupancy rate in the neighbourhood, and not one where there exists an abandoned, foreclosed home.
She's most likely jealous (of something she already has but has to share and is still paying mortgage on) and grasping at straws. It's something humans do.
I don't entirely understand. He has to live in it for 7 years to claim ownership and Bank of America has already issued an eviction notice, how is he still allowed to live there?
The process of eviction takes time. In some places, depending on how busy the court is, it can take a lot of time. Add in the large amount of people who simply stopped paying their mortgages and how many mortgages BofA probably owns and it can take a long time for them to even get to a particular mortgage.
Now that BofA has filed the paperwork the guy will likely be forced out in 1-2 mos.
Just wait until the bank uses non-lethal force, such as tear gas, to defend their property thus encouraging him to leave and end his 7 year stay early...
Good for him, hope he holds onto it. He'd better start researching persuasion techniques, bet they hire some ex-cops to social engineer him into slipping up.
I mean a sly ex-cop/PI is going to pose as a delivery guy and wake the kid up at 8AM after he feels safe and gets sloppy, and get him on camera agreeing that he doesn't really own the place.
Something like that is my guess. There are a million tricks that they will use, depending on how resourceful and stubborn they are.
From what I understand, what he's doing is not in question. Part of this law is that he has to openly state that he intends to squat and use this law to eventually take ownership. He's not denying that the property does not currently belong to him.
I'm talking about using social engineering techniques to get him to let his guard down and admit he's pulling something.
"Nice scam you got going here kid" "Thanks" He admitted it was a scam! Get him!
Just an example as to the kind of thing I would imagine private companies would do to get him out of there by technicality, against his own usage of a technicality law.
That wouldn't make a difference. What you're calling a scam, is actual law. He can do this. Part of being able to do this is admitting what you're doing. He has a sign on the front window explicitly stating what he's up to. Does not sound like there's anything to get him to admit.
Have any of you ever seen the 7-up series? It's a series of documentaries that follow a bunch of from age seven through age 49. I think it's available on hulu.
One of them squats for a while and this just reminded me of that.
Given http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adverse_possession , I don't see how he can hope to prevail. The true owner has tried to remove the disseisor . Although it does appear the young man will be able to go on a trip and isn't under a self imposed house arrest.
I first heard about squatting while I was in Amsterdam in 2007. They even had squatted restaurants. The rule there was that if you found a building not lived in for 12-months, you could break in, put your own lock, a table, chair, and bed then call the cops and let them know you were squatting. The process to kick out a squatter could last over a year. I just learned that it was outlawed in 2010, but that it still goes on.
------
"In the past a building could be used legally by someone who needed to squat if it was empty and not in use for twelve months, and the owner had no pressing need to use it (such as a rental contract starting in the next month). The only illegal aspect was forcing an entry, if that was necessary. When a building was squatted, it was normal to send the owner a letter and to invite the police to inspect the squat. The police checked whether the place was indeed lived in by the squatter. In legal terms, this means there must be a bed, a chair, a table and a working lock on the door which the squatter can open and close.
In cities, there was often a kraakspreekuur (squatters' consultation hour), at which people planning to squat could get advice from experienced squatters. In Amsterdam, where the squatting community is still large, there are four kraakspreekuur sessions in different areas of the city, and so-called "wild" squatting (squatting a building without the help of the local group) is not encouraged.[27] Dutch squatters use the term krakers to refer to people who squat houses with the aim of living in them (as opposed to people who break into buildings for the purpose of vandalism or theft).[5]
...
On October 1, 2010, squatting was finally outlawed in The Netherlands after the Squatting Ban Bill was passed into law by both houses of Parliament. On October 28, 2011, the Supreme Court of the Netherlands decided that the legally forced end of squatting can only occur after an intervention of a judge.
The history is complicated, but it has a lot to do with the housing shortage in Amsterdam (and other places in NL) and the concept of a right-to-live.
If many buildings in an area are sitting unoccupied, unused, and potentially falling apart while simultaneously affordable housing is unavailable, it becomes morally justifiable to squat. This is especially true if the landlord has had ample time to renovate, find tenants, or sell the property... If he has failed to do so, he is actually contributing to the shortage of affordable housing by driving prices up.
Regulations permitting squatting put pressure on landlords, which seemed to work pretty well. Landlords used "anti-squat" tactics - renting out vacant properties on a temporary basis (i.e. with the option to evict at any moment) to prevent a squat. These rates were excellent in Amsterdam, and many students and would-be squatters took advantage of this, effectively bringing 'squatting' into the economy.
Clever hack. These have popped up regularly in the media over the last year or two. Texas is another popular spot, given their laws and abundance of foreclosures.
It is a requirement that they maintain the property and make improvements while living in it - seems much better for RE prices than a boarded up foreclosed house. Soccer moms can't see it that way though, they just see this guy getting something 'free' that they had to pay for, and get furious.
Huh?!? I'm always amazed at the ease of fear-mongering that some people come to. The squatter didn't break into an occupied home (assuming he broke in at all), he occupied a vacant abandoned home. At least he's trying to publicly live there and make it his, which may help reduce more malicious squatters from occupying that home and using it for criminal purposes (this has happened with abandoned homes in Las Vegas, NV).
At least now the neighbour can claim a 100% occupancy rate in the neighbourhood, and not one where there exists an abandoned, foreclosed home.