Couple fights to evict stranger who moved into their home without permission - Polidicks

[url]http://www.ktvb.com/news/local/couple-fights-to-evict-stranger-from-nampa-home/128686427[/url] [Quote]CALDWELL -- A Canyon County couple is back to the drawing board after a judge ruled against allowing them to fast-track the eviction of a stranger who moved into their house without permission. Brian and Renae Prindle discovered last month that someone was living inside the home at 37 South Westwood they had put up for sale.[/quote] [Quote]The woman, Debbra Smith, said she moved into the home after calling a number on a sign advertising rental properties. Smith said she believed the person she dealt with was the owner - she gave him more than $1,500 in rent and deposits, and he gave her a key to the house. The Prindles say police told them the issue was a civil matter, and they weren't allowed to just kick Smith out.[/quote] [Quote]The pair say Smith has allowed her cat to relieve itself on the carpet indoors, and someone has repeatedly kicked the walls of the home, leaving marks. They also accused the woman of using drugs, and brought pictures they had taken of marijuana bags and pipes they say they found in the house to court Monday to plead their case. Under Idaho law, homeowners and landlords can expedite the eviction process if a tenant is using or selling drugs on the property. But Judge Debra Orr denied the Prindles' request, saying there was no proof the substances in the photos were drugs because they had not been tested in a lab. Orr said she understood the homeowners' predicament, but that they needed to pursue a traditional eviction to get Smith out.[/quote] Video in source. Basically, even though this couple owns the property and the woman living in it is a squatter who never signed any agreement with the property owners or paid them any money, a judge has ruled that they must go through the lengthy and expensive process of a traditional eviction. Meanwhile, the potrntial buyer for their home is very likely to back out of the deal given the odd circumstances, potentially costing the family even more money. The squatter is claiming that she was duped by somebody claiming to be the property owner, who collected money from her and had her sign a fake lease. She says that she is as much a victim as the owners.

Why can't the squatter tell the Judge about the person who duped her? If she can't give any evidence then it's likely she's lying to remain in the household. And it's a complete fuck up that a lot of these "Squatting" things happen in the USA, glad it doesn't happen in Newfoundland.

Squatters rights always seem like a massive joke, oh yeah I just illegally entered a house and I'm just going to do whatever I want.

[QUOTE=Keyblockor1;50137598]Why can't the squatter tell the Judge about the person who duped her? If she can't give any evidence then it's likely she's lying to remain in the household. And it's a complete fuck up that a lot of these "Squatting" things happen in the USA, glad it doesn't happen in Newfoundland.[/QUOTE] What I don't understand is why it matters in the first place. She may have been duped, and that is tragic if it happened and I hope she receives help, but in ruling that she could stay in the property through a lengthy traditional eviction process the judge is essentially making MORE victims. This is costing the homeowners money by the day. It might sound a bit callous, but the squatter being a victim of a scam is not their fault and not their problem, and they should not be obligated to provide a home for her against their will for any amount of time. The judge's ruling in this case is actively harmful. As a future investor and landlord, that is a nightmare scenario for me.

[QUOTE=Keyblockor1;50137598]Why can't the squatter tell the Judge about the person who duped her? If she can't give any evidence then it's likely she's lying to remain in the household. And it's a complete fuck up that a lot of these "Squatting" things happen in the USA, glad it doesn't happen in Newfoundland.[/QUOTE] In the United States, its the responsibly of the accuser, not the defendant, to prove anything.

I don't get why this isn't just easy trespassing. Ask her to leave, she doesn't leave, and call the police to have her arrested. Done.

These squatting situations are an unfortunate side-effect of having strong laws in place to protect tenants from abusive landlords. It's sad to see these privileges abused this way, but understand that there is good reason for them to exist.

If I saw someone trespassing on my property, I'd arm myself and confront them. That'd probably scare them off.

[QUOTE=sgman91;50137766]I don't get why this isn't just easy trespassing. Ask her to leave, she doesn't leave, and call the police to have her arrested. Done.[/QUOTE] That's basically it, it's a simple case of trespassing. The squatter is not a tenant, they do not have a contract/lease/rental agreement of any sort with the owners of the property that allows them to be there. Breaking and entering, as well as trespassing, are illegal. Depending on the state, you may be able to remove them with force on your own.

[QUOTE=FordLord;50137838]That's basically it, it's a simple case of trespassing. The squatter is not a tenant, they do not have a contract/lease/rental agreement of any sort with the owners of the property that allows them to be there. Breaking and entering, as well as trespassing, are illegal. Depending on the state, you may be able to remove them with force on your own.[/QUOTE] Do not do this. Until you have clear legal guidance from a lawyer, it is 100 times more complicated. The accused squatter claimed residency through supposedly legal means (but to us, obviously not). That means that they have the rights of being the homeowner until proven otherwise. You have zero legal authority to use any force or threatened force against them. They are not breaking and entering. They are not trespassing.

[QUOTE=FordLord;50137838]That's basically it, it's a simple case of trespassing. The squatter is not a tenant, they do not have a contract/lease/rental agreement of any sort with the owners of the property that allows them to be there. Breaking and entering, as well as trespassing, are illegal. Depending on the state, you may be able to remove them with force on your own.[/QUOTE] The owners DID call the police, who told them this was a civil matter, not a legal one. So, they went to court, and the judge ruled in favor of the "tenant," forcing the owners to go through a lengthy and expensive eviction process. Like, yeah, ideally this would be a simple case of calling the police and saying, "there's a squatter, remove her," but clearly there are some strong tenant protection laws in place in this state/county that are really biting the owners in the ass. If they took it upon themselves to remove this woman by force, then they would likely face serious legal trouble over that-- especially after the judge's ruling.

[QUOTE=Code3Response;50137867]Do not do this. Until you have clear legal guidance from a lawyer, it is 100 times more complicated. The accused squatter claimed residency through supposedly legal means (but to us, obviously not). That means that they have the rights of being the homeowner until proven otherwise. You have zero legal authority to use any force or threatened force against them. They are not breaking and entering. They are not trespassing.[/QUOTE] The house is in my name. I do not have any agreement, spoken or otherwise, with the person trespassing, therefore the person does not have any legal standing to live there. Imo, the fact that this doesn't seem to be true tells me that we don't really own our own housees anymore. The government owns it and let's you live there.

[QUOTE=Code3Response;50137867]Do not do this. Until you have clear legal guidance from a lawyer, it is 100 times more complicated. The accused squatter claimed residency through supposedly legal means (but to us, obviously not). That means that they have the rights of being the homeowner until proven otherwise. You have zero legal authority to use any force or threatened force against them. They are not breaking and entering. They are not trespassing.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=sgman91;50137889]The house is in my name. I do not have any agreement, spoken or otherwise, with the person trespassing, therefore the person does not have any legal standing to live there. Imo, the fact that this doesn't seem to be true tells me that we don't really own our own housees anymore. The government owns it and let's you live there.[/QUOTE] Pretty much this. The "tenant" claims to have gotten scammed and admits that they have no legal documents with the real home owners. It has been proven that there is no authentic contract/lease/rental agreement. Due to this, and how they refuse to leave property that they have no paperwork that allows them to remain on; they are trespassing. Unless they give the name of who 'gave them the keys' supposedly, they broke into and entered the home. [editline]15th April 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Big Dumb American;50137878]The owners DID call the police, who told them this was a civil matter, not a legal one. So, they went to court, and the judge ruled in favor of the "tenant," forcing the owners to go through a lengthy and expensive eviction process. Like, yeah, ideally this would be a simple case of calling the police and saying, "there's a squatter, remove her," but clearly there are some strong tenant protection laws in place in this state/county that are really biting the owners in the ass. If they took it upon themselves to remove this woman by force, then they would likely face serious legal trouble over that-- especially after the judge's ruling.[/QUOTE] Forcefully removing them, and instating a restraining order, would likely be the easiest way to resolve it. The 'tenant' has no paperwork whatsoever, the homeowners have the deed to the home.

[QUOTE=FordLord;50137949]Pretty much this. The "tenant" claims to have gotten scammed and admits that they have no legal documents with the real home owners. It has been proven that there is no authentic contract/lease/rental agreement. Due to this, and how they refuse to leave property that they have no paperwork that allows them to remain on; they are trespassing. Unless they give the name of who 'gave them the keys' supposedly, they broke into and entered the home.[/QUOTE] Thats not how it works. Tenant/residency laws are complex for a reason. There is a court process which the couple are going through which is the correct thing to do. You threaten someone who is living there, legally or not, you are going to be on the wrong side of the bench.

[QUOTE=FordLord;50137949]Pretty much this. The "tenant" claims to have gotten scammed and admits that they have no legal documents with the real home owners. It has been proven that there is no authentic contract/lease/rental agreement. Due to this, and how they refuse to leave property that they have no paperwork that allows them to remain on; they are trespassing. Unless they give the name of who 'gave them the keys' supposedly, they broke into and entered the home.[/QUOTE] On principle I agree, but the truth of the matter is that, legally speaking, the owners would be getting themselves into hot water by doing this. It's absurd that they were put in this position, but they have little choice to follow the court orders and evict the squatter through the traditional channels at this point or they could be charged and fined by the courts, or even sued by the "tenant" for violating landlord-tenant law (as silly as it is that it applies in this scenario). Imagine the horror of kicking out the squatter, in violation of a court order, only to have the squatter turn around, sue you, and force the transfer or sale of the property in order to settle the judgment! [editline]15th April 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=FordLord;50137949]Forcefully removing them, and instating a restraining order, would likely be the easiest way to resolve it. The 'tenant' has no paperwork whatsoever, the homeowners have the deed to the home.[/QUOTE] Read the article, dude.

[QUOTE=markg06;50137630]Squatters rights always seem like a massive joke, oh yeah I just illegally entered a house and I'm just going to do whatever I want.[/QUOTE] To me this doesn't seem to be a squatters right issue, but tenant in good faith issue. If what she says is true (became a good faith tenant and had no clue the person she was dealing with was not the owner) a lot of actual protections do fall on her.

-snip-

As soon as the cops refused to remove her I would have waited for her to leave, changed all the locks, and put her stuff out on the curb. As soon as the cops say it's a "civil issue" when it's obviously not is when you should realize the law is not on your side. If they had done this before they went to the judge the "tenant" wouldn't have any legal basis to sue because neither party had any documentation that a lease agreement was signed.

[QUOTE=Snoberry Tea;50138261]As soon as the cops refused to remove her I would have waited for her to leave, changed all the locks, and put her stuff out on the curb. As soon as the cops say it's a "civil issue" when it's obviously not is when you should realize the law is not on your side. If they had done this before they went to the judge the "tenant" wouldn't have any legal basis to sue because neither party had any documentation that a lease agreement was signed.[/QUOTE] Thankfully you are not a lawyer.

:snip:

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;50138307]Only in the UK can an unwanted stranger someone's home be a civil matter, [I]and[/I] you aren't allowed to make them leave.[/QUOTE] This is in Idaho, though.

[QUOTE=geel9;50138291]Thankfully you are not a lawyer.[/QUOTE] Dont have to be. If there was no court order telling them to provide housing until the eviction process was completed they could kick them out without penalty. There's no documentation establishing a leaser/lessee relationship between these individuals. She effectively broke into the home and squatted, so traditional tenants rights should not apply. The judge in this case is a fucking moron.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;50138319]This is in Idaho, though.[/QUOTE] Shit, well don't I look dumb. OP doesn't say country, so I assumed it was Caldwell, UK.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;50138319]This is in Idaho, though.[/QUOTE] Idaho? More like Idahomeowner's Nightmare :v: [editline]15th April 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;50138333]Shit, well don't I look dumb. OP doesn't say country, so I assumed it was Caldwell, UK.[/QUOTE] "Under Idaho law, homeowners and landlords can expedite the eviction process if a tenant is using or selling drugs on the property." Yeah it does

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;50138319]This is in Idaho, though.[/QUOTE] speaking of which I think ireland ( We'll dublin anyway have this law and because of it when i went there alllllot of places where bordered it up )

Domicile laws can be an often times are very ass-backwards and difficult to justify for either party. We let someone who we thought was our friend stay in our guest bedroom while she got back on her feet, and she turned around and thrashed our home, brought strangers over when we weren't home and verbally abused our friends that we had over on numerous occasions (we believe she was on drugs but we have no way to prove it) and when we asked her to leave she refused and dragged it out until I threatened an actual eviction notice, despite her never having signed any kind of lease/rental agreement with us or even paying us rent. Basically I legally couldn't do anything outside the eviction notice because, where I live, if it's apparent that the room/home the person is staying in is theirs (receives mail there, has personal effects in place) it's legally a domicile and I (the homeowner) am in the wrong for kicking her out w/o an eviction notice of no less than 30 days.

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;50138333]Shit, well don't I look dumb. OP doesn't say country, so I assumed it was Caldwell, UK.[/QUOTE] Your cheeks must be [I]so red.[/I]

Reading this thread made me look up the provincial laws that I'm bound by. Apparently, if I stayed in a house another person owned without an attempt at eviction for 2-10 years, I own the house. Thanks BC legislature, now time to find an empty home to squat in for two to ten (The law is really vague) years and avoid evictions notices in.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50138562]Reading this thread made me look up the provincial laws that I'm bound by. Apparently, if I stayed in a house another person owned without an attempt at eviction for 2-10 years, I own the house. Thanks BC legislature, now time to find an empty home to squat in for two to ten (The law is really vague) years and avoid evictions notices in.[/QUOTE] As an insurance agent, can you make a policy on that?

[QUOTE=Daysofwinter;50138585]As an insurance agent, can you make a policy on that?[/QUOTE] I'm sure there's some form of squatters protection insurance, but it would require you to do your due diligence in assuring the property is free of squatters and even issuing eviction notices. Though that policy is more likely to be sold to those that own entire apartment buildings or such rather than just a home. Though, with the Vancouver real estate market being what it is, there's a swathe of homes that are lived in 1-2 months of the year by the rich foreign nationals that use as a vacation home while expecting us to all live in tiny boxes for 2400 a month.