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

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;50138552]Your cheeks must be [I]so red.[/I][/QUOTE] like a firetruck

Out of curiosity, couldn't they make things unlivable for her like dropping smoke grenades or bug bombs in there or something?

Would it be legal for the owners to fumigate their home or in some way make the living conditions so bad that the woman has to get out and then lock the door? If she breaks in it's destruction of property.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50138562]Apparently, if I stayed in a house another person owned without an attempt at eviction for 2-10 years, I own the house.[/QUOTE] Does that mean if you rent a home for 2 - 10 years, you 'steal' ownership from the landlord? [editline]15th April 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=maeZtro;50138619]Would it be legal for the owners to fumigate their home or in some way make the living conditions so bad that the woman has to get out and then lock the door? If she breaks in it's destruction of property.[/QUOTE] No because it's a "civil matter", the cops won't do shit unless things get violent.

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;50138636]Does that mean if you rent a home for 2 - 10 years, you 'steal' ownership from the landlord? [editline]15th April 2016[/editline] No because it's a "civil matter", the cops won't do shit unless things get violent.[/QUOTE] No because in that situation there's an agreement between owner and tenant, in the "Adverse Possession" method of asset relocation, there must no prior agreed upon settlements. Under Adverse Possession, if you owned a home here, and you never came and checked up on it, and there was a squatter who lived there for enough time for the courts to grant them Adverse Possession, you're hosed. And as I said, the law seems quite vague, and quite prolific over canadian provinces, but understandably hard to actually make use of.

Ok how about this, you play very loud sounds or the same song in the house non stop. You would basically be torturing the squatter but you are just playing music in your home. You could organize it with friends so there is music 24/7. You have to be careful so you don't torture your neighbors too though.

squatter protection laws are literally a joke without a punchline

[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] This is a dumb post. This is obviously a civil issue. They are going through the proper channels of eviction. Thats the end of it. Everyone is making this more than what it actually is. 30 days from now it'll be in the past.

[QUOTE=Code3Response;50138871]This is a dumb post. This is obviously a civil issue. They are going through the proper channels of eviction. Thats the end of it. Everyone is making this more than what it actually is. 30 days from now it'll be in the past.[/QUOTE] Not necessarily. Evictions can take as long as three months to carry out. In the meantime, these owners are losing money every single day on continuing to pay for a property they can't sell while she inhabits it, on top of the damage she is actively causing to the property, and that's not even to mention the court and legal fees. This [I]is[/I] kind of a big deal.

[QUOTE=Code3Response;50138871]This is a dumb post. This is obviously a civil issue. They are going through the proper channels of eviction. Thats the end of it. Everyone is making this more than what it actually is. 30 days from now it'll be in the past.[/QUOTE] The fact that it took more than 1 or 2 days is unnacceptable in my opinion. If she can't provide proof of an agreement between them, then she has to leave, by police force if necessary. Trespassing, destroying another person's property, etc. is criminal.

What happened to all those people going on and on about how they'd shoot any intruder as soon as its legally justifiable

[QUOTE=H4ngman;50138982]What happened to all those people going on and on about how they'd shoot any intruder as soon as its legally justifiable[/QUOTE] This wouldn't be legally justifiable, obviously.

Wow, what a joke. This is up there with that article about some burglar hurting themselves in the process of cleaning the place out and successfully suing the owners of the property because of it. It defies all logic.

[QUOTE=Code3Response;50138871]This is a dumb post. This is obviously a civil issue. They are going through the proper channels of eviction. Thats the end of it. Everyone is making this more than what it actually is. 30 days from now it'll be in the past.[/QUOTE] I'm amazed this line of thinking exists So that's it? That's the end if that? Just water under the bridge. Months of court fees and damages buy hey, not harm done right? [editline]15th April 2016[/editline] I mean, the fact that they aren't already out is bad enough, but the fact that they aren't paying for the home owners fees is insane People are making it out to be exactly what it is, bullshit. Total bullshit

[QUOTE=J!NX;50139077]I'm amazed this line of thinking exists So that's it? That's the end if that? Just water under the bridge. Months of court fees and damages buy hey, not harm done right? [editline]15th April 2016[/editline] I mean, the fact that they aren't already out is bad enough, but the fact that they aren't paying for the home owners fees is insane People are making it out to be exactly what it is, bullshit. Total bullshit[/QUOTE] Thats what we call tort court. They'll get their money back in damages from insurance and restitution. You cant forcibly remove someone from their residence without an eviction.

[QUOTE=Code3Response;50137981]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] I understand what you are conveying, but other than simply stating facts, do you believe this is ok

[QUOTE=geel9;50138999]This wouldn't be legally justifiable, obviously.[/QUOTE] Actually it would be depending on the circumstances. At this juncture it's illegal. However the first time she let herself in or the homeowners came home to find her there if Idaho has a castle doctrine it would have been justified, as most castle doctrines presume "fear for your life" when someone you do not know enters your home without permission or invitation.

[QUOTE=Code3Response;50139413]Thats what we call tort court. They'll get their money back in damages from insurance and restitution. You cant forcibly remove someone from their residence without an eviction.[/QUOTE] Tort court proceedings always take months, if not longer to happen though and in the mean time, they have to pay for their actual home, their rental housing, as well as lawyer and other associated fees. That is not okay. They have to sue for reimbursement through the tort system, however, this person, may or may not be able to pay for any of that said liability.

[QUOTE=Code3Response;50139413]Thats what we call tort court. They'll get their money back in damages from insurance and restitution. You cant forcibly remove someone from their residence without an eviction.[/QUOTE] Except it isn't THEIR residence. She's a squatter plain and simple. Why the hell should the homeowners be liable for her getting scammed? Any other scenario where you come home to find someone squatting in your home it's cut and dry trespassing/B&E. The fact that the cops wouldn't remove her and the judge is making them go thru the entire process is ridiculous.

[QUOTE=Snoberry Tea;50139547]Except it isn't THEIR residence. She's a squatter plain and simple. Why the hell should the homeowners be liable for her getting scammed? Any other scenario where you come home to find someone squatting in your home it's cut and dry trespassing/B&E. The fact that the cops wouldn't remove her and the judge is making them go thru the entire process is ridiculous.[/QUOTE] You seem to think that because people are informing you of the law that they're also trying to justify it.

[QUOTE=Code3Response;50139413]Thats what we call tort court. They'll get their money back in damages from insurance and restitution. You cant forcibly remove someone from their residence without an eviction.[/QUOTE] Yeah but that's the thing, it's not their residence. They're in someone else's house, and the police and courts are refusing to make them leave. The court has effectively taken the homeowner's rights away and given them to a stranger with some forged papers and a counterfeit key.

[QUOTE=geel9;50139716]You seem to think that because people are informing you of the law that they're also trying to justify it.[/QUOTE] Except he's just telling us why he disagrees with it, because it's nonsense regardless of who tells us what. This whole thing is ridiculous and nothing justifies it, that meaning the decisions made were right and reasonable which they obviously were not. On top of that if the really law says that this shit is okay then something needs to be done about it, plain and simple.

[QUOTE=Egevened;50139501]I understand what you are conveying, but other than simply stating facts, do you believe this is ok[/QUOTE] No, I think it's stupid how the protections are - even understanding why they are there, but that doesn't change the law. Where I am if you let someone stay with you for one day, you have no legal grounds to remove them other than eviction if they decide to stay longer. It's stupid.

[QUOTE=Code3Response;50139413]Thats what we call tort court. They'll get their money back in damages from insurance and restitution. You cant forcibly remove someone from their residence without an eviction.[/QUOTE] I highly doubt a squatter has the money to pay any sort of substantial restitution. Even if they won a case for restitution, if the squatter doesn't have have enough money to pay restitution the couple will receive nothing. Further, homeowner policies typically don't cover damages incurred by squatters. In fact, most homeowner insurance policies have clauses that say the entire policy is void if the property has been vacated by the owners. This is because vacant properties are inherently high-risk and suffer damages far more often than occupied properties. Unless this couple happened to have vacancy insurance, which most people don't even realize is a thing, it's unlikely their insurance company will give them anything.' The reality is that in most squatter cases, the property owners receive receive no real compensation.

[QUOTE=Gordy H.;50139869]I highly doubt a squatter has the money to pay any sort of substantial restitution. Even if they won a case for restitution, if the squatter doesn't have have enough money to pay restitution the couple will receive nothing. Further, homeowner policies typically don't cover damages incurred by squatters. In fact, most homeowner insurance policies have clauses that say the [B]entire policy is void if the property has been vacated by the owners. This is because vacant properties are inherently high-risk and suffer damages far more often than occupied properties.[/B] Unless this couple happened to have vacancy insurance, which most people don't even realize is a thing, it's unlikely their insurance company will give them anything.' The reality is that in most squatter cases, the property owners receive receive no real compensation.[/QUOTE] This is generally true, however, it should be noted, there is a time frame that the home has to be empty/vacant for that to apply. If the homeowners weren't gone for a month(it's typically a month) when the squatter moved in, their insurance may cover it. The question then becomes when does the insurer consider the vacancy to have started. Vacancy insurance is also a rare and extremely expensive package to purchase and is typically reserved for seasonal homes.

Would it be illegal for me as the owner to go into the house if they leave and change the locks?

go castle doctrine on that b*tch!

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50138694]No because in that situation there's an agreement between owner and tenant, in the "Adverse Possession" method of asset relocation, there must no prior agreed upon settlements. Under Adverse Possession, if you owned a home here, and you never came and checked up on it, and there was a squatter who lived there for enough time for the courts to grant them Adverse Possession, you're hosed. And as I said, the law seems quite vague, and quite prolific over canadian provinces, but understandably hard to actually make use of.[/QUOTE] Remember that adverse possession often requires a bona fides and as such tends to be relatively simple to dismantle.

[QUOTE=Snoberry Tea;50139532]Actually it would be depending on the circumstances. At this juncture it's illegal. However the first time she let herself in or the homeowners came home to find her there if Idaho has a castle doctrine it would have been justified, as most castle doctrines presume "fear for your life" when someone you do not know enters your home without permission or invitation.[/QUOTE] Like, I agree that this is a fucked up situation and that these homeowners are getting shafted by the system, but I hope you're not seriously suggesting that this squatter deserves to be murdered?

[QUOTE=Code3Response;50139797]No, I think it's stupid how the protections are - even understanding why they are there, but that doesn't change the law. [/QUOTE] Hopefully they correct the laws behind it, it'd be terrifying to have to deal with this kind of thing