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

[QUOTE=J!NX;50140513]Hopefully they correct the laws behind it, it'd be terrifying to have to deal with this kind of thing[/QUOTE] Well the house was vacant. Its not like the other couple was actively living there. The house was on the market (and about to close)

In situations like this you can skirt around in a bit of a legal grey area and forcibly remove the squatters. At that point they have to take you to court to prove that it wasn't an illegal eviction, and to do that they need to show tenancy. The big thing is you need to get them out, and have an extensive amount of hardcopy proof for when/if they call the cops. Definitely need to have your deed on hand, valid ID, a lawyer draft up a letter, and [i]never[/i] let the cops enter the property. Tell them that they can reclaim allegedly lost property through civil means in court. Chances are very good that they won't even file anything for either the property, or the 'eviction'. You do have to keep in mind that if there is even a snowballs chance in hell that they have actual tenancy, you can fuck yourself six ways from sunday by performing an illegal eviction. Doesn't work in tenant friendly states. Funny how you don't hear about these epic squatting situations that often in states like texas where people know they will very likely get killed for even attempting it. [QUOTE=Big Dumb American;50140448]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] Who says they are required to kill them? Kick them out at gunpoint and let them figure it out from there. Bonus points for doing what a close friend of mines cousin did and send them out in their underwear without their phones. Fuck sovereign citizens.

You own the land and the house, yes? You have the right to defeat your house and land, yes? I think that would easily cover that.

[QUOTE=Passing;50140740]You own the land and the house, yes? You have the right to defeat your house and land, yes? I think that would easily cover that.[/QUOTE] You are not a lawyer, yes?

[QUOTE=Passing;50140740]You own the land and the house, yes? You have the right to defeat your house and land, yes? I think that would easily cover that.[/QUOTE] Not in ultra tenant friendly states. California has had some absolutely rampant problems with professional tenants using fake identities to book AirBnB rooms, who then refuse to leave. A good professional tenant that knows all the rules can keep someone who doesn't want to pay, or simply can't afford, a good eviction attorney, going around for 6 months easily. One piece of paperwork gets misfiled in court, one improper notice, and you literally get a default judgement against you and have to start over from scratch. Oh, and the fun part? Since AirBnB rentals are almost required to have furnishing and fully included utilities, you are [i]required[/i] to keep paying for the utilities. Someone is using 4000 dollars a month in water and 7000 in electricity to run an illegal growing op? Too fucking bad. If you don't pay for it, it's "retaliation" and you might have to pay damages to the fucknugget squatting on your land/property.

[QUOTE=Zephyrs;50140775]Not in ultra tenant friendly states. California has had some absolutely rampant problems with professional tenants using fake identities to book AirBnB rooms, who then refuse to leave. A good professional tenant that knows all the rules can keep someone who doesn't want to pay, or simply can't afford, a good eviction attorney, going around for 6 months easily. One piece of paperwork gets misfiled in court, one improper notice, and you literally get a default judgement against you and have to start over from scratch. Oh, and the fun part? Since AirBnB rentals are almost required to have furnishing and fully included utilities, you are [i]required[/i] to keep paying for the utilities. Someone is using 4000 dollars a month in water and 7000 in electricity to run an illegal growing op? Too fucking bad. If you don't pay for it, it's "retaliation" and you might have to pay damages to the fucknugget squatting on your land/property.[/QUOTE] Damn! I had heard people bemoaning California's landlord/tenant laws, but I had no idea they were [I]this[/I] exploitable. Combine that with the state's unfriendly rules regarding corporations and LLCs, meaning poor asset protection, and it makes real estate investments in that state seem substantially riskier than elsewhere.

[QUOTE=Passing;50140740]You own the land and the house, yes? You have the right to defeat your house and land, yes? I think that would easily cover that.[/QUOTE] Probably not and circumstantial but also no on this case

[B]Rant incoming. Do note that there are plenty of exceptions to what is said below.[/B] Shit like this is exactly why I utterly despise tenant friendly laws. It's one of [i]the[/i] signature examples of legislation doing exactly the opposite of what people want it to. A meth head can do hundreds of thousands of dollars in property damage in a matter of days, and there is absolutely [i]nothing[/i] you can do about it. They are uncollectable, so you must get your restitution elsewhere, which fucks over anyone who isn't a human scumbag. Let me explain: You have a bunch of very liberal leaning people who push for tenant friendly legislation to prevent shitheaded landlords from fucking with disadvantaged people. OK. Fine. That's a noble cause. Most people deal with at least one jackass landlord in their lives. The problem is that most of the legislation makes it too difficult to actually get rid of objectively bad tenants. Maybe they are drug dealers. Maybe their dogs attack people. Maybe they are destroying your building(s). Maybe they just haven't paid rent. It doesn't matter. You can't get rid of them cheaply. Even if they aren't damaging anything directly, you still have to go through significant costs to get rid of them. Now, there's two big things wrong here. First. Rental properties frequently operate on thin margins. 6 months of no rent during an extended eviction can put a property underwater for years. For small time landlords, this can run them into bankruptcy overnight. Being unable to get rid of tenants quite simply translates to greatly increased risks, and a small time person with a handful of properties simply doesn't have enough overhead to absorb more than one or two big hits in a short period of time. This ties into point number two. You must increase costs to cover for extended periods of no rent, let alone enormous property damage that can occur with shitty tenants. Not only that, but you are going to want to be far more selective in tenant screenings. All of your operational costs get magnified. Now, the landlord isn't going to pay for this. He's going to just pass the buck onto his tenants. But it's the good tenants that are footing the bill. Remember, the bad tenants are almost always utterly uncollectable. Even if you get a 200,000 dollar judgement against someone, it's more than fleetingly likely that they will never be capable, let alone willing, to pay it. The worst tenants are frequently people who don't even have assets you can seize either. As a result, the good people are forced to pay more for housing to cover for the shitheads. Not only that, but a landlord has no incentive to take any risk whatsoever in accepting tenants, so credit requirements spike into the 650-725 range, even a misdemeanor conviction for something as mundane as public intoxication/urination, or unpaid parking tickets can get your application denied. But it gets even better. People get upset that their rental rates are rocketing into the sky, and then ordinances start being created to implement rent control. Now the landlords can't increase revenue to offset their costs. They have to start cutting corners, routine maintenance being one of the first things to go. All of a sudden you've got a slum, and everyone gets to wallow in shit. Better make your rent control tighter and cover more buildings. Oh god, why does it keep getting worse? Now you have no new developers interested in building anything because the county is growing increasingly authoritarian and hostile, making it impossible to turn a profit, and the people living there are getting fucked. Making it enormously expensive for landlords to do anything illegal is fine. Harsh financial penalties through tort law are very good solutions. Punish bad landlords, and they will either have to liquidate, pay astronomical fees for liability insurance, or find that it's cheaper just to be honest. Clean cut laws with simple financial rulings make for bread and butter cases that attorneys will take on contingency, meaning no upfront costs, no matter how poor the tenant is. Making it exceedingly difficult to get rid of problem tenants ultimately just takes a shit on the good people, many of whom are middle and lower class. It's totally backwards, and when you boil it down to the essence, quite ironic. The push for tenant friendly legislation indirectly hurts tenants in major ways by making landlords afraid of taking any risks. [b]End Rant[/b] [QUOTE=Big Dumb American;50140839]Damn! I had heard people bemoaning California's landlord/tenant laws, but I had no idea they were [I]this[/I] exploitable. Combine that with the state's unfriendly rules regarding corporations and LLCs, meaning poor asset protection, and it makes real estate investments in that state seem substantially riskier than elsewhere.[/QUOTE] It's usually not quite that ridiculous, but there's more than a few cases of people running up 1000 dollar a month electric bills squatting in AirBnB rentals. I'm not aware of anyone running a bitcoin farm, but I'm sure it's happened. The real pain is the potential for property damage. Some animal clogging a tub and leaving the water running can effortlessly cause hundreds of thousands in damage. Black mold in many cases is quite literally a case of tearing a house down to the frame and rebuilding entirely. Anything that can hold moisture needs to be pitched. Similar story for meth labs. That shit soaks into the Sheetrock and will provide a persistent health hazard for decades. The only solution is to rip and rebuild.

[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] Why are they not trespassing? If I get a key to a property through some unknown illicit means, move there and claim it was sold to me without documents, does that mean I could spend three months drilling holes to the walls or something while the real owners are trying to get me legally evicted?

[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] The US's adverse possession laws are similar. You basically have to continuously openly treat the land as your own for a set period of years (varies by state) uncontested by the owner. It's a helpful law to combat abandoned structures / unused land but unfortunately it's quite exploitable.

[QUOTE=sgman91;50138975]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.[/QUOTE] Unfortunately because she signed an agreement with [i]someone[/I] if they can't prove she knew it was fake then they both were scammed and she is entitled to protections. The whole fake seller thing is really a perplexing scam, the fake sellers can often get away pretty easily because of the way the system is set up, it's sort of why you should always use a realtor if you are not able to regularly check the property because they will check to prevent this shit. People don't exactly know this though and try to sell their houses themselves

[QUOTE=Code3Response;50137742]In the United States, its the responsibly of the accuser, not the defendant, to prove anything.[/QUOTE] And she's accusing a man of duping her into the house. Where's the evidence?

Oh wow, I thought this happend in Spain. This kind of incidents are daily life over here, if someone gets into your house you are 100% fucked because you can't: a) Kick them out from your own home (politely or violently). You can get arrested for trying. b) Cut the water/electricity supply to force the intruders to leave. You get your ass fined and/or forced to pay the intruders a compensation. c) Call the police. They won't do shit because the :quotes:law:quotes: doesn't allow it (Yet they send a fucking army to drag entire families out of their homes for not being able to afford the rent) And may god help you if the intruders have children with them, you can kiss your rightfully-bought house goodbye forever while they get all kinds of compensations from the goverment for being "in need". I'm so mad at my country for this kind of shit.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;50140448]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] I'm not saying they deserve it, I'm saying the law would protect the homeowners had they chosen to defend their property with lethal force under castle doctrine laws. Which is exactly what I would have done. If I came home from work or a vacation to find a stranger in my home my first reaction is NOT going to be to ask questions. My first reaction is going to be to grab my firearm and tell them they have 5 seconds to leave before I shoot them.

[QUOTE=Snoberry Tea;50143507]I'm not saying they deserve it, I'm saying the law would protect the homeowners had they chosen to defend their property with lethal force under castle doctrine laws. Which is exactly what I would have done. If I came home from work or a vacation to find a stranger in my home my first reaction is NOT going to be to ask questions. My first reaction is going to be to grab my firearm and tell them they have 5 seconds to leave before I shoot them.[/QUOTE] [quote]a justifiable homicide law in self-defense from violence—must prove intruder's intent thereof[/quote] In idaho, not really. You could probably scare most dipshits out, but you would be treading a very thin line. I greatly prefer a set of laws where if someone is in your home, you are legally entitled to shoot first, ask questions later. It does not force you to shoot, but if anything is fishy, whelp it's their funeral, not yours.

They need to reform squatter laws ASAP.

[QUOTE=Zephyrs;50143768]In idaho, not really. You could probably scare most dipshits out, but you would be treading a very thin line. I greatly prefer a set of laws where if someone is in your home, you are legally entitled to shoot first, ask questions later. It does not force you to shoot, but if anything is fishy, whelp it's their funeral, not yours.[/QUOTE] I qualified it under "castle doctrine laws" I didn't say Idaho had them. I don't know Idaho's self defense laws. You're missing my point.

[QUOTE=Snoberry Tea;50144761]I qualified it under "castle doctrine laws" I didn't say Idaho had them. I don't know Idaho's self defense laws. You're missing my point.[/QUOTE] You should really read up on your state's landlord-tenant laws. I'm not saying they're right, but they would likely prevent you from using a castle doctrine defense after using force against them.

[QUOTE=Snoberry Tea;50144761]I qualified it under "castle doctrine laws" I didn't say Idaho had them. I don't know Idaho's self defense laws. You're missing my point.[/QUOTE] How reliable is the Castle Doctrine anyway? I know we have it here in Missouri, but I have no idea how often it holds up in court-- nor what any of the stipulations about it exactly are. Like, if you choose to exercise your right to use it, do they place the burden of proof against you and basically hold you accountable for committing murder until you can prove otherwise? I'm a proponent of self-defense, but I've always worried about exercising it because of what possible legal ramifications there could be. And there have been times before where I should have done something to defend myself in unfavorable situations (not necessarily with lethal intent, mind you), but I didn't because of these fears.

[QUOTE=Snoberry Tea;50144761]I qualified it under "castle doctrine laws" I didn't say Idaho had them. I don't know Idaho's self defense laws. You're missing my point.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Snoberry Tea;50143507]I'm not saying they deserve it, I'm saying the law would protect the homeowners had they chosen to defend their property with lethal force under castle doctrine laws.[/QUOTE] This thread is primarily about an incident in Idaho, so I assumed this statement was also about Idaho. [QUOTE=Govna;50144906]How reliable is the Castle Doctrine anyway? I know we have it here in Missouri, but I have no idea how often it holds up in court-- nor what any of the stipulations about it exactly are. Like, if you choose to exercise your right to use it, do they place the burden of proof against you and basically hold you accountable for committing murder until you can prove otherwise? I'm a proponent of self-defense, but I've always worried about exercising it because of what possible legal ramifications there could be. And there have been times before where I should have done something to defend myself in unfavorable situations (not necessarily with lethal intent, mind you), but I didn't because of these fears.[/QUOTE] It really depends on the exact wording. In many states you do have some burden of proof to show that lethal force was justified. Generally this will mean showing justified fear of bodily harm/death. Maybe that requires them to be armed, force entry, or attack you. This will vary heavily by state, but the general trend is that more conservative states are a [i]lot[/i] less strict about this. Not a hard rule by any stretch, but there is a definite trend to that effect.

[QUOTE=Apache249;50144790]You should really read up on your state's landlord-tenant laws. I'm not saying they're right, but they would likely prevent you from using a castle doctrine defense after using force against them.[/QUOTE] I live in Florida. Our laws are pretty cut and dry. If you don't know the person and they're in your house without your consent or knowledge, the law presumes you are in mortal danger and that you are in fear for your life, and you have 100% immunity from any attempted prosecution as a result of defending yourself, provided you used lethal force as lethal force (i.e. did not demonstrably shoot to wound with a gun) [editline]17th April 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Govna;50144906]How reliable is the Castle Doctrine anyway? I know we have it here in Missouri, but I have no idea how often it holds up in court-- nor what any of the stipulations about it exactly are. Like, if you choose to exercise your right to use it, do they place the burden of proof against you and basically hold you accountable for committing murder until you can prove otherwise? I'm a proponent of self-defense, but I've always worried about exercising it because of what possible legal ramifications there could be. And there have been times before where I should have done something to defend myself in unfavorable situations (not necessarily with lethal intent, mind you), but I didn't because of these fears.[/QUOTE] Varies from state to state. Some states have ironclad Castle Doctrines (Florida) others pile on tons of bullshit restrictions to the resident and open them up to lawsuits (California) [editline]17th April 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Zephyrs;50144994] It really depends on the exact wording. In many states you do have some burden of proof to show that lethal force was justified. Generally this will mean showing justified fear of bodily harm/death. Maybe that requires them to be armed, force entry, or attack you. This will vary heavily by state, but the general trend is that more conservative states are a [i]lot[/i] less strict about this. Not a hard rule by any stretch, but there is a definite trend to that effect.[/QUOTE] This is Florida's: [url]http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.013.html[/url] It's pretty geared towards the homeowner.