This stuff always ends up being propaganda for landlords
this post was submitted on 03 Oct 2024
53 points (68.5% liked)
Weird News - Things that make you go 'hmmm'
903 readers
52 users here now
Rules:
-
News must be from a reliable source. No tabloids or sensationalism, please.
-
Try to keep it safe for work. Contact a moderator before posting if you have any doubts.
-
Titles of articles must remain unchanged; however extraneous information like "Watch:" or "Look:" can be removed. Titles with trailing, non-relevant information can also be edited so long as the headline's intent remains intact.
-
Be nice. If you've got nothing positive to say, don't say it.
Violators will be banned at mod's discretion.
Communities We Like:
founded 9 months ago
MODERATORS
Why even go to the authorities. Get your cousins, some baseball bats and evict them.
Because that's a felony?
In the south? I thought this was murica!
in the UK you would need to live there for 10 years
Per the article, takes 15 years of adverse possession to claim squatter's rights in KY. Order that got homeowner kicked out was a protective order that stemmed from a physical altercation between the "squatter" and one of the homeowner's roommates.
It takes 15 years of squatting to gain adverse possession. That is to gain ownership of the property, you have to live there for 15 years without the owner making an active effort to stop you.
In most states it's the opposite, the owner has to attempt to stop you and you have to hold it hostility.
Nebraska for reference
The squatter's presence and use of the property must be continuous, actual, visible, notorious, distinct, and hostile to the actual property owner's rights.
Meaning you must openly try to prevent the owners use and they most attempt to prevent yours.
I don't think that's what that means. I believe "hostile" in this sense is closer in meaning to "contrary." It's hostile to the owner's rights, not hostile to the owner.
You have to make it clear that you're living there with regular upkeep. Mow the lawn, fix up the house, etc. You can't hide the fact that you're living there from the owner or neighbors.
If the owner shows up one day and discovers you've been living there, they can politely ask you to leave and now you're officially trespassing and you lose your claim to adverse possession.
If you've made it clear that you live there, and your neighbors all know you, but the real owner has never showed up in 15 years, or just doesn't care and never asked you for rent or asked you to leave, congrats on your new property.
Thats literally what I said... I quoted Nebraska directly.
They don't mean you have to fight them it means you have to try to prevent their use and they must attempt to prevent yours.
But that's not what we're saying. It counts as adverse posession if you're doing something contrary to the owner's interests/rights and they don't stop you.
That's what hostile means!
A hostile possession is the action of an occupier who does not have the true owner's consent or permission, but possesses or occupies the real property of the true owner.
Ie. The actual owner needs to say no don't do that and the squatter has to try to prevent and buy that I mean literally say "no don't" or something to that effect.
Hostile does not mean you even have to be rude or anything but friendly it just means it's against your interests and you've made them aware. It's so the owner doesn't wait the squatting period and then take action, the theory being if you didn't know or take action until then then you've abandoned the property.
You could have no consent/permission without the owner even knowing you're there
Doesn't matter, that's all civil you gotta take them to court about it.
So its like a team sport? Squatters versus homeowners?
Doesn't that only mean that you have to be hostile to their rights, not the other way around?
The owner needs to attempt repossession to have a claim and the squatter needs to rebuke every attempt to have a claim.
The court's decision in Toma's case may have stemmed from several factors. When Sencuk applied for the protective order, he indicated Toma was a roommate — not the homeowner — so the nature of their relationship may not have been clear to the judge.
Additionally, Sencuk claimed he and Toma had an agreement that he would perform various maintenance and chores around the property in exchange for living in the garage, which may have seemed credible to the court. Toma denies this arrangement ever existed.
However, since the protective order was issued, Sencuk has moved out.
The guy never claimed "squatters rights," he sought a protective order against the other people in the house and lied to get it, then moved out before it was even issued
The judge who signed this needs to be disbarred. JUDICIAL OVERSIGHT. Can we get some god damn.
This article is such a mess. I have to wonder if AI wrote it.
But the title will be enough for scared homeowners to validate their feelings.
Author: GChPatT