Current Events > Why are squatters rights a thing?

(+) Yeah! (+)

You see stories like this every so often. Why are squatters not immediately removed by police for trespassing? I don't understand the logic behind protecting these people.



---

It's based off old time-y laws from when it wasn't uncommon for a family to just abandon a home or everyone living in it to die. They definitely need to be updated though, to have some sort of "if the owner has occupied it within the last 6 months it's still theirs" requirement.

---

gunplagirl posted...

It's based off old time-y laws from when it wasn't uncommon for a family to just abandon a home or everyone living in it to die. They definitely need to be updated though, to have some sort of "if the owner has occupied it within the last 6 months it's still theirs" requirement.

The implication someone is able to move into a property I own and never consented to already leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

---

I'm squatting in this topic.

---

Solid Sonic posted...

The implication someone is able to move into a property I own and never consented to already leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Hey now, if John Multimillionaire has 4 homes and two summer homes but never actually lived in or rented out most of them? Let whoever squats in there continue to have it.

---

gunplagirl posted...

Hey now, if John Multimillionaire has 4 homes and two summer homes but never actually lived in or rented out most of them? Let whoever squats in there continue to have it.

So, lets say you have 2 cars, you would be ok with someone appropriating one of them because you can't drove both at the same time?

---

pogo_rabid posted...

So, lets say you have 2 cars, you would be ok with someone appropriating one of them because you can't drove both at the same time?

I think the out clause here is if you drive it within a certain period of time it's still yours.

---

I think the only thing that matters is we dont legalize theft of private property, including homes
---

Solid Sonic posted...

I think the out clause here is if you drive it within a certain period of time it's still yours.

While personal property is... not as developed in this regard, the time scale of non-use is a factor in adverse possession/squatting rights.

---

pogo_rabid posted...

So, lets say you have 2 cars, you would be ok with someone appropriating one of them because you can't drove both at the same time?

Can't drove

---

gunplagirl posted...

Can't drove

So lets say you have 2 cars and the ability to drive, you would be ok with someone appropriating one of them because you can't drive both at the same time?

---

pogo_rabid posted...

So lets say you have 2 cars and the ability to drive, you would be ok with someone appropriating one of them because you can't drive both at the same time?

In that case, did you notice the attached time limit I put on my previous post? For that matter, your wording makes it seem like the moment I'm not using a car, period, it would be able to be taken. You should probably work on that.

---

WTF? So someone broke into their home and changed all the locks and nothing can be done about that? That's so messed up.

---

Im fine with reforming squatters rights laws if we also completely end the practice of landlording.

---

Yeah I never really got them.

Like what is the timeline here? What if I squatted in someone's home while they were at work?

---

MrToothHasYou posted...

Im fine with reforming squatters rights laws if we also completely end the practice of landlording.

That is an asinine way of looking at it.

---

Looks like I'm about be new house owner

---

Solid Sonic posted...

That is an asinine way of looking at it.

They are directly correlated

---

Break in the house and fight them

---

1NfamousACE_2 posted...

Break in the house and fight them

The weird thing is you'd probably be the one seen as guilty for doing that.

---

1NfamousACE_2 posted...

Break in the house and fight them

Break in the house from the other side, film them fighting, and shout "world star!"

---

A lot of people here clearly fail at reading. They were trapped overseas because of the pandemic and some guy basically stole their house. You have to be really fucked up in the head to think this is ok in any way. And then progressives wonder why literally everyone else hates them including most liberals.

---

MrToothHasYou posted...

Im fine with reforming squatters rights laws if we also completely end the practice of landlording.

Even if your intentions are good, Id imagine this would just lead to an explosion in the homelessness rates

---

NoxObscuras posted...

WTF? So someone broke into their home and changed all the locks and nothing can be done about that? That's so messed up.

You can definitely do something about it with a shotgun

---

Squatting is completely stupid and should never be a thing. If they are staying in an abandoned house then fine, but they should lose all rights once the actual owner returns or asks them to leave.

---

So breaking into someone's home is okay as long you're just there to live in it ?
---

Ilishe posted...

You can definitely do something about it with a shotgun

The problem seems to be if someone does that when you're not there and you don't deal with it immediately at the time it happens, it's like the situation flips on its head.

---

squatters need to be given life in prison. scum.

---

Squatting is generally defined as occupying an abandoned or otherwise unoccupied area. No squatter is going to throw someone out of their own home.

---

scar the 1 posted...

Squatting is generally defined as occupying an abandoned or otherwise unoccupied area. No squatter is going to throw someone out of their own home.

You underestimate how flexible the interpretation of this is. Squatters have successfully overtaken homes that have never been lived in because they had yet to be closed on and the law protects them from forcible removal.

---

Solid Sonic posted...

You underestimate how flexible the interpretation of this is. Squatters have successfully overtaken homes that have never been lived in because they had yet to be closed on and the law protects them from forcible removal.

Then who was thrown out of their home?

---

Its a holdover from common law where if somebody used and improved property they wanted to reward them over owners who did nothing for so long they didnt even notice somebody living on the land.

---

You can also squat in a place by using AirBnB to pay in advance for a place then refuse to leave. Tenancy laws allow people to claim themselves as residents by paying 30 days worth of rent, depending on the locale. At that point the owner is required to use eviction laws to remove them.

---

scar the 1 posted...

Then who was thrown out of their home?

You are in your 30s. Are you honestly this immature and clueless of the world?

---

Gamerguymass posted...

You are in your 30s. Are you honestly this immature and clueless of the world?

How do you know my age sir

---

While I do think squatters should be allowed to put work into abandoned or unused property and claim ownership of it, this situation shouldnt be allowed to happen.
In this case, the squatter is not bringing a property back into use and improving the health of the market, they are just occupying a building that the owners were using.

If a squatter moves into someones home while they are on vacation, a business trip or other such things, the squatter should be forcibly removed.

If a squatter moves into a non-primary residence that hasnt been used in over a year, the owner and squatter should be required to negotiate a rental agreement.

If a squatter moves into a place that has been unused for more than 5 years, the property should be considered abandoned and the squatter should be able to request the government to legally transfer the property to the squatter.

---

If the police do not throw them out then the real owners need to bury them in the back yard.

---

uwnim posted...

While I do think squatters should be allowed to put work into abandoned or unused property and claim ownership of it, this situation shouldnt be allowed to happen.
In this case, the squatter is not bringing a property back into use and improving the health of the market, they are just occupying a building that the owners were using.

If a squatter moves into someones home while they are on vacation, a business trip or other such things, the squatter should be forcibly removed.

If a squatter moves into a non-primary residence that hasnt been used in over a year, the owner and squatter should be required to negotiate a rental agreement.

If a squatter moves into a place that has been unused for more than 5 years, the property should be considered abandoned and the squatter should be able to request the government to legally transfer the property to the squatter.

I think the last paragraph is the most relevant one. No one should be allowed to take over a property without at least some attempt made to loop the legal owner into the process.


---

uwnim posted...

If a squatter moves into a place that has been unused for more than 5 years, the property should be considered abandoned and the squatter should be able to request the government to legally transfer the property to the squatter.

This is basically the doctrine of adverse possession. Here are the elements in US law:

1. Continuous--A single adverse possessor must maintain continuous possession of the property. However, the continuity may be maintained between successive adverse possessors if there is privity between them.
2. Hostile--In this context, "hostile" does not mean "unfriendly." Rather, it means that the possession infringes on the rights of the true owner. If the true owner consents or gives license to the adverse possessor's use of the property, possession is not hostile and it is not really adverse possession. Renters cannot be adverse possessors of the rented property, regardless of how long they possess it.
3. Open and Notorious--Possession must be obvious to anyone who bothers to look, so as to put the true owner on notice that a trespasser is in possession. One will not succeed with an adverse possession claim if it is secret.
4. Actual--The adverse possessor is actually in possession of someone else's property. The true owner has a cause of action for trespass, which must be pursued within the statute of limitations.
5. Exclusive--The adverse possessor does not share control of the property with any one else (unless in privity with himself). He excludes others from possession, as if he was actual owner.

All of this must generally be true for several years. The amount often depends on the nature of possession (ie, if the person adversely possessing the property is doing so under the color of title regardless of its legitimacy, then the period is shorter, and if there's no dispute as to title belonging solely to the true owner, then it's usually a longer period). The typical statutory period is 10-12 years.

---

uwnim posted...

While I do think squatters should be allowed to put work into abandoned or unused property and claim ownership of it, this situation shouldnt be allowed to happen.
In this case, the squatter is not bringing a property back into use and improving the health of the market, they are just occupying a building that the owners were using.

If a squatter moves into someones home while they are on vacation, a business trip or other such things, the squatter should be forcibly removed.

If a squatter moves into a non-primary residence that hasnt been used in over a year, the owner and squatter should be required to negotiate a rental agreement.

If a squatter moves into a place that has been unused for more than 5 years, the property should be considered abandoned and the squatter should be able to request the government to legally transfer the property to the squatter.

What is your definition of "used"? What if I own a property, pay to have it maintained/continue to pay tax/utilities on it, what business of anyone's is it how I utilize the property?

---

pogo_rabid posted...

What is your definition of "used"? What if I own a property, pay to have it maintained/continue to pay tax/utilities on it, what business of anyone's is it how I utilize the property?

Squatting is a thing because people lay claims to land/housing that they do not use, while others go homeless. Shelter is a basic human need and considered a human right. It's because of that conflict that squatting is even a thing

---

pogo_rabid posted...

What is your definition of "used"? What if I own a property, pay to have it maintained/continue to pay tax/utilities on it, what business of anyone's is it how I utilize the property?

Living in it, renting it out or making legitimate attempts to do so(an example of an illegitimate attempt would be to try to rent it for a price that you believe no one would agree to pay), putting work into the property to make it suitable for living in or renting out.

Deliberately keeping a property empty negatively hurts others by restricting housing supply. Squatters provide a service to society when they bring a property back into use.

---

For all the people defending these squatters I hope you have your home taken from you by them and you lose it.

---

So you're telling me, if i know someone is leaving their home for an extended amount of time, i'm legally protected if i were to go into their house and make it mine?

What he fuck is wrong with north america

---

It's something that kicks in when people manage to squat in a property without being removed for a very long time. You know, the length of time that, if there's no record of either any kind of deal with the owner, nor of the owner making attempts to remove them, it's very VERY safe to assume the owner has abandoned the property anyway.

---

Bc property should be used, and if someone neglects their property, it should go to someone who will use it.
---

Cookie Bag posted...

So you're telling me, if i know someone is leaving their home for an extended amount of time, i'm legally protected if i were to go into their house and make it mine?

Theoretically.

Now in practice, let me know when you can actually live the required amount of time (which is usually 10+ years, varies between jurisdictions) without them making any attempt to have you removed, unless it's a property they've genuinely abandoned. It's not a case of that you can just move into any empty house and claim it as yours a very short time later.

---

ModLogic posted...

squatters need to be given life in prison. scum.

---

Trumble posted...

Theoretically.

Now in practice, let me know when you can actually live the required amount of time (which is usually 10+ years, varies between jurisdictions) without them making any attempt to have you removed, unless it's a property they've genuinely abandoned. It's not a case of that you can just move into any empty house and claim it as yours a very short time later.

So what does this couple need to do to recover their property in a expedite manner given the scenario they found themselves in, being trapped in another place due to the pandemic? like this even being able to happen in the first place is ridiculous, and going from the text its not like the person that took over the property is some hobo or crackhead, legit has a mercedes lol

---

Cookie Bag posted...

So what does this couple need to do to recover their property in a expedite manner given the scenario they found themselves in, being trapped in another place due to the pandemic? like this even being able to happen in the first place is ridiculous, and going from the text its not like the person that took over the property is some hobo or crackhead, legit has a mercedes lol

How about you read up on adverse possession before you freak out about it. It's not something that's common or easy to accomplish.
---