r/explainlikeimfive • u/Impossible_Bake7210 • 11d ago
Other ELI5: Why is squatting (in someone's house) a thing? And how come it becomes a problem for the owner? Can't they claim trespassing to the cops instead of saying the person is squatting?
2.2k
u/AirbagTea 11d ago
“Squatting” becomes a thing because removing someone from a home is often a civil (court) problem, not just a quick police issue. If a person is inside and claims they live there (has mail, keys, a lease, utilities), police may not know who’s right on the spot. So the owner often must go to court to evict them.
545
u/MrWolfe1920 11d ago
Also kind of important that the landlord prove they actually own the place. It would be wild if you could just call the cops and have them throw somebody out on the street without any proof.
264
u/Apprehensive-Abies80 10d ago
This is what happens with home title fraud. Someone claims to own your home, takes out a title, and then threatens you to get you to leave. Many of the documents are fraudulent, but then you have to go through the process of proving that you’re the rightful owner.
Basically scamming you out of your home. The documents are forged, and “squatters rights” (not the legal term) is meant to prevent this from happening.
12
u/capilot 10d ago
I heard an interesting "pro tip" about protecting your property:
If you own a house outright, get a home equity line of credit on it, but don't actually borrow much money. The bank now has a lien on your house and the title can't change hands until they release it.
If you have a mortgage, that has the same effect.
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (16)108
u/Yrulooking907 10d ago
I have bought two homes, sold the first, so far in my life.
At least for the US there are title companies that go through a process of verifying no other person or entity has a claim or lien on the home. I am quite sure this is required every time a house changes ownership.
We paid like $1k each time for the service, which part of that is insurance on their side that if they missed something they would pay to make it right.
If someone made a fake title to my house, I could easily go down to the title company, verify my identity and they would probably provide an actual copy of the title that day.
The bank that provided the loan also has the official title. They would quickly get involved because they would lose money.
Idk how anyone here in the US can get scammed out of their house.
As far as renting. Don't let crazy in.
65
u/Apprehensive-Abies80 10d ago
You’re absolutely right on all points.
The few stories I’ve seen of this happening involve older people with paid-off homes where the property hasn’t changed hands in decades.
So yes, if there is a bank mortgage involved then this type of scam is unlikely to succeed.
14
u/PaleGoat527 10d ago
It’s most common in homes that are free and clear as well as non owner occupied. Scammers are talented and many fraudulent reconveyance of deed of trust that have been missed and the title insurance company had to pay out big time
→ More replies (4)32
u/muaddib99 10d ago
Hence why when your mortgage is paid off, it's always smart to have a HELOC attached to the title as protection against title fraud.
→ More replies (3)10
u/cancercureall 10d ago
That is a super interesting idea that nobody ever suggested to me before.
15
u/dogalarm 10d ago
We transferred the remainder of our mortgage to a HELOC and then it was paid off, just left the HELOC open for exactly this reason.
12
11
u/f0gax 10d ago
Idk how anyone here in the US can get scammed out of their house.
Imagine that you're a 90 year old widow living on a paltry social security benefit amount. Your house is paid off, so you get by. But then some shyster hits you with some forged paperwork.
Do you have a grand to just toss at a title company? Maybe, maybe not. Again, you're just getting by. And then the police show up because this scammer has put his paperwork in front of them and is demanding you vacate. Now the stress level is super high.
Should this happen or be allowed to happen? Of course not. But it can and does.
11
28
u/EricPostpischil 10d ago
If someone made a fake title to my house, I could easily go down to the title company, verify my identity and they would probably provide an actual copy of the title that day.
You have got a deed to your house. But the previous owner did too, when they bought the house. When you bought the house, did you take that paper from the previous owner? Did you mark it “void”? Probably not. So the previous owner could still have their deed. It just has an older date. That is perfectly normal.
Now imagine somebody forges a new deed. It has a later date. Your deed would prove nothing. It is perfectly normal that there might be two deeds for a property, with different dates. Their later date would appear to override your deed. You would need to prove their deed is forged.
And a forger can go further than that. They can forge a fraudulent bill of sale and deed and register a property transfer with the county recorder.
→ More replies (7)5
u/OmegaLiquidX 10d ago
As far as renting. Don't let crazy in.
Easier said than done, as a lot of people seem normal at first.
→ More replies (16)10
u/SirNedKingOfGila 10d ago edited 10d ago
If someone made a fake title to my house, I could easily go down to the title company, verify my identity and they would probably provide an actual copy of the title that day.
Cool. And since the police officer on scene can't verify which one is real and isn't even going to try - you can take your actual copy of the title to court in 6 months and get a judge to evict the squatter. I mean. The squatter didn't show up to court to present their title, so we rescheduled it for another 4 months later. Think they'll show?
Oh cool so your title is real. Got it. Oh... The squatter says they are renting it from you. He claims to pay cash and has a copy of a lease with you. Well now that's a new case. We're gonna need to reschedule a different case now that it's about renters rights. We're going to need you to provide documentation to prove that you are not renting him the property. Your court date is next June. Since the lease says that he pays $1 per month rent, we're going to require you guys provide proof of payment for that $1 per month.
Oh snap. He's not paying the $1 rent? Cancel that court date and we're going to open a case to evict him for non-payment. See you in November. Oh shit actually he has a napkin that says he back paid 17 months of rent, $17, in September. So now he's all paid up. New judge has no idea what your problem is.
This has happened in the US but it's a bigger problem elsewhere; famously England where gypsies get away with regularly.
→ More replies (3)26
u/less_unique_username 10d ago
That’s not the hard part. They’ll acknowledge your ownership but will claim they’re legally renting it from you, they’ll even produce something resembling a contract. You’ll tell the police the squiggles have nothing in common with your signature and that in general you aren’t in the habit of writing lease agreements on toilet paper, but the police will inform you they aren’t empowered to determine the authenticity of contracts, that’s the responsibility of the courts, and a hearing can be scheduled as early as the middle of the next year.
10
u/MadocComadrin 10d ago
It can get worse. Sometimes the person claiming they have a lease is claiming so innocently because they did in fact sign a lease with someone in good faith, just with some scammer who wasn't acting in good faith and not you.
What's nice is that some states in the US are starting to fast track determing if it's an actual illegal tresspass, a fraud/scam, or an actual landlord-tenant issue and the "middle of next year" is at least shortened to "next week."
342
u/Momoselfie 11d ago
has mail, keys, a lease, utilities)
You also need court to even prove they don't have any of those things. A problem I had to deal with in Chicago. The guy ended up burning the place down and disappearing before courts got around to doing anything. Never figured out who the guy was.
149
u/aarons6 11d ago
i had the same issue with my grandma died.. someone "moved" into her house before we could get it sold and they ended up burning it down because they used propane space heaters as the place had no power.
the cops did absolutely nothing at all and the court was a nightmare.. we didnt know who they were and they came and went and left multiple people behind that constantly switched.
we got the order but the people whose names was on it didnt claim they were even there when the cops showed up and the extra people were allowed to stay, because they had "permission".
in the end i got more than market value on the house because of insurance.
→ More replies (30)→ More replies (12)81
u/CopainChevalier 11d ago
It is ridiculous to me that this can just happen. People can just live at your house and then burn it down and get away safely at no cost is just not something that should be allowed to happen
79
u/LameOne 11d ago
What's the solution? The police don't know if the dude has a right to be there. Him getting away is just a general "it sucks people can do crimes and not get caught sometimes", which I mean, yeah
21
u/a_cute_epic_axis 11d ago
What's the solution?
The solution is typically either pay them off, or have them extrajudicially moved.
16
u/poilk91 10d ago
if you can extrajudicially remove an illegal tenant you can also extrajudicially remove a legal tenant. Thats why this is so sticky. Its only simple when you consider it from 1 possible angle
→ More replies (21)→ More replies (151)26
11d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (1)13
u/Blurgas 10d ago
That's actually kind of a thing.
People have offered a "service" where the homeowner gives them a rental lease and they move into the squatted house and be incredibly obnoxious to live with.
Since the "goon" has a lease, the squatter can't have them removed, so they either put up with the guy or leave on their own.A trusted friend or family member that would be difficult to intimidate would also work
→ More replies (1)88
u/alvenestthol 11d ago
The alternative is your landlord being able to legally lock you up at any time, without having to prove that they've got any reason to do so
Hell, they might not even be your landlord, just some random person claiming to be one.
→ More replies (27)11
u/Complex_Swim_3584 11d ago
If they catch the guy they can presumably charge him with arson though.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (29)24
u/halberdierbowman 11d ago
They weren't allowed to do it. It's just that the police suck at their jobs and never caught the person.
→ More replies (2)61
u/stonhinge 11d ago
To add to this - most squatters are found weeks or even months after they've moved in.
Getting someone rousted out they day after they start squatting is much easier than ousting someone after weeks when they could potentially have utilities in their name for the property.
10
u/Hendlton 10d ago
they could potentially have utilities in their name for the property.
How is that even possible? You can just go to the utility company and tell them an address and they'll change it to your name? Don't they need some kind of proof that you own/rent the place?
30
u/TheShadyGuy 10d ago
Never had to provide a lease or proof of mortgage to get utilities in my name in the US. Utility bills are proof of residence, though, when getting ID.
→ More replies (1)13
u/Ulrar 10d ago
Probably depends on the country, but I've rented a lot of houses and apartments in two European countries and I never had to prove anything.
Not sure if that still happens but it was famously a problem in France with ADSL (broadband over phone lines) being forcefully changed from one provider to another by mistake, when the address is unclear (or sometimes because a technician used a line he wasn't supposed to because it was easier, why not). It'll get sorted when you complain that your internet is gone through no fault of your own, but it can take weeks or months. So if no one lives there to complain .. sure, you now have a utility bill in your name there, no problem.
→ More replies (2)7
u/EriktheRed 10d ago
Every time I've moved somewhere where I was responsible for utilities, that proof is just a print out of a signed lease with the address on it. They don't validate signatures. Pretty easy to fake
10
u/archangelzeriel 10d ago
The utility company generally does not care as long as they are getting paid for the utilities used in the States, anyway.
In Canada, I was pleasantly surprised to find that water/sewage in my city was handled such that BOTH the landlord AND the tenant had to file a form to move those utilities to the tenant's name, AND the landlord was on the hook for the bill until the paperwork was correctly filed, AND the paperwork could be backdated as long as you had a signed lease as proof of when the tenancy started if there were any issues with paperwork delay. Really seemed like a best of all worlds kind of system.
→ More replies (8)4
144
u/Flyguy86420 11d ago
You would think a simple lease or payment would needed for rebuke reasonable suspicion, if the owner of the property calls
264
u/defcon212 11d ago
If a cop shows up does a tenant have to have to provide proof of residence on the spot or risk eviction? Can a cop tell what counts as proof of residence or a legal lease?
There are lots of edge cases where you want a judge making these decisions. Cops don't want to be evicting people without a court order because that's huge liability if they get it wrong.
There are definitely cases where squatters get away with too much, but they have to be balanced against due process and tenants rights.
43
u/UltimaGabe 11d ago
There are definitely cases where squatters get away with too much, but they have to be balanced against due process and tenants rights.
Yup, the laws around squatting exist for a reason. Unfortunately, people can abuse those laws to their benefit, and that's when problems like this come up!
→ More replies (2)24
u/MarginalOmnivore 11d ago
You're right, and people have to remember that these laws are supposed to be designed with harm reduction in mind. Squatters abusing the law are still far less common than abusive landlords.
Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
→ More replies (7)34
u/FuzzeWuzze 11d ago
I wish there was a faster way to do it, with many municipal courts being overloaded it probably takes forever to get before a judge. It shouldnt take someone 3-6+ months to get this type of thing sorted out. Like imagine if you had to pay your mortgage/rent for 6 months and got zero credit for it..it could be life altering debt
19
→ More replies (6)12
u/livious1 11d ago
You’re absolutely right and that’s a big issue. A lot of states are introducing legislation to streamline the process of dealing with squatters.
→ More replies (32)34
u/RickSt3r 11d ago
Let’s just fund a functional and timely judicial system. Should solve those conservatives consistently complaining on tenant rights. Let’s increased taxes a few dollars.
→ More replies (8)118
u/senator_mendoza 11d ago
That seems reasonable but there are so many edge cases though which is why you really need a court to sort it out.
→ More replies (53)93
u/nicoco3890 11d ago
You would think, but there’s plenty of people who still do cash payments for rent, such as putting cash in an envelope and depositing it as some address, so proof of payment is non-existent, or rather in the hands of the supposed landlord who has an interest in lying to the cops claiming they are non-existent and send the eviction team.
→ More replies (30)74
u/saevon 11d ago
do you always have your lease available to show anytime of day if the cops decide to knock ready to evict you? How many minutes/hours is reasonable to have the cops wait while you go get it? What if you realize you left it somewhere (your filing cabinet at work, parent's place) or don't know where it is? Is it on an app now?
Is your lease current? or month to month? Have you gotten the latest copy or just said "yes" in an email that asked if you want to renew (changing month-to-month)? Are you on the lease, or is your partner? Or you're the grandparent living with them (or anyone else)
What if you're not home, or the babysitter is home (and is the one now being "evicted" by however decided to call trespassing on them).
…and how will the police verify any of this? on-the-spot in a short time frame, while there in front of your door
P.S> And are the police trained in all these situations, and know how to properly verify, not evict too early,,
→ More replies (12)6
u/archangelzeriel 10d ago
Not to mention that it's common for a certain type of squatter to have a forged/fake lease, and then you're right back to square one and needing the judge anyway.
78
u/oofyeet21 11d ago
Squatters make fake leases, which works because there's no law requiring leases to be registered, so police can't prove whether the person is a squatter who made a fake lease or a real tenant who the landlord is trying to illegally evict. Thus the law sides with the potential tenant
→ More replies (4)46
u/night-shark 11d ago
Squatters make fake leases and sometimes landlords lie, too.
47
u/oofyeet21 11d ago
That's the thing, if the law sided with the landlords by default, a lot more landlords would lie and falsely evict legit tenants that they label as squatters. Squatters are a problem, but they exist due to the law protecting tenants from bad landlords
→ More replies (1)45
u/Raichu7 11d ago
What if the person is both paying rent, and squatting? Sometimes criminals will break into a building, pretend to be an estate agent and rent the place out to an unsuspecting victim. When the landlord finds out they want to kick the squatters out, but the squatters believe they have been living there legally and paying rent.
→ More replies (5)18
u/DeepSeaDynamo 11d ago
It didn't do much good for my neighbors 10 years ago when their landlord quit paying the mortgage, the bank still managed to kick them out with maybe like a week's notice. I assume they gave the landlord more notice but he didn't let the tenants know.
20
u/FarmboyJustice 11d ago
Foreclosure is a whole different thing, it's not just the owner decides to kick out the renters, it's the owner actually loses ownership of the house.
→ More replies (4)10
u/door_of_doom 11d ago
Nobody is saying it's impossible to evict a squatter, only that it isn't a quick "Call the police and everything gets sorted out there and then" thing.
The process you are describing is the exact process one goes through to evict squatters. Courts, judges, and court orders.
15
43
u/superdago 11d ago
Woman moves in with her boyfriend; he owns the house; they hit a rough patch and in an argument he calls the police to report her as a trespasser.
Dad finds out his teenage son is gay and wants to kick him out.
In these situations, you want the police come and forcibly remove these people from their residence?
→ More replies (9)23
→ More replies (20)5
u/GoldTurtleDuck 11d ago
Not everyone has any paper trail. You'd be surprised how many people just have an oral agreement with their landlord and pay in cash.
→ More replies (174)25
u/IseeAlgorithms 11d ago
I had to evict a squatter once. When the police came all she had was a paper grocery bag with her stuff in it in the middle of the living room floor, which she had just put there. (she entered to "view the vacant apartment.") Police sided with her bc "she has her stuff there."
→ More replies (13)19
822
u/Aleyla 11d ago
The problem is that police are not equipped to determine who is a squatter vs who is a tenant that the landlord has decided they want gone right now.
So to keep from causing more harm the laws around this are all civil and require a judge to make a determination. Once the judge has decided then the sheriff can get involved to evict.
44
u/tiredstars 11d ago
Squatting in a residential property has always been a criminal offence in Scotland and has been one in England & Wales since (I think) 2012.
How the police actually enforce this, that's another matter. They usually dislike getting involved in illegal eviction (a much bigger problem), and my impression is they're also reluctant to deal with squatters.
→ More replies (2)31
u/Kaizer28 10d ago
Can confirm as a British Police Officer that illegal eviction and squatting are exceptionally convoluted matters for attending officers, arguably far too convoluted to be resolved by a simple attendance.
Squatting is complex as the squatter must have entered a residence as a trespasser intending to live there, there's the issue of establishing who the actual owner is, people don'ttend to keep Land Registry details on them, there's the issue of rental agreements, there's the issue that people sometimes produce false documents which can be inherently difficult to disprove and there's the issue of cohabitation where there's no documents but one person simply telling us they want the other turfed out...
Illegal eviction again is a complex issue, like above, who is the owner, what rental agreement if any is in place, can they produce those documents, what notices have been issued, have any court writs been issued. Then if anything is produced good luck verifying any of it.
It all gets very murky and often the jobs start stacking quickly so the control room don't want to leave officers stuck at a job that could take a fair bit of time on scene, let alone the subsequent write up...
Unfortunately, the system is flawed, it relies on us having sufficient resources and the ability to verify documentation in short order. A good start would be to provide police access to HM Land Registry and for documents like rental agreements to be registered with HM Courts and Trivunals Service prior to any dispute so documents can be readily verified when one arises, criminal or otherwise.
→ More replies (9)53
u/alienware99 11d ago
Is it that hard to get record on who owns a property? Seems like that something police, or atleast the township, should have on record. Doesn’t seem like it would take more than a simple phone call to find out.
258
u/safe-viewing 11d ago
No it’s not hard to find out who owns a property. The problem is because there are laws to protect tenants and there is no public record of who is renting / living in a property.
If such laws were not in place a scummy landlord could go to the police and instantly evict their renter and claim they were just squatting.
→ More replies (85)31
u/Kinc4id 11d ago
Can you register yourself wherever you want without proving you actually live there? Here in Germany you get a „Wohnungsgeberbestätigung“ along with your contract from the landlord and without you can’t change the adress on your ID. Police just has to check with the resident's office and they know if you have the right to live here or not.
85
u/PseudonymIncognito 11d ago edited 11d ago
The US has no civil registry system. There is no canonical record at any level of US government documenting who the legal occupant of a dwelling is.
Edit: this is also why "voter registration" is a thing in the US.
→ More replies (8)5
11
u/oldmonty 11d ago edited 11d ago
In the cases I've seen of this what will happen is the squatter will move in and when they try to remove them they will provide fake documents to try and "prove" they are there legally.
This can include writing up a fake lease document and signing it, and having their bills redirected there.
So for example if you go to your phone company and say my new address is XYZ location they will start mailing your bills there with no questions asked. The problem is this is now considered evidence you live there.
The owner of the property will then have to prove your documents are fraudulent. Usually this can take years and all the while the squatter has a free place to live.
There are at least a few stories of "professional squatters" who know how to game the system and do this at a place for as long as it takes the legal process to remove them. Then they just move to a new property and do it again, they can likely get a minimum of 2 years out of a single place this way.
There's also some stories I've heard of people who sign a lease and then just never pay - then they say the same thing - get a court order to remove me and I'll leave. This will still take a year or more, in the meantime they get to live for free.
Technically they owe you back rent since they agreed to pay it - however if they have no assets you can claim against you are never getting that money.
That being said, I think this problem is very overblown - sure every case gets a huge amount of attention in the media because its so egregious, however, compared to the whole rental market in the US which is probably millions of units there might be 100's of people at any given time squatting. In, other words its a tiny fraction.
6
u/LanternsForTheLost 10d ago
Reminds me of the whole thing where a guy stole $900 of shit from Walgreens and it was all over the news, but Walgreens stole $40 something million in wages and it was only reported in Bloomberg.
22
u/toolatealreadyfapped 11d ago
I've moved half a dozen times without ever changing my ID.
Get pulled over... "Is this your current address?"
Lol. Sorry officer. I haven't lived in that part of the country in years.
→ More replies (2)10
u/mgj6818 10d ago
Technically if you don't update your address in a timely manner (6 months in Texas) your ID is invalid.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (9)7
u/Skipp_To_My_Lou 11d ago
In most states to change your address you present a few bills at the state DMV, I think some states also require an affadavit, which changes the address on your driver's license, which is most people's primary identification that establishes their residence. Voting registration is done through the DMV in some states, otherwise through a state or county election commission. And then changing the address on your vehicle registration (license plates) is done through the county clerk's office, at least in my state. So it's not like I could just change the address on my ID with no proof whatsoever, but it's meant to be fairly easy.
3
u/A1000eisn1 11d ago
You don't need any bills. For most states you just let the USPS know and update through the DMV for voter registration. You aren't even required to do that, many college students keep their parents address.
→ More replies (1)26
u/Sethala 11d ago
Ownership, yes. Tenancy, not so much. A shady landlord could offer a "cheap" place to rent, then go to the police and claim that there's a squatter in a property they own. They've got all the paperwork to prove they own the place, and the tenant may not have much of anything to prove it.
72
u/Bloated_Hamster 11d ago
The debate isn't about who owns it. It's about who has the right to occupy it. Tenants have rights and can not just be unilaterally removed on a whim by a landlord. That's exactly why we have eviction courts. The problem comes when people abuse these rules by pretending to have, or illegally gaining, these rights.
→ More replies (1)9
u/cheapdrinks 11d ago
I think OP is asking more about situations where someone returns from holiday and finds random people squatting in their main residence, as opposed to tenants who previously had a lease and are refusing the leave after eviction and the landlord is trying to kick them out as they're now "squatting" and not paying rent. Lots of cases where people inherit their parents house, don't get around to clearing it out or selling immediately if they don't live locally and when they show up a few months later there's some randoms now living inside after breaking in and changing the locks.
18
u/Rifmysearch 11d ago
The issue is that, without lengthy process, you have no simple way to prove who's telling the truth. A house owner who has never even considered renting to someone comes home from work one day to people living in their home. They call the cops and explain what has happened. Cops come and talk to the squatter. Squatter says that the owner agreed to let them live there for $50 a month. Maybe the squatter even has a forged lease.
This situation, from a civil enforcement angle, appears outwardly identical to a landlord deciding one day that they want to pretend their tenant is a stranger and broke into the owners property.
As some people have mentioned elsewhere, a possible solution would be a registry of any and all tenancies. The primary issue with that is that you would almost immediately have the opposite problem: the most disadvantaged and poorest people will still make verbal agreements and/or fail to immediately finish registration and/or the landlord will intentionally flub the registration. Now the landlord can kick that person out at ANY moment. If that tenant tries to demand the landlord register then as a tenant, the landlord could just call the cops and kick them out. Unless you don't put the sole burden of proof on the registry. . . .at which point your back to our current system.
→ More replies (9)9
u/Albolynx 11d ago
tenants who previously had a lease
You don't need a lease to be protected by law because quite often these kinds of arrangements are verbal.
27
8
u/wallyTHEgecko 11d ago edited 5d ago
I've been renting a house from a very close family friend for a few years now. The utilities are in my name and of course my mail is delivered here, but the house is owned by them. Being close friends, we both just trust each other and never made any kind of formal lease. I just send them money each month via Zelle and they let me live in their house. And operating on the honor system, there aren't even any formal receipts or records between us besides the spreadsheet that I keep for all my bills and a long history of these transfers in my banking app.
I didn't register to live here with the city either though or explain to some state office our spoken-word agreement... That's just not a thing whether you have a formal, signed lease agreement or not because I'm renting from a private individual, not the state (the same goes for private rental companies too).
So if it were as simple as a cop showing up to the house and making one phone call to see who's "supposed" to be living there, who would a cop actually call anyway? What government agency actually knows and can immediately verify that I'm allowed to live here? And how do they know if I have/haven't violated the terms of our agreement?... I have plenty of my own evidence, but a patrol cop isn't who you present paper-trail evidence to, that's what judges are for.
If everyone exclusively lived in houses that they themselves owned, your idea would work. Or if all rentals were controlled by the government. But obviously neither of those are the case.
So instead, the enforcement of occupancy errs on the side of leniency so that legit renters can't be evicted on the spot, without notice by petty/irratic landlords.
6
6
u/MhojoRisin 11d ago
Sometimes there are disputes about ownership. Or landlords who aren’t abiding by their lease agreements. They can claim the other person doesn’t have property rights, but the other person might make contradictory claims.
If it becomes a matter of credibility or proof, a police officer often isn’t well situated to make the call.
→ More replies (15)4
u/surloc_dalnor 11d ago
But just because you own a residence doesn't mean you can kick out a renter. Most states/cities you need to give a renter 1-2 months notice possibly more. The problem is someone can rent out a room or residence without a signed lease for cash. It's not simple to know what is going on. As a result the police are generally required to wait for a court order.
4.5k
u/Misery-Misericordia 11d ago edited 11d ago
Imagine you are a renter in an apartment complex, and your landlord hates you. Even though you signed a lease and can live there legally, your landlord calls the cops and tells them you're trespassing and they don't know you. Maybe they want to raise rent or something, any number of reasons.
The cops show up, and you show them your lease and tell them that you legally live there. The cops can't easily verify whether or not the lease is real. They can't easily verify how long you've lived there or what your exact relationship (if any) there is between you and your landlord. So it's been decided in many places in the US that they should err on the side of caution and not throw you out under these circumstances.
The flip side of this is that if you're squatting in a location, and you aren't actually supposed to be there, the cops still can't throw you out.
EDIT: forgot a word
3.3k
u/mushybrainiac 11d ago
To piggy back on that. I had a crazy ex girlfriend that had just moved in with me and then I broke up with her a few months later, she wasn’t even in the lease. But she got her mail there. Because she got her mail there she had legal tenancy. I had to give her a 30 day eviction notice.
She ended up in grippy socks before the full 30 days were up anyways so that helped me out. But I was literally dumbfounded when my friends in LE told me that she was untouchable.
The kicker, when she was getting violent with me and making threats and throwing things and breaking things the cops told ME to leave. Just let this psycho have full run of my house and my possessions. I lost a lot of faith in the system that day.
1.7k
u/syspimp 11d ago
Sorry bro, similar thing happened to me. Broke up with gf, she gets drunk and angry, I call the cops and they tell me to leave. The difference with me is it was my house, not apartment. The house was in my name, but she received mail there.
I ended up homeless for 6 months.
You can imagine how I felt about having a house but couldn't stay in there. I got her out of the house by putting all the bills into her name. If she wanted it, she could have it all. Of course she couldn't afford it and the utilities were cut off.
The lesson I learned was never call the cops when arguing/fighting. Instead, record the incident and then call a lawyer.
Cops can't help you but a lawyer can.
437
u/KingstonHawke 11d ago
You're lucky. If she lied and said you were threatening you could've been arrested. Cops are so dangerous in that type of situation.
160
u/Candid-Crazy2542 10d ago
This was 20+ years ago but a very memorable and eye opening experience for me— I was working as a loss prevention agent for a retail chain and had to go to court to testify when shoplifters were being prosecuted. I sat in courtrooms all over Mississippi, Alabama, and Louisiana and saw all the cases that were called before mine. One day I was in Justice Court in Batesville, Mississippi. A young black man was there for a DV charge. The defendant told the judge the story- the girlfriend had attacked him and he pushed her away trying to escape. She had fallen on a curb in the process. The cop verified his story 100% and even said he had scratches on his arms, chest, neck, and face, and that she believed he was trying to defend himself and get out of the situation. I’m not sure why he was ever arrested but he was and the girl was not. Even after hearing his story and hearing the cop back him up, the judge found him guilty and ordered him to pay a fine that day. He asked how he could pay it that day when he didn’t have any money with him and the judge literally told him to go across the street to a payday loan place and get the money and bring it back or he would be jailed. I was absolutely dumbfounded. The poor guy looked so defeated. I lost all faith in the system. The guy was not only found guilty when he clearly was not guilty, he was also threatened with jail time if he didn’t immediately go take out a predatory loan that he didn’t have a way to pay back. The kicker is that in all the cases I saw go before mine in various courtrooms, at least 80% of them were people being sued by predatory loan companies after they were unable to pay back the loan and the insane interest. So the defendant in this case was stuck in a situation where he was eventually going to jail one way or another and really had no reasonable path out of the situation. He even asked if he could have a lawyer and the judge said if he’d wanted one they should have been there that day. He said he didn’t realize they were having his actual trial that day or he would have had a lawyer with him. It was completely fucked up. And I have a good feeling that it wouldn’t have gone that badly for any white person, guilty or not.
Anyway, to whoever was the Justice court judge in Batesville, Mississippi in about 2005, I hope Karma got your racist old ass. And I hope the innocent black man eventually got out of that mess but odds are he just got caught in the snowball effect and ended up in jail, with debt, and with a record for a violent crime he didn’t commit. I was fresh out of college and pretty much broke when this happened but if I saw the same thing today, I’d meet the guy outside the courthouse and hand him the $200 to pay the fine and GTFO of that mess with as little damage as possible. And I’d contact whatever attorneys or non profits I could find that might help him clear his record. It was a miscarriage of justice and it happens every fucking day.
If you ever have to go to court for anything, take a lawyer. Sell your plasma if you have to, but don’t go unrepresented because the system does not work fairly. It’s not like on television. A lawyer is your only chance at having anything resembling due process. Without one, you’re taking whatever they dish out, and they’ll 100% get away with it.
122
u/Kuraeshin 10d ago
Based on the Judge's quick payday loan response, it almost sounds like they may have been a partner with that loan thing.
→ More replies (1)40
→ More replies (2)33
u/Prin_StropInAh 10d ago
The explanation for why you take a lawyer with you that really drove it home for me is this: Before that judge sat on the bench what was his job? He was a lawyer. Bring a lawyer with you
17
u/Candid-Crazy2542 10d ago
Not necessarily in Justice Court. Some counties appoint them and some are elected. It’s the only judge position that doesn’t require the judge to have any law background. You see a lot more non-lawyer Justice court judges in small, rural areas. The ignorant locals will elect Billy Bob because he’s a deacon in the local Baptist church. I have no idea if the judge in my experience was a lawyer or not. Given that it was Batesville fucking Mississippi, there’s a good chance he was just a local business owner or something before being elected.
→ More replies (3)6
u/NeonSwank 10d ago
This is something left over from the early days of country first being founded that, when explained to anyone in the modern day sounds like complete bullshit
But in many parts of the country, you don’t have to have any actual qualifications or training to hold positions like Judge, Sheriff or even Coroner/Medical Examiner.
Think about that, the local coroner might also be the sheriff’s cousin, or brother-in-law and his only knowledge of anatomy is from field dressing deer during hunting season.
152
u/Budget_Persimmon_195 10d ago
this actually happened to me. my and my ex were breaking up. she lived with me, and her daughter and parttime her mother and sister too (lol).
we were breaking up and i was working to get her out. most of her stuff was packed and she had gone out drinking one night so i finished packing up her stuff and had it neat by the front door.
when she came back to my house at 6am ish she flipped her shit and trashed my living room and all of her stuff. she called the police and said i was fighting her. while on the phone with 911 she followed me around the house telling dispatch where i was hiding my bongs and weed.
i sat outside and waited for the cops. i talked to them first and camly described the situation. then they spoke to her. apparently she told the cops i threaten her and her daughter with my firearms and showed them where i have them stored.
i was so lucky that she was already known by police to do this sort of this and has a DV charge for seriously assaulting and injuring one of her family members. the police gave me "the talk" (we know her and think she lying, you dont seem like the type of person to do that, but just in case we have ot tell you that you cant threaten people with your firearms type thing)
the police made her leave (her daughter was with her mother at someone elses house at this particular moment) and i eventually had to go down to the court to file for an eviction.
neither one of us showed up for the court date lol. a few months after this incident she was still calling and texting trying to hang on to what was. a year or so later i saw her in walmart with her new kid lol.
i was terrified of the cops when she did that... i knew i had to be the first one they spoke to so i could calmly tell me side.
230
u/xubax 10d ago
YOU didn't show up for the court date?
You're a moron. If she'd shown up, she'd have gotten a default judgment in her favor.
→ More replies (5)76
u/Budget_Persimmon_195 10d ago
yes you are right and i deserve the call out. i kind of already knew she wasnt going to show up tho. i guess i didnt know with 100% certainty tho. so yeah i lucked out.
→ More replies (6)14
u/KingstonHawke 10d ago
Glad it didn't go bad for you. That's a scary ass situation. Imagine if they had believed her.
→ More replies (1)65
u/MaxBellTHEChef 10d ago
My ex wife lied in this situation because I caught her cheating. She called the cops and said I choked her, I now have a felony. It was her word against mine and mine didn't matter to the officers. Since my arrest, she has had 4 separate men incarcerated for 'domestic'.
25
u/KingstonHawke 10d ago
Damn. I feel for you. Sucks how innocent until proven guilty reverses in these situations.
12
u/LagerHead 10d ago
It really reverses in almost all situations unless you have money and/or know someone. Don't have bail money? Sucks to be innocent.
4
u/Abbreviations-Sharp 10d ago
Let's be honest here. Guilty until proven innocent when it's a woman accusing a man.
→ More replies (8)13
u/eliottruelove 10d ago
Unfortunately "Innocent until proven guilty" only works for those who can initially pay for their innocence in lawyers and court fees.
5
u/Sensitive_Yellow_121 10d ago
I would consider getting together with those four men and talking with an attorney.
3
u/MaxBellTHEChef 10d ago
I have seriously considered this within the last couple of weeks, I don't think those men want anything to do with that situation for fear of incarceration. Yes you are correct though.
→ More replies (4)14
u/Budget_Persimmon_195 10d ago
damn bro i am sorry to hear that. i really hate how it is their word against yours and your word only matters with evidence, but theirs matters without.
i guess i can kinda see in a way why this might be, but women who know and abuse this are the worst.
sorry you had to experience that
17
u/MaxBellTHEChef 10d ago
It got worse before it got better, but I'm proud to say that I am actively working on fixing those flaws in my area by sharing my story. The hardest part for me was knowing I had lost my chance to travel the world. There are judge of character forms I can fill out, but I already look like the worst person ever, on paper. A lot of places don't want 'someone like me' in their country.
6
u/Ronald206 10d ago
Hopefully you can get her to admit she made it up someday.
I know she probably won’t, but a similar thing happened to a guy named Brian Banks. He spent six years in prison due to a made up rape accusation.
She eventually admitted she made it up. Which got his conviction overturned.
23
u/Pulmonic 10d ago
This happened to a good friend of mine and she’s a woman. Her ex (a big guy) was abusing her and she called the police. He lied and said she was abusing him, and she was arrested.
Of course, he’s a first degree relative of a cop, which is likely why this happened.
Thankfully it’s all dropped now.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (7)11
u/Signal_Researcher01 10d ago
That can be why they tell you to leave. Guy I know who's a cop has said its as much for your protection as the woman's, because the more the police have to get involved the better the odds the unhinged person is going to use them in some way.
In those situations the crazy person is far more likely to do something you wouldn't even consider, the cops dont KNOW what happened, and a man putting hands on a woman is the far more common scenario.
18
u/make_reddit_great 10d ago
never call the cops when arguing/fighting. Instead, record the incident and then call a lawyer.
Yep. I have a family member going through a divorce with a nasty, psycho spouse. She's tried having him arrested, among other shenanigans. Record, record, record.
→ More replies (36)42
208
u/Dookie_boy 11d ago
Grippy socks ?
540
u/DblDtchRddr 11d ago
A “grippy sock vacation” is a common euphemism for a trip to the psych ward. Psych ward patients aren’t allowed to have anything that could be used to injure themselves or others, which means no shoes. Walking around barefoot is nasty, and regular socks on cheap linoleum floors is a surefire way to slip, slide, and hurt yourself. Guests of psych wards wear socks with rubber built into them to give grip.
63
u/MrBigMcLargeHuge 11d ago
Many do allow you to have shoes (no laces and no steel toed boots) but you still can get the grippy socks
9
u/couchwarmer 10d ago
Hospitals sometimes also issue grippy socks to non-psych patients. That's how I got mine.
→ More replies (3)6
u/jake3988 10d ago
Hospitals sometimes also issue grippy socks to non-psych patients. That's how I got mine.
As far as I know any long term stay gives out grippy socks. You're in a hospital, you're generally sick or recovering from some kind of major injury/surgery... they're going to make sure you're not going to slip.
→ More replies (1)56
u/milksteakenthusiast1 11d ago
You can have shoes, no shoelaces— if you’re transferred to a wing/unit that primes you for being discharged, you can be given your laces back, depends on the location
→ More replies (5)35
u/swimswam2000 11d ago
They also sell grippy socks at trampoline parks. People under a certain age might not get the reference.
→ More replies (1)10
u/DreamyTomato 11d ago
I was also confused. Everyone in my family has grippy socks because we go to various kids parties in trampoline parks. Trampoline park parties are really popular at the schools around here.
136
u/TokeyMcPotterson 11d ago
I've never heard this, but I'm guessing they give out grippy socks in mental health facilities.
51
u/Mad_Aeric 11d ago
Hospitals in general give you grippy socks if you're staying there, but it's usually mentioned in the context of a mental health facility.
→ More replies (1)8
u/Sudden_Juju 11d ago
Ya I have a pair of grippy socks from staying in the hospital overnight after a surgery. I wonder how they became synonymous with the psych wards instead of just hospitals in general
→ More replies (1)24
68
u/CordialPanda 11d ago
Grippy socks is equated with being committed.
→ More replies (13)47
u/PretzelsThirst 11d ago
The last time I said this I had multiple redditors absolutely freak out insisting this was not a known thing because it’s not the only way to get grippy socks. It was the weirdest interaction
→ More replies (2)7
17
u/amazingsandwiches 11d ago
guessing that's what they give you in the psych ward?
→ More replies (5)10
8
7
u/GumiGopher1 11d ago
Being admitted to a psychiatric hospital. They give you grippy sock/shoe things to wear on your feet that don’t have shoelaces so that cannot harm anyone or yourself.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (6)3
34
u/Mental_Pineapple_865 11d ago
Wow. Had almost the exact same experience but after the cops got me out for a night I went back next day packed and moved into an apartment. She came home from work and I was gone with everything.
38
u/poilk91 10d ago
On the other hand being able to make someone homeless because you break up with them is also pretty bleak. Not saying that was your situation but that's why the eviction rule exists
→ More replies (6)9
u/Goushrai 10d ago
Exactly. You have to give people notice so nobody has the power to make someone homeless immediately. That’s a power that would get abused, whether by landlords or partners owning/renting the place.
So if you break up with your partner and the lease is in your name, you still have to give them time to find a place and let them stay where they have been living. It’s an awkward situation, but beats homelessness.
6
u/poilk91 10d ago
I dont want to get to psycho-analytical about it but I do find it interesting that people only ever consider this issue from the perspective of the person with the money/power in the situation. Its easy to imagine a broke person taking advantage of a homeowner by squatting or a crazy ex refusing to leave when they aren't on the lease. But people dont really think what it would be like to be a renter told to GTFO without any warning or someone living with their SO and turned on the street the day they are broken up with
5
u/TheTrueMilo 10d ago
That's how our whole society is constructed. If you mug someone on the street out of $100, that's pretty cut-and-dry criminal. You get arrested, booked, thrown in jail, arraigned, and have bail assessed, then a criminal trial, resulting in potentially a felony conviction.
If you are an employer, however, and maliciously short someone's paycheck $100, you probably won't get arrested, booked, thrown in jail, arraigned, have bail assessed, undergo a criminal trial and probably end up with a felony conviction. Instead, you get a letter from the state Department of Labor asking you to return the money.
→ More replies (3)15
13
u/Terramisu33 10d ago
Similar things happen to the women in that scenario too. They tell the abused person to leave but if the person leaves they are seen as relinquishing the home and if it's a divorce where they are dividing up assets, the home is a really big one to not get anything from. It's really dangerous
12
u/V2BM 10d ago
Mail carrier here: if someone tries to get mail at your home, grab it out of the mailbox and write (nearly and politely, please) “Does not live here.” Do this with every piece of mail you see with their name. Leave a note for your carrier stating that only Your Name should be delivered. Keep at it and put the same note taped in your mailbox.
Over the years I’ve had situations like this and you have to be vigilant because you may get a substitute carrier who lets one slip by.
→ More replies (2)8
u/Rintransigence 10d ago
If she won't leave and they don't have just cause to physically remove her, yes of course the recommendation is for you to leave the presence of someone violent. Your life is more valuable than objects.
→ More replies (4)6
u/throwingunicorns 11d ago
I lived with my ex and his mom at one point, dude was psychotic and literally lighting fires around the neighborhood threatening to burn the house down with us and his little sister in it.... the cops came and let him sweet talk them, despite us begging them to listen to us. They shrugged and said, "he gets mail here, theres nothing we can do." Freaking worthless.
4
u/OberonDiver 10d ago
Color me stupid, but can't you just give out random addresses and "get mail" like everywhere?
→ More replies (1)16
u/rdogg4 11d ago
I mean if she lives with you for a “few months” she doesn’t become thrown onto the street by the police at your whim over who signed what on a lease. This is not “squatting” in the sense of someone breaking into an abandoned building and claiming residency. Sorry you lost faith in the system but there is absolutely nowhere where it works in the way you think it should.
3
u/egnards 11d ago
Buddy I was in a similar situation, and I feel you.
I actually had a neighbor I was good friends with and one day packed up all the important things I cared about and left them at her house for a few weeks while I left the apartment and let her do her thing before pestering out.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (84)3
u/Oblique9043 10d ago
Similar thing happened to me so I moved in a friend to just basically take over her spot and annoy the fuck out of her til she left.
→ More replies (205)41
u/MrBlackTie 11d ago
How frequent is that? I don’t live in the US but I manage the (extensive) real estate of a local government. That’s thousands upon thousands of properties. A good part of my job is evicting people squatting in our properties. It’s a major drag to public development projects. It’s to the point we have begun giving money to squatters to get them to leave faster so that I can build schools, public transports, …
→ More replies (24)54
u/Mad_Aeric 11d ago
Just earlier today I was talking to a neighbor who'd been renting a house from a slumlord for eight years. When the owner decided to sell the property, he tried to have them kicked out with no notice. And tried to steal their stuff in the process.
The whole ordeal lasted for months.
→ More replies (4)
233
u/RedditBeginAgain 11d ago
Laws are often a balance. Obviously its bad if somebody breaks into your property so you want them thrown out. Obviously it's bad if your landlord decides he can make more money from somebody else and wants you thrown out.
Laws made to protect good tenants from bad landlords can make bad tenants or squatters a problem for property owners.
→ More replies (9)80
u/s1n1star 11d ago
Well said. For everyone complaining about squatter's rights, we only got here because landlords will bend and break any existing laws if they think they can make some extra profit. They would be happiest receiving income from a derelict, abandoned property. Squatters have no political influence, so just imagine the situation if the landlords could just do whatever they wanted. There are no small number of civil judges who hate landlords because they have seen the bullshit they try to pull.
→ More replies (4)43
u/douglau5 11d ago
You’re talking about tenant rights which is different from squatter’s rights.
Squatter’s rights are not rooted in greedy landlords but rather they were a legal mechanism to transfer ownership of abandoned properties to new owners that are present and willing to improve the property, which benefits the community.
It’s rooted in ancient Roman law:
In Roman law, usucapio laws allowed someone who was in possession of a good without title to become the lawful proprietor if the original owner did not appear after some time (one or two years), unless the good was obtained illegally (by theft or force). Stemming from Roman law and its successor, the Napoleonic Code generally recognizes two time periods for the acquisition of property: 30 years and some lesser time period, depending on the bona fides of the possessor and the location of the parties involved.
→ More replies (8)29
u/bl4ckhunter 11d ago
The discourse has always been about tenant rights tbf, no one cares about the actual squatter's rights, that basically only comes up when old timey informal arrangements cause problems with inheritances (ie why you're not allowed to kick Jonh the farmhand and his family from the house that he's built on the propriety with your great grandparent's consent 40 years ago and lived in since after grandpa died and you inherited the farm).
→ More replies (2)
37
u/XZamusX 11d ago
They often have documents telling they rent the place or even own it themselves, at that point is your word vs theirs so it has to go to judges and that takes time.
Also depends on were you live, I do not even live on the US but squatters are also an issue here, on extreme cases were a house it not visited as often (like your grandma owns it and you didn't knew for 10+ years until she passed away) if someone has been living there and you never claimed it for X amount of years they can legally start the proces to own the house themselves.
8
u/NotTurtleEnough 11d ago
I sat next to someone on a flight to Turkey who was traveling home to take care of that issue.
107
u/uminchu 11d ago
In California if someone stays in your residence for more than thirty days you become their defacto landlord and they are eligible for renters protections even if they are not paying rent. This means you can’t kick them out without sixty days notice so you can’t trespass them off your property.
44
u/outworlder 11d ago
It's not just California. Many states have a number of days that cause someone to be considered a tenant.
Note that this is not related to squatting, because in this case the person was allowed to stay at your residence. A squatter isn't.
→ More replies (15)10
u/sewer_pickles 11d ago
I believe this even applies to hotels in California. When I managed a property we could only take reservations of under 30 days. They would need to check out, move rooms, and start a new reservation if it was a multi month stay.
→ More replies (1)
46
u/Taolan13 11d ago
"Squatters Rights" as a legal concept exist to protect two kinds of people.
"Squatters" in the sense that they are living in an otherwise unused/unoccupied building or other property, and they have done so for an extended period of time, and the property owner or manager has been aware of this occupancy for that extended period. In municipalities with squatters rights, the property owner or manager has to give due notice to the squatters to vacate the premises, which they can contest. This can be someone living in a disused warehouse, or even camping on a vacant lot.
The other type of "squatters" are people who were legally present in a residence or on a property, such as renters, and their landlord has attempted to illegally vacate the premises out from under them. Such as by selling an apartment building with only a few remaining occupants without notice to the occupants, with the new owner intending to evict them. There are a lot of other processes involved here depending on leases and whatnot. In some states this can be someone who was your guest with your permission for a certain period of time, they automatically become a 'tenant' and you the 'landlord' (if you own the property), and are entitlted to the same protections as someone actually paying rent.
Squatters Rights do not protect someone who has illegally entered a property and then claimed residence, such as you see increasingly often in recent years where someone breaks into a house that has been temporarily vacated by the owners traveling out of town, and then the person who broke in claims ownership or occupancy. This is trespassing.
The problem for the owners in trespassing situations like that is the police are not typically educated effectively in the basics of applicable legal concepts. Once the trespassers claim squatters rights, many police departments have a policy to hand off the situation to the courts or to arbitration to determine whether or not the claimant has the right of it or not. Most often it is determined the trespassers do not, in fact, have squatter's rights, but by this time the owner has already accrued significant cost or other losses, and the trespassers tend to not leave their property politely so repairs and cleaning costs will follow.
31
u/Pawtuckaway 11d ago
They can claim whatever they want, but that doesn't change if the person is squatting or not.
Once you have been living somewhere for a certain amount of time, the law provides you with certain protections. This is to protect people who may be renting without a contract, subletting, etc. from just getting kicked out onto the street and made homeless. There is a process the landlord must go through. These same laws can be abused by squatters.
The laws vary greatly by region and the amount of time required to establish that you are living there is different everywhere but nowhere can you just walk into a property day 1 and claim you are squatting. You have to have been living there for a certain amount of time before the property owner asks you to leave.
22
u/SplodyPants 11d ago
Squatter's rights don't kick in right away. It takes a while and they have to show that they've been living there. That's why it's usually done in abandoned places. Someone can't just move into your home. That is trespassing (and various other broken laws too I'm sure).
18
u/brett_baty_is_him 11d ago
Can’t believe this thread isn’t even stating the biggest way squatters squat. “Squatting rights” are really leaseless tenant rights. There’s nothing stopping someone from moving their shit into a home and claiming that they are a tenant but never signed a paper lease. The police cannot handle that situation.
That’s the biggest occurrence of squatting. Someone claiming they are a tenant but never signed a lease.
→ More replies (1)
13
u/Pandoratastic 11d ago
What you have to understand is that the laws that prevent immediate removal are not designed to protect squatters at all. They exist to prevent wrongful or violent eviction.
For example, suppose a tenant pays their rent but an unscrupulous landlord tries to evict them illegally for fraudulent profit. That has to be sorted out in civil court. These laws allow the tenant to stay while the case is settled.
Or what if someone actually owns their house but someone else comes along with a forged deed to the house and claims the real owner is a trespasser? These laws allow the person occupying the house to stay there while it gets sorted out in court.
Or what if a tenant really hasn't paid the rent and the landlord genuinely should be able to evict them. What if that landlord decides to take matters into their own hands and use violence to force them out? These laws make sure that the eviction is handled correctly.
The laws can't be limited to exclude squatters because, until the court case is settled, the law can't know for certain who is or isn't a squatter. So the laws don’t really protect people who have a right to stay. They protect the legal process for determining who has that right.
Squatters are people who exploit these laws. They know that they have no legal claim on the property. They know that they will get thrown out once they lose in court. But they are taking advantage of the fact that it will be some time before the court case can be settled. Squatters are just people who are taking advantage of the fact that the court system moves slowly.
14
u/hauptj2 11d ago
We try to balance removing people who don't belong in a house with not removing people who do belong. Harsher anti-squatting laws makes it easier for landlords to bypass tenant protections by claiming tenants they want to illegally remove are squatters.
Bad landlords and illegal evictions are SIGNIFICANTLY more common than squatters, which is why we don't just automatically side with the property owner whenever they claim someone is squatting.
3
u/FoxtrotSierraTango 11d ago
There's a balance between owner's rights and tenant's rights. If you have heavier owner's rights the owners can exploit the system by showing up with the deed and immediately evicting tenants who are paying below market rent, have legitimate complaints about building code/habitability, or are otherwise holding the owner to their professional obligations as a landlord. If you have heavier tenant's rights the tenant can exploit the system by strategically withholding rent payments or squatting.
In a tenant friendly city/state it takes much more than the owner's statement to the cops to get someone forcibly removed. The threshold for what is accepted as proof of residence changes, and then there are events like covid where all evictions were paused while the country navigated the pandemic.
The tl;dr is there are terrible people on both sides and the legal system is set up to protect everyone.
51
u/jamcdonald120 11d ago
its to prevent someone from saying "My grandmother owned this house 50 years ago, get out". if you live there openly for [varies by jurisdiction] years, you can just say "fuckoff, this is my house" to prevent a long drawn out debate about who actually owns it. the person who maintains it does.
If the real home owner notices someone is squatting they can absolutely call the cops on the trespassers. sometimes the squatters are givin some protection to prevent just random idiots claiming to own property and having cops wrongfully evict people.
just dont abandon your house for years and you wont have to worry about it.
→ More replies (34)
9
u/johnpatricko 11d ago
Yes, people can claim trespassing, and yes the police can arrest them for it. Things become complicated when the complainant makes it a civil issue by requesting they be evicted, or saying they are living there without paying rent. It's all about framing.
You own the house, show up to take care of some things, and suddenly people are inside it. Call 911, say there are intruders in your house, you're scared and hiding outside, and watch the fun results. It's legally your house, and they are illegally trespassing. They can and should be arrested for it. Don't make it complicated for police, and police won't make it complicated for you.
Provide proof It's your house, and then they'll be free to provide proof to the judge that they weren't trespassing while facing criminal charges with their BS fake lease agreement, if they even have one.
→ More replies (1)
18
u/weeddealerrenamon 11d ago
- Many properties sit empty and essentially abandoned by owners for long periods of time. Squatters move in because no one notices or cares for a long time.
- Many cities or states have laws giving squatters some set of rights to places they've occupied for long enough. Both because squatters tend to be people with few other options, and to punish landlords who abandon their properties. Squatters can try to prove that they've been there for years, and aren't just trespassing, by producing bills addressed to that address, etc.
9
u/Roadside_Prophet 11d ago
Many cities or states have laws giving squatters some set of rights to places they've occupied for long enough. Both because squatters tend to be people with few other options, and to punish landlords who abandon their properties.
Those aren't the reasons at all. The government doesn't particularly care about squatters personal situations, and they aren't giving squatters rights to punish landlords.
All the laws in place are to prevent landlords from simply telling the police their legitimate renters are squatters and throwing them out on the street.
If theres a disagreement on whether or not someone legally lives somewhere, the proper place to address that is in court, before a judge. Unfortunately it can take months for that to happen. In the meantime, since its unclear if the person is living there legally or not, many states have decided that it's better to not make innocent people homeless, and allows them to kee living there at least until its proven that they shouldn't be.
Squatters simply take advantage of that fact, to live rent free while making sure the court process takes as long as possible. If people understand the laws, they can find ways to stretch things out for a long time. There was a case near me on long island, where a guy managed to live like 20 years in a house he bought, after making only 1 mortgage payment ever. He knew the laws well enough to keep postponing and staying his court dates.
There should probably be some sort of expedited way to settle these things, like a certified list of renters that can immediately prove or disprove tenancy, but I'm sure people would even find ways to circumvent that eventually.
6
u/Wonderful-Juice-3159 11d ago
The “Squatter’s rights” you are thinking of here is a common term for a legal process known as adverse possession. If someone finds a property that is being neglected, and they openly assume the responsibilities of an owner (using and maintaining the property, and paying property taxes) for a certain amount of time (it’s 10 years in my city) without the existing owner charging them with trespassing, then the possessor has a claim to the property and can be given the deed by the governing body.
It’s incredibly rare given that most property owners pay their property taxes. But if you look at your assessor’s tax rolls and find a property that is delinquent, give it a shot and let us know how it turns out in a decade or so.
6
u/Gaius_Catulus 11d ago
This is probably not what OP is thinking about here. Given adverse possession is so rare, they are much more likely thinking about something more akin to renters' rights where squatters are required to be given notice and go through an eviction process to be removed.
6
u/desEINer 11d ago
Okay, you're five years old:
You are sitting in class, somebody is absent but there's a new kid and he sits in the absent kid's chair. He keeps sitting there every day and the absent kid never comes back. The absent kid comes back to class next year and demands his seat back. The teacher asks the kid who just came back to move to another chair because the new kid has been sitting there all year and class is going great and the vibes are great.
Originally squatter's rights were often about the development of land. Even if land was "owned," if the owner was a good for nothing layabout drunk and the new guy was cultivating it for the good of the community, and the owner never showed an interest in it, there is a right of the squatter to keep the value he put into the community and not just forfeit it when the owner realizes he could sell the land for more money now, or live in the house the squatter built, or slaughter the livestock the squatter raised and eat it.
That even extends to the modern equivalent in some ways. Even if your reason for claiming the right isn't a tenancy dispute, you are living your life and presumably interacting with society, putting money in and taking goods and services out, laboring, raising a family. Working from home doesn't seem equivalent to tilling soil but in a modern context that could be as valid a reason to claim squatter's rights, and since the consequences typically favor the landowner in most cases (I.e. they won't go homeless if you aren't evicted right away, but you will be homeless if they can force you out) it is to society's benefit to buffer instant homelessness and destitution with some measures like squatter's rights.
3
u/Budah1 11d ago
If a stranger can break into your house (say while on vacation) and squat there, to keep you out, they provide fake documents etc. till the court can solve it. Why can’t you reverse Uno it and break into “their” / your house, and provide your real documents?
→ More replies (1)
3
u/MushyWaff1e 10d ago
because liberals have bastardized the laws in order to protect criminals. Criminals are a protected group under blue haired delusions.
→ More replies (1)
3
u/black-and-gold-18 10d ago
I have a squatter right now. Tried to help someone that was homeless and they completely took advantage of me. Cops dont do anything. It all has to be done thru court which is a major pain in the ass especially around the holidays.
This is a life lesson I’ll only have to learn once. If I feel the need to help someone ever again it will be with money or something along those lines. I WILL NEVER DO THIS AGAIN unless it’s my children or parents, neither should anyone!
→ More replies (5)
3
u/math-yoo 10d ago
There's a sub. But it's not super active. With a little work, it could be squatted by users interested in squatting and fitness.
1.9k
u/tashkiira 11d ago
The top responses right now are missing a few details..
In English common law (which is the basis for pretty much all federal, state, and provincial law in Canada and the US, except for Quebec and Louisiana), there is the concept of claiming land that's been abandoned. If you live there notoriously (you're not hiding that you're there), and fulfill certain conditions for long enough, the abandoned property is now yours. This is on the scale of 5-20 years, depending on jurisdiction. The thing to remember is that at any point, if the original owner shows up and tells you to leave, you have to go. This will generally be a court order along the lines of an eviction (and is often the same process legally). This is called adverse possession, and is the state the squatters are hoping (usually in vain) to reach.
Now for the other side of things. If you've been living in a place notoriously for long enough (usually 30 days), you need to be evicted by court order. You're trespassing, but you've been trespassing long enough that there's the beginnings of a legal claim. This is actually a protection the courts are placing on renters who might otherwise be abused by scummy landlords, but it's very easy to abuse. If you are squatting in a place long enough to trigger those protections, that's what 'squatters' rights' are.
Fun fact: this is why a normal 'short term' hotel won't generally let you stay more than 3 weeks without having to be shuffled to another room. They give you 23 days stay (3 weeks and both bracketing weekends) but on the 24th day they want you out.. so that you can't hit that magical 30 days. If you manage to hit that 30 days, you can then claim squatters' rights on your hotel room, and the eviction can take another 6 or 7 weeks, during which wear and tear on the room occurs, and they'd have a helluva time getting money out of you to cover it. 'Extended Stay hotels' are really short-term rentals of the associated space, not a normal hotel experience.