Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Moving into an abandoned house is trespassing. You don't know what adverse possession means. The owner of the property can make them leave because they have no right to be there. For adverse possession to happen you have to stay there for a number of years without permission of the owner. How long depends on the state you live in. I know in some states at least you also have to pay the property taxes on the property. Every state has different rules. There is more to it than just moving in and it almost never happens. Here is a link.
You don't have to bulldoze a house because of mold or rodents. Both can be cleaned. Homeless people have no way to do it. Only someone with capital can buy a house with problems and repair and maintain it. Homeless people that don't own the place won't care about taking care of it anyhow.
There are a few problems with your analysis.
In order to take adverse possession, you have to trespass. When there is no owner to show up and remove you. The local police or sheriff will treat it as a civil matter and walk away. There would have to be a court order to remove a squatter.
Next. When you have a glut of homes that are losing exponential value. It becomes cheaper to bulldoze a dying home than clean it.
NO bank or person, wants the liability of selling a mold infested home.
Banks are not keeping the power on or systems functional in MOST of the foreclosed homes.
Squatters are good for a recovery. They keep the value of the home in tact, and take the burden of state housing or homelessness at bay.
Full blocks of homes are being and have been bulldozed in Michigan, Nevada, California and Arizona. No one wants those homes.
In order to take adverse possession, you have to trespass. When there is no owner to show up and remove you. The local police or sheriff will treat it as a civil matter and walk away. There would have to be a court order to remove a squatter.
Next. When you have a glut of homes that are losing exponential value. It becomes cheaper to bulldoze a dying home than clean it.
NO bank or person, wants the liability of selling a mold infested home.
Banks are not keeping the power on or systems functional in MOST of the foreclosed homes.
Squatters are good for a recovery. They keep the value of the home in tact, and take the burden of state housing or homelessness at bay.
Full blocks of homes are being and have been bulldozed in Michigan, Nevada, California and Arizona. No one wants those homes.
It's not an analysis. I sell real estate for a living.
Court orders to remove do happen. If an owner has 10 years to do it that is plenty of time. The police may remove them, it depends. If they don't, the squatter can't prove they have a right to be there and they will be removed as long as the owner wants them to be and will pursue the matter.
I have bought mold infested homes. I have sold them to very happy buyers after clean up. The expense of clean up is not as much as most people think and done professionally gets rid of it all. You are required to disclose the clean up when selling. If the certification from a mold remediation specialist is presented to a buyer this is enough. You don't know what you are talking about.
Squatters are worse than renters as far a affecting property value in a neighborhood. If my neighbor doesn't own his house he is much less likely to take care of it. I would rather have homes bulldozed than have squatters move in.
[quote=Nocontengencies;21120333]It's not an analysis. I sell real estate for a living.
Court orders to remove do happen. If an owner has 10 years to do it that is plenty of time. The police may remove them, it depends. If they don't, the squatter can't prove they have a right to be there and they will be removed as long as the owner wants them to be and will pursue the matter.
I have bought mold infested homes. I have sold them to very happy buyers after clean up. The expense of clean up is not as much as most people think and done professionally gets rid of it all. You are required to disclose the clean up when selling. If the certification from a mold remediation specialist is presented to a buyer this is enough. You don't know what you are talking about.
Squatters are worse than renters as far a affecting property value in a neighborhood. If my neighbor doesn't own his house he is much less likely to take care of it. I would rather have homes bulldozed than have squatters move in.[/QUOTE]
yes, i thought you might think that.
And no you can't get all the mold out of a house in the North west or East coast. Spots of mold in a home that is vacant for a short time, can be dealt with. Many of the homes that you are glad they demolish have been sitting for more than one season.
If people file the proper documents in participating states, they can have standing, and thereby take possession. It will happen more and more as this crisis hits it's peak.
I know too many realtors to count it doesn't mean you know what you are talking about.
We have a growing number of homeless, and a growing number of empty homes. What do you propose that will stop the downward spiral?
You are just making stuff up. I live in the Northwest, so I know it isn't true. Never mind, just keep up the ranting. It does entertain the rest of us.
You are just making stuff up. I live in the Northwest, so I know it isn't true. Never mind, just keep up the ranting. It does entertain the rest of us.
I agree. Why is it that it isn't seen as a hardship to be stuck in a house that is way too small for your family? Especially if you have done right so far. And it is a small house and not as though he bought too big or too much and as a result ended up in default. So many of these "hardship" cases out there are of the buyers own doing. I would rather see some help go to someone like this who is honestly stuck and couldn't of predicted it.
Couldn't have predictied it? He invited his GF and her kids to live there I presume, so how could he have not predicted his house was too small for 8 people.
No it isn't. The people that took out mortgages they couldn't afford are as much to blame as the banks. There is such a thing as personal responsibility. I think you are just a bitter person for whatever reason judging by your previous rants. I don't think you think carefully about what you post either. Wasn't it you on another thread that advised someone to go ahead and move into an abandoned house, which is against the law? Really, I think you should get a grip on reality.
The thing is the OP said nothing about not being able to afford the mortgage, his reason for walking away was the house is too small for him, his children, the GF who moved in and her kids.
Couldn't have predictied it? He invited his GF and her kids to live there I presume, so how could he have not predicted his house was too small for 8 people.
I think you are pretending not to know what I mean. The point is, why should they just live piled up like that and pay for this house for the next 10 or 20 years if he is willing to except whatever penalty there is? Life is short and you only get one. I think if I were presented with this situation I would consider walking away.
Another situation would be: Someone live in a dying factory town where more and more things are boarded up. It's horrible. Crime is on the rise. Everyone I know is leaving or trying to. No one is buying houses or moving there. I have a good job that I am not likely to lose and can keep paying the mortgage for a long time. That house is likely never to sell and I have 20 years left on the mortgage. This is a real situation of someone I know and she left. Your logic is that she should have to stay, but the neighbor that can't pay anymore and gets foreclosed on gets to leave the hell hole the town has become?
No way. The loan was business arrangement as someone already pointed out. The house was put up as collateral for just this very reason.
I think you are pretending not to know what I mean. The point is, why should they just live piled up like that and pay for this house for the next 10 or 20 years if he is willing to except whatever penalty there is? Life is short and you only get one. I think if I were presented with this situation I would consider walking away.
Another situation would be: Someone live in a dying factory town where more and more things are boarded up. It's horrible. Crime is on the rise. Everyone I know is leaving or trying to. No one is buying houses or moving there. I have a good job that I am not likely to lose and can keep paying the mortgage for a long time. That house is likely never to sell and I have 20 years left on the mortgage. This is a real situation of someone I know and she left. Your logic is that she should have to stay, but the neighbor that can't pay anymore and gets foreclosed on gets to leave the hell hole the town has become?
No way. The loan was business arrangement as someone already pointed out. The house was put up as collateral for just this very reason.
This is not what I said at all. You said in your post that, "I would rather see some help go to someone like this who is honestly stuck and couldn't of predicted it." He isn't honestly stuck, he can pay for the house. It was his choice to move the GF and her kids in, fully knowing that the house was only 1300 sq. ft. So now that he is simply inconvenienced by the size of the house he should walk away? He can afford it, he has a job, there is nothing in his post that states he lives in a crime ridden neighborhood or that the factory closed and there are no jobs. The two situations are completely different. For the person in your story I can understand walking away, she had not job, no way to pay, depressed community. This is not the OP's situation. It's fine if he choses to accept the penalties, I just don't think it is right when he can fully afford to pay for the house. If he had lost his job and couldn't pay, then that would be another situation all together.
This is not what I said at all. You said in your post that, "I would rather see some help go to someone like this who is honestly stuck and couldn't of predicted it." He isn't honestly stuck, he can pay for the house. It was his choice to move the GF and her kids in, fully knowing that the house was only 1300 sq. ft. So now that he is simply inconvenienced by the size of the house he should walk away? He can afford it, he has a job, there is nothing in his post that states he lives in a crime ridden neighborhood or that the factory closed and there are no jobs. The two situations are completely different. For the person in your story I can understand walking away, she had not job, no way to pay, depressed community. This is not the OP's situation. It's fine if he choses to accept the penalties, I just don't think it is right when he can fully afford to pay for the house. If he had lost his job and couldn't pay, then that would be another situation all together.
You think he and his significant other should live apart for 20 years or how ever long it takes for him to be able to sell, I don't. The situations are very similar. They describe people that can pay their mortgage, but are unhappy where they are and have to put their quality of life on hold for a very ling time if they stay. As I said, life is short. You have to be willing to take the lumps that come with walking away if you do it, look into it and make an educated choice, but I think some situations warrant doing so.
He bought what he could afford. What he could not have predicted was being upside down in that mortgage and the way his own needs would change.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
