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.
Is everyone missing something here? The article states the vet's friend's girlfriend drove by the house 2 months after the renovation was complete and that was the first time she noticed they were still living there. Let me get this straight. It took the friend who was supposed to be watching the house 2 months to even drive by the place to check up on it? And even then it was only his girlfriend who drove by not him. The friend is doing a pretty lousy job of watching over the house. And he never noticed they had changed the locks? Sounds like the friend is a lot to blame for this.
Is everyone missing something here? The article states the vet's friend's girlfriend drove by the house 2 months after the renovation was complete and that was the first time she noticed they were still living there. Let me get this straight. It took the friend who was supposed to be watching the house 2 months to even drive by the place to check up on it? And even then it was only his girlfriend who drove by not him. The friend is doing a pretty lousy job of watching over the house. And he never noticed they had changed the locks? Sounds like the friend is a lot to blame for this.
Well, it's not the "girlfriend", but just a friend (hopefully not, since he's married). I agree, she wasn't much good in her role as a property watchdog. The soldier/owner couldn't do it because he's stationed in Hawaii.
I don't know what kind of community this is (it seems rather poor) but where I live, you can ask the local police to check on your home while you are gone. It seems like something like this could be worked out for deployed military.
You see this as a landlord/tenant dispute and I guess we see it as criminal trespass.
I agree that from the facts presented via the media that this does appear to be criminal trespass.
But when cops show up and one side says:
I have the right to be in this house, I own it but have been away for two years.
And the other side says:
I have the right to be in this house. I've lived here for the last 2 years with permission, all my stuff is here, I have the keys, etc.
then it's a civil matter. It's for the court to look at the evidence, here witnesses, and determine who has the right to be there. Cops don't (and shouldn't) have the power to decide this legal dispute as to property rights then and there.
If it turns out side 2 is a complete liar who in fact criminally trespassed, then in addition to being thrown out of the house via a civil order, they would then be arrested for the criminal complaint.
Once the real owner is back in the house a squatter has no claim. Get friends together, forcibly remove the squatting trash, drop them in the middle of nowhere with a long walk home. Then change the locks and remove their crap before they are back in town. Oh, first, explain that if they go near house, they won't be walking back next time. There is the law, and then there is justice.
Anybody want to speculate on what would happen if this is the situation?
Another post brought it to mind about the police "rightfully" declining to decide the issue.
What do you think would be the outcome if, as many of us snowbirds are encouraged to do, an absent owner notifies the local police that they will be gone, nobody but nobody will be given permission to use the house and they will be notified if that situation changes and to please add their property to their 'eyes on' list.
They go by one day and notice signs of occupancy.
Now, ordinarily, I believe police would view that as probably breaking and entering... a criminal matter, wouldn't they?
If the intruders were to use the defense of squatters rights, perhaps every burglar, if caught in the act, should settle back in the nearest recliner and claim squatters rights.(tongue in cheek comment................................maybe)
"Soldier Michael Sharkey was deployed to Afghanistan two years ago and asked a friend to watch over his house in New Port Richey, Florida. Sharkey never thought that he would have to fight a battle to save his home from ex-convict squatters....."
"....The squatters know that the family wants them out of the house, but say they won’t leave until they want to. That may be sooner than Ortiz lets on because the two have been using buckets for water, unable to get the utility company to turn it on without a lease....."
With a required written agreement, there will less ambiguity. Would any readers here actually allow someone to move into their property without a written contract? I just want homeowners to be protected from trespassers.
Another thread had great advice: Don't tell the police anything yourself. Get a lawyer to tell them. Then there will be less confusion between squatter and trespasser.
Lots of landlords and tenants enter into oral rental agreements. I question the wisdom of doing so, and I've represented many tenants who had problems proving the content of an oral agreement, but it's hard to say what the alternative is. Even if you say that all rental agreements are required to be in writing, what is the remedy if someone tries to enter into an oral agreement? Kick the tenant out? Refuse to let the landlord to enforce it? Not easy.
Law enforcement was presented with this situation:
Party 1: I own this house but have been gone for 2 years. I never gave these people permission to be here, nor did anyone acting as my agent give permission.
Party 2: I've lived here the last 2 years under a lease agreement made with somebody I thought had the legal ability to rent it. I have keys and everything.
You seem to be advocating for the police to have the power to settle this legal dispute, arrest Party 2 on the spot, and allow Party 1 to dispose of Party 2's property.
I think that's a matter for the courts, not the cops. And thankfully we have a system in the courts where issues like this are dealt with swiftly.
You're absolutely right.
It's even worse, though. Many of the posters on this thread are arguing that the homeowner should be entitled to settle this civil dispute over property rights by the use of violence.
It's all too easy to see it as a criminal matter.
It's breaking and entering.......the only difference is most B&E's usually just steal something moveable and leave.....squatters 'steal' your all your belongings and the house too
In the first case, you don't have to sue them to get it back.
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.
