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.
Had one unusual case where tenant passed but adult children stayed...
Did a modified cash for keys... they had no place to move belongings so I paid for a storage and truck rental and offered cash on the spot if out by Sunday...
It worked...
Did you give them the cash before or after the house was vacant and they were outside?
Not if you’re in NYC, you get tenant rights after 30 days and evicting a tenant takes at least a year even without all the COVID-related communisms.
Again, we were talking about adverse possession, not a tenant situation. This law firm says that in New York, someone must occupy a piece of property for ten years and have a reasonable basis for believing the property is theirs to have a legal leg to stand on in an adverse possession claim.
Correct me if I am wrong ,but I believe adverse possession can only happen if the true owner never try to claim the property. This is apparently not the case here.
Adverse possession applies to occupying a piece of property over a period of several years. For example, someone moves into an abandoned house, pays the property taxes and lives there openly (doesn't make any secret about living there). An adverse possession claim can protect them from, say, an heir of the previous owner coming along 10 or 20 years later and claiming the property.
Or someone might put up a building on what they think is their property and it's there for 10 or 20 years. Then their neighbor finds that a survey shows the building is partly on their property. An adverse possession claim can protect the person with the building.
Adverse possession doesn't apply to renters.
This site says that California requires five years' occupancy and payment of taxes. The previous owner of the house in the video wasn't paying his taxes, and so would have no adverse possession claim.
As an aside, homeowner protections were beefed up in several states after Kelo v. New London. Here in Indiana, they were strengthened to the point that it was hard for local governments to take over houses that were clearly abandoned, leaving them open to squatters and deterioration. Squatters tend to leave the windows open, which leads to mold, and build fires, which can cause the house to burn down. Abandoned houses can be scary for neighbors, and with enough abandoned houses, neighborhoods become blighted. Hence, local governments have had to create procedures to claim abandoned houses and get them sold without the buyer running the risk of improving the property and then losing it to a long-lost heir of the previous owner. That's only tangentially related to adverse possession--but property ownership has been a big deal in turning around the abandoned house problem here in Indianapolis. Hence my interest in it.
There is a local house that changed ownership via adverse possession...
Elderly owner passed. No known hiers so tenant started paying property taxes and put on new roof, landscape, fence, etc... over a period of years...
Heir came around years later... was living in another country and the short of it is tenant prevailed.
Separately, squatters in Oakland CA have done well... depending on your view and tied up property for a very long time... but different situation... home owned by investor corps..
Paid direct for 1 month storage and truck rental to storage company...
Nothing in my name
Had a personal check with 3 names on it Sunday evening at 6 when we met...
The adult kids all signed the back and I exchanged it for cash...
Check said full return of security deposit plus $1500 moving incentive.
I'd have verbally offered them $2000 cash when house is completely vacant, taken video of them voluntarily moving stuff out and handing me the keys at 6pm, then promptly told them to get off my property and don't return. Nope, I wouldn't give them the cash. They can take me to court if they think they can prove such an offer existed and was legal. I would have zero guilt about reneging on an offer that was only made under duress caused by their illegal occupation.
Returning to your East Oakland property and finding every window broken or bath tub overflowing or worse like a fire...
The cash after signing check was so they could buy tickets to get back to Alabama for two.
My lawyer said no wonder he never makes any money off me...
That's what insurance is for and when you catch them doing it on security camera their new home will be jail. They apparently weren't worried about that happening to them when they were squatting. You have a lawyer?
That's what insurance is for and when you catch them doing it on security camera their new home will be jail. They apparently weren't worried about that happening to them when they were squatting. You have a lawyer?
The problem with pursuing people like this is they rarely have any assets. Sure, you can get a judgement against them, that's easy. The hard part is collecting it. Property crime is so low on the scale for most places that you are unlikely to even get much of a response from law enforcement, much less a local prosecutor.
I got a judgement against some former tenants some years ago. It was more a matter of principle than anything else, so I kept track of them everywhere they went. Got their pay garnished, kept them from having decent references, etc., for a number of years. It was exhausting, but I eventually got every penny back.
Was it worth it? Nope.
RM
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.