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.
In a lot of places it's an eviction process. When most of the houses where I am here were summer homes a certain number became winter habitat for various individuals. That was a pain in the ass to deal with.
There have been worse stories about squatters that simply moved in without being scammed.
They were the scammer.
I never understood why,in those cases, trespassing wasn't the issue.
Yeah, its hard to not feel that the laws in these cases are not right. Not sure what I would do in reality, but I have a gun, and a large piece of rural property, and I think I might ask these people if anyone would miss them if they went missing. Pretty sure not.
I don't get squatter laws, I really don't. I do feel sorry for the family that got scammed but that isn't the former owner or new owner's fault. She needs to recognize the home owner owes her nothing and move on.
__________________
When I post in bold red that is moderator action and, per the TOS, can only be discussed through Direct Message.
I don't get squatter laws, I really don't. I do feel sorry for the family that got scammed but that isn't the former owner or new owner's fault. She needs to recognize the home owner owes her nothing and move on.
But who's to say who is innocent and who isn't? Landlords engage in illegal evictions all the time and a tenant's only safety net is the courts. The GA Courts will order the people out if what everyone says is true. The process of evictions wasn't set up to enable good landlord to throw out bad tenants, No, just the opposite, evictions by judicial order only was to prevent bad landlords from throwing out good tenants.
But who's to say who is innocent and who isn't? Landlords engage in illegal evictions all the time and a tenant's only safety net is the courts. The GA Courts will order the people out if what everyone says is true. The process of evictions wasn't set up to enable good landlord to throw out bad tenants, No, just the opposite, evictions by judicial order only was to prevent bad landlords from throwing out good tenants.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JONOV
This is a CIVIL MATTER.
Look at it from the tenants perspective. They paid money. They signed a lease. They were given keys.
If you allow the cops to just throw people out at the drop of a hat you're looking at a miserable situation from a society perspective.
Now someone comes up and says, get out its not yours.
You would say, "Pound sand, prove it. I have a lease, and keys, and documentation that I paid good money."
I'm not saying that landlords don't get stuck with a raw deal when dealing with bad tenants, but this is really a unique situation.
Have you followed the story? A woman owned a house which she put up for sale, another person agreed to purchased it. In between the time the original owner moved out and closing on the day before they were supposed to go to closing a scam artist placed a rental ad on Craigslist. The lady currently living in the house signed a lease with the scam artist and handed over $3,000. Everyone involved agrees that those things occurred.
No, I don't think the cops should just throw her out, she did not knowingly do anything wrong. However, she now knows the lease she signed is invalid, that the rightful owners of the property had nothing to do with it, and she is costing them money. She refuses to move, morally she needs to. Eventually she will be legally evicted from the home but not until it costs the rightful property owners additional funds. She keeps saying she wants compromise, but what? Having seen one of her interviews on TV her solution seems to be she gets to remain in the house and the owner should have the police look for the scam artist. Right now the woman can't close the sale because she can't give possession of the property to the new owners and she may lose the sale.
Most states that have liberal squatter laws need to revisit them.
__________________
When I post in bold red that is moderator action and, per the TOS, can only be discussed through Direct Message.
Look at it from the tenants perspective. They paid money. They signed a lease. They were given keys.
If you allow the cops to just throw people out at the drop of a hat you're looking at a miserable situation from a society perspective.
Now someone comes up and says, get out its not yours.
You would say, "Pound sand, prove it. I have a lease, and keys, and documentation that I paid good money."
I'm not saying that landlords don't get stuck with a raw deal when dealing with bad tenants, but this is really a unique situation.
This is no different than buying stolen property. If you buy something in good faith, and it turns out to be stolen, you're out of luck. You lose that property. Even if you paid good money.
Have you followed the story? A woman owned a house which she put up for sale, another person agreed to purchased it. In between the time the original owner moved out and closing on the day before they were supposed to go to closing a scam artist placed a rental ad on Craigslist. The lady currently living in the house signed a lease with the scam artist and handed over $3,000. Everyone involved agrees that those things occurred.
No, I don't think the cops should just throw her out, she did not knowingly do anything wrong. However, she now knows the lease she signed is invalid, that the rightful owners of the property had nothing to do with it, and she is costing them money. She refuses to move, morally she needs to. Eventually she will be legally evicted from the home but not until it costs the rightful property owners additional funds. She keeps saying she wants compromise, but what? Having seen one of her interviews on TV her solution seems to be she gets to remain in the house and the owner should have the police look for the scam artist. Right now the woman can't close the sale because she can't give possession of the property to the new owners and she may lose the sale.
Most states that have liberal squatter laws need to revisit them.
Morally she might need to BUT...She probably doesn't have any more money after moving. If she had $12K sitting in the bank she would likely do something about it. But I bet she's tapped out. In her mind, her first obligation is to her family (children,) and uprooting them to a motel isn't going to fly in her mind.
Its no different than winning a judgement against someone that's about to go bankrupt.
She did say that she would move, but it isn't fast enough for the homeowner. What is fast enough? I think 30 days is reasonable. I doubt the homeowner does.
The smart solution is for the new buyer (or new and old buyer) to get together and raise $3K for her to move within 15 or 30 days.
Is that "right" or "fair?" Who cares; do you want to be "right" or "fair" or die on your principles, or do you want to move into your new house?
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.
