Heidi Peterson says she returned to her house after living away for a year to find an uninvited houseguest, Missionary-Tracey Elaine Blair. The squatter says it was abandoned, and now Peterson must go through the courts before she can evict the woman.
Read more:
Sounds like the UK. Why does anyone stay in MI?
No he didn't get away with it. He was taken to court and moved out before the case was heard
>
There were several here in DFW one or two to my memory did make the claim stick, those that followed did not fair so well. Been a while so your memory may be better than mine.
Long story deleted but I had a squatter in a house of mine and Texas statutes told me I had to treat him like a renter and get him evicted. In my case, I thought the statutes were wrong but I had to follow them.
I'm not aware of any sticking, the original "squatter" that started it all is the one I'm referring to. i think he was in FW or the Mid Cities, not sure He claimed to have everything legal to back it up and claim the home, but when the mortgage company came after him he vanished in the night. And you're right the ones that followed all lost, too
I'm not a lawyer, but years ago I read a book on contract law that one of my tenants had thrown out. I just finished re-reading the section called "adverse possession", and that's what this squatter woman's lawyer is probably going to argue.
Canada and the USA both inherited their system of laws from England where 500 or 600 years ago only the very wealthy and the clergy could afford time away from work to learn to read and write, and the Lord who looked after the land on behalf of the King would often be gone for years fighting a crusade somewhere in the middle east. So, back then, it was common for people to try to swindle people out of their property by bribing someone who knew how to write to forge a will or deed. Then, they'd make up a story as to why they had a superior right to that land. Illegitimate children of deceased Lords were popping up all over the place back then. With no Lord around to decide the matter, the principle of "adverse possession" became part of the "common law", which was really just the rules of common sense that people lived by under those circumstances.
Adverse possession simply means that if you occupy someone else's land openly and treat it as your own by farming it or making improvements to it, and you do that for a long enough period of time, that land becomes yours.
So, if you're an illiterate farmer in medieval England, and some stranger shows up on your doorstep claiming that he's the rightful owner of your land and has a piece of parchment to prove it, you didn't have to worry because all of your neighbors would testify that it was you who had farmed that land for years and you were the one who built the barn and thatched the roof on it and built a fine pig sty for your sow too. In that case, the principle of adverse possession would come into play, and you would succeed in keeping the land despite the apparantly superior claim of the stranger.
I'm not a lawyer, but there's no chance that this squatting Blair woman is going to get herself a free house here. When Peterson bought the house, then she would have been recorded as the owner in Detroit City's property tax department. Lots of cities have programs whereby if someone fixes up an abandoned derilict house, they become the owners of it, but all of that has to be done with both the registered owner's and the city's knowledge and permission. If this ever gets to court, the judge is gonna see it for what it is; a modern day attempt to swindle someone out of their property.
In Texas if you come home to find an intruder in your home you shoot them and be done with it. There is never an opportunity for them to claim to be a squatter, they are simply a leaker.
...
Only at the intersections? Any car-jacker with half a brain would perpetrate his crime in the middle of the block.
If he's in the middle of the block, you shoot him for jaywalking.
No he's not. Because the period required is set by statute and is certainly going to be a lot longer than one year. It varies from state to state, but typically it's ten years or so. There isn't a state in the union where it's only a year.
You also have to be paying the real estate property taxes on it, which I bet the squatter wasn't. It would be pretty dumb to do that, because when she gets booted, she's likely out that money.
Agree with that part.
I was not living in this home I owned. It was an owner financed home that the new owner just bailed on and supposedly just gave it or sold it to her druggie boyfriend illegally. I still had to treat him like a renter even tho I had no dealing with him. I thought this was ridiculous but no choice. I did get the house back but you can only imagine how it looked afterwards. It was almost pristine when I owner financed it but a shambles including bullets lying around afterwards.
I think this is totally ridiculous and represents what a stupid society we live in. When my wife's dad was put into a nursing home, she asked at the local village hall (west of Chicago suburb) about leaving the house empty. They told her that she should not leave it for more than 5 months, even though she was paying the utilities and tax bill and keeping up the property! Go figure.
I agree. I wonder what the snow birds do with their winter homes?
Put wheels under it and drive to Florida...
Did you have to treat him like a renter after you went to court for the repossession?
What was their reason? I can think of a number of reasons why you shouldn't (we are, out of necessity) but none of them because of possession rights.
I had to treat him exactly as I would a renter I want to evict from the start to the end (Texas). No fun but I did get the house back before I sold it.
I guess I can't force you to answer the question.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.