Squatters wrongs

[Crackpot]

Pacific Heights

[Andrew D]

What about the benefit to the community of not having a rat infested (or worse) home blighting the neighborhood and otherwise bringing values down? There are examples (rare though they may be) of people that left paces to rot when the local market collapsed and the houses were declared "worthless" only to come back and claim ownership after squatters came put in the work to restore the house and rebuilt the community. In such cased the "owners" are trying to do nothing rather to profiteer of an others hard work.

If the squatters actually restore the house, then that's more like the shed-to-mansion case. In my balance-of-equities example, I was referring only to "simple maintenance of the property"; i.e., the property is in no worse, but also no better, shape when the squatters leave than it was when they arrived.

[Crackpot]

Restoration and maintenance after a sufficient number of years are one in the same. Uninhabited living quarters become uninhabitable fairly quickly especially in places that experience a fair amount of freezing and thawing.

[oldr_n_wsr]

Pacific Heights

That's it, thanks.

[Andrew D]

Restoration and maintenance after a sufficient number of years are one in the same.

I disagree. Maintaining a property is keeping it in the same condition it was when you got there. Restoring a property is bringing it back to a condition better than it was when you got there.

[rubato]

Direct action was the right course. Drag the squatter out, throw his shit on the sidewalk, change the locks, and have the owner move in for a few days with a TV and a couple boxes of things. If the police show up the owner is in possession some maniac with no rental agreement, no records of payments, nothing, is whinging. Fuck'em. Pay a couple local crack heads to keep him busy by stealing his stuff whenever he looks away and you're done.

Why was this owner such a pussy?

yrs,
rubato

[Crackpot]

Restoration and maintenance after a sufficient number of years are one in the same.

I disagree. Maintaining a property is keeping it in the same condition it was when you got there. Restoring a property is bringing it back to a condition better than it was when you got there.

living in the property keeps it heated keeps things from freezing, shrinking, cracking and otherwise decaying. The simple act of habitation keeps a place habitable. Doing so to what would otherwise be an abandoned property serves as de facto improvement.

[Andrew D]

living in the property keeps it heated keeps things from freezing, shrinking, cracking and otherwise decaying. The simple act of habitation keeps a place habitable. Doing so to what would otherwise be an abandoned property serves as de facto improvement.

Exactly: maintenance.

--> Things that were not frozen when the squatters showed up are not frozen when the owner reappears.

--> Things that had not shrunk when the squatters showed up are not shrunken whe the owner reappears.

--> Things that were not cracked when the squatters showed up are not cracked when the owner reappears.

That is maintenance.

When the squatters showed up, the property was in a certain condition. The squatters made expenditures -- of money, time, sweat, whatever -- to keep the property in that condition. As a result, the squatters obtained the benefit of being able to live in the property in that condition, rather than living in a property in substantially worse condition.

The expenditures made by the squatters provided to them exactly what they wanted when they made those expenditures: A place to live which was in the same condition after they had lived there for a while as it was when they first moved in.

Again, maintenance is not the same as improvement. If the sqatters, during the term of their occupancy, actually make the property better than it was when they first moved in, that is improvement. And the balance of equities means that the owner -- the recipient of the benefit of that improvement -- should have to pay, one way or another, for the benefit which he or she has received.

But if the property is merely maintained, not improved, then the benefit to the squatters and the benefit to the owner cancel each other out. The property is in the same condition when the owner returns as it was when the owner left; the property's condition is unchanged.

The squatters have invested time, energy, money, etc., into keeping the property in the same condition as when they first moved into it. Their reward for that is that they got to live in a property which was in the same condition as when they first moved into it, rather than living in a property in the rundown condition it would have been in if they had not maintained it.

The sqatters' output of energy (etc.) to maintain the property = the benefit of living in the maintained, rather than the rundown, property.

Again, if the squatters did things that improved the property -- that made the property better when they moved out than it had been when they moved in -- that would be different. But if the sqautters merely maintained the property -- merely kept it the same as when they moved in -- the equities balance each other perfectly.

However one might calculate the benefit(s) and/or loss(es) to the owner, the central fact remains that -- unless the squatters made the property worth more when they moved out than it was when they moved in -- the squatters have neither gained nor lost anything by virtue of having maintained the property in the owner's absence.

And that should be the end of the matter. Neither the owner nor the squatters have gained anything: The property is no better on the day they move out than it was on the day they moved in. Neither the owner nor the squatters have lost anything: The owner gets back a property in the same shape as when he or she left it, and the squatters have been able to live rent-free in a property that was in the same shape the whole time that they lived in it.

No gain for the sqatters. No gain for the owner. No loss to the squatters. No loss to the owner. How much more perfect a balance of equities can one ask for?

[Rick]

No gain for the sqatters. No gain for the owner. No loss to the squatters. No loss to the owner. How much more perfect a balance of equities can one ask for?

Maybe, if the area in question does not require property tax...

[oldr_n_wsr]

No gain for the sqatters. No gain for the owner. No loss to the squatters. No loss to the owner. How much more perfect a balance of equities can one ask for?

I think the gain is on the squatters side. As you said they lived rent free for whatever period of time. I know maintenance on my house is much cheaper than the rent (actually the mortgage which is cheaper than the rent on a house in the area).

[Gob]

Illegal? Foreign? Squatters? Damaging property? Hey, have some UK tax payers cash to fight eviction!

British? Law abiding? Home owner? Fund your own fucking defence then!

Squatters who broke into and occupied a £1million house have been given hundreds of pounds of taxpayers’ money in legal aid to fight eviction.

The intruders from France, Spain and Poland have been living in the three-storey five-bedroom townhouse for a month.

Meanwhile owner John Hamilton-Brown has been forced to rent a two-bedroom flat for his family while he battles to get the gang out of the house.

Neighbours said the property had just been sold when the 12 squatters broke in during the early hours of the morning after a window was forced open.

Since then there has been more damage and endless parties – several of which have culminated in the police being called.

Yesterday, several of the squatters danced, waved flags, sang and played the guitar outside the property. They also bragged about how easy Britain’s laws were in allowing them to take over homes.

A French man who called himself Jean-Claude, said: ‘I came to England seven years ago because this is where the love is. We will speak to other people from all over the world to come here and live because it is so easy. Why can’t we live anywhere we want?’

A French girl with blonde dreadlocked hair added: ‘I love it here. We move around where we want and share our love. You should see the views in there – it’s amazing.’

Mr Hamilton-Brown, 36, applied to the county court last week to seek an interim possession order to enable him to claim the house back. He did not hire a solicitor because of the expense.

But when he arrived at Clerkenwell and Shoreditch County Court, in East London, he was amazed to find that two of the squatters had been granted legal aid and were represented by a duty solicitor.

Because they were EU citizens and unemployed, they qualified for free legal representation

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z1EdiK0baA

[loCAtek]

Why do the Birts want so many immigrants illegal or not? They trying to sink the island?

[Gob]

[Reality Bytes]

This is nothing new - when my grandparents emigrated to Australia in the 70's they rented out their house "furnished" as they were told that gave them more legal rights over the tenant and it was supposed to provide them with a supplementary income. Two years after they left the country the tenant stopped paying the rent and changed all the locks on the property so that the agent who was managing the house couldn't get access. My grandparents were then thousands of miles away with very little spare income as they were trying to establish a new life for themselves and trying to handle the legal aspects from that distance was almost impossible. My grandfathers health took a turn for the worse and he was advised by his dr's to come back to the UK, the tenants refused to vacate the house and it ended up with my grandparents having to move in with us for quite a while whilst they tried to get their house back. When the tenants eventually did a moonlight flit we found that they had taken everything - and I mean everything, they had even ripped the skirting boards from the walls in every room, dismantled the kitchen units, removed all the carpets & furniture, ripped out the fireplaces, and in 2 of the rooms the floorboards were gone. It looked like a bomb site and there was nothing at all they could do about it. They lost thousands in legal fees and sorting out the damage.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Wasn't it called "Dances with Wolves"?

[dgs49]

This an interesting thread which I had not viewed before. A few thoughts:

Andrew, one essential point on adverse possession that you neglected to mention was the element of "claim of right." It cannot be effective unless the person in possession of the property does not in some way make a claim of right. This might be by starting to pay taxes, and utilities, putting up a sign of some sort ("The Abercrombies's") on the front, or what have you. If the possessor is simply refusing to move despite demands of the true owner, he can never take title by adverse possession.

Second, arson (I realize the suggestion was facetious) is serious business. It is a felony even if done by the owner. Also, insurance fraud is a similarly serious felony. Damage to the personal property of the squatter is also criminal. Arson is simply out of the question.

As for the owner simply taking back a property, it can be done successfully and legally, but it is necessary to do so without a "breach of the peace." If the house can be entered without "breaking in," and the contents removed without otherwise committing a crime (put the furniture and effects in storage and pay one month's storage), then a private eviction might be an answer. Hire a truck and some movers to come in when the house is unoccupied, quickly take out the furniture and move it into storage, move in and change the locks. Done. Surely, there is someone who can figure out a way into the house without breaking in (a later assertion that "the door was not locked" may be sufficient), and one would expect that there are at least some times when the house is unattended.

Finally, as for squatters maintaining or even improving the property, an essential element of the conversation must be the imputed value of living in the house (rent-free). If the maintenance and/or improvements would have a value that is comparable to, or less than the imputed value of the squatter living in the house for free, then even minor improvements would not shift the equities to the squatter. Indeed, an eviction strategy might be to notify the taxing authorities that the squatter is obtaining the benefit of "free" housing, and seeing under what circumstances the income tax laws would require that the value of this housing be included as imputed income.

Of course, this entire discussion assumes that the squatter is, as the legals put it, "judgment proof" (without tangible assets).