The deed was bogus. The guy is a con artist, and the cops were trying to not penalize potentially honest and duped people who thought they were buying an abandoned home.
how can you say so confidently that it’s an obviously phony deed? If the scammer took the trouble to allege in the deed that he was acting as agent for the owners on title and was transferring title to the claimants as the owners’ agent, how are the police supposed to resolve it?
People sell property all the time through agents. It’s completely legal and common. If the owners on title are alleging that the scammer was not their agent, and the people in possession are alleging that he was their agent, that’s a civil dispute.
How are the police, who are trained in the enforcement of criminal law, not civil, supposed to resolve that dispute in a summary fashion?
This case got a decent amount of media atention in Canada because the (real) owners were Canadian. Many Canadians go to southern US for the winter, then leave that home empty in the summer (“snowbirds”).
The point was, this dragged on for a long time because of this civil dispute. the owners claimed they were trying to rent, and the “tenants” gave a good-faith deposit. they were just going to look at the property, so in good faith they were given a key. No deal wa concluded, not lease agreed to; the “we want a look” was the last they heard. The “tenants”, cynically or otherwise, claim they had a rental agreement, they moved in, and now they were just overdue on their rent. Evicting tentants overdue on the rent is a civil process; I’m surprise in “house is castle” Texas it takes so long, but in places like Ontario it can take months or over a year to evict depending on the arguments.
As for the using force - I assume even in Texas, if you have to evict overdue tenants, showing up with a gun and orderring them out is not allowed, you must go through the court. Tenants must have some rights. If the dispute is “I am a tenant - No you’re not” that is a civil case; hence the police did not want to get involved as if it were theft. If the person is a tenant, or believes they are a tenant, then they do have “possession” according to the discussion above, and therefeore it is not trespassing.
However, if you are in a confrontation, guns are present, and one goes off - that is not “force to defend home” that’s murder vs. self defence. As the Florida neighbourhood watch guy is finding out, you better have a really good case, and even then it will cost you a small fortune and destroy your life. the other person better have committed actions that made you fear of imminent danger to yourself or others. Even the police, with whom you can’t really argue, tell you to “drop it” numerous times before opening fire - usually.
The trouble is that they are in possession of the property, and it’s not clear that they weren’t scammed by the actual owners. Police do need evidence of a crime in order to act. Evidence of civil wrongs doesn’t entitle the police to step in. At least a deed can be proven fraudulent. Leases are much tougher to prove. And enforcement varies by jurisdiction. Here in RI (anecdotal, not expert info) the state police will readily remove tenants starting on the date shown in an eviction order. And apparently getting a judge to provide paperwork to stay an eviction order on appeal is uncommon. In NY, police don’t want to get involved in the eviction process until every avenue of appeal has been completed. So in RI you can get someone evicted in 30 days easily, in NY I’ve heard of cases stretching out for years.
Also in these cases squatters aren’t just itinerant folk who settle into what they think might be an abandoned house. They’re con artists who know the local laws and take the steps to make eviction a difficult process. In the case I mentioned in a previous post, the squatters were associated with a developer who had lost the property in bankruptcy proceedings. He’d gotten wind of a pending sale (this is RI, everybody knows everything about everybody else) and sent in these people to stop the sale.
“Who in the hell files bankruptcy on something that was never theirs?” is my question too. The judge already ruled to evict the squatters, what does their bankruptcy have to do with it? Can I file bankruptcy and include my asshole neighbor’s house in the document out of spite, therefore tying up the property legally? That makes no sense.
No you can’t get arrested for breaking down the door to your own house, provided it is indisputable that you own the house. The police arrive, you have the occupants on the floor begging for their lives. You show the police documents that say that you own the home. They show the police documents that they own the home. This immediately becomes a civil matter because the police cannot be judges who rule on the validity of deeds.
Using violence to resolve a civil matter is a no-no in the UK, Texas, or wherever. I would be shocked if the homeowner wasn’t arrested and charged at that point. Now, after all of the facts come out, if the homeowner wasn’t aware that the tenants had a (seemingly) valid claim to the property and were simply taken by surprise at the trespassers, the prosecution may drop the charges or a jury acquit.
But questions would be asked. You unlock the door to your house and see a family there: Do you ask questions or go grab the shotgun? Did they do something to put you in fear of death or serious bodily harm? Generally a person in your home uninvited is a presumption that they intend to do you bodily harm, but this is a different case. They didn’t break in through the side. A casual observation shows that they’ve been LIVING there. Obviously a reasonable person might think this family are not burglars. It could likely be seen as a self-help eviction and charges could very well stick.
Under your theory, if I rent my house and the renters are late with the rent, no need to take them to court and have them evicted, just go over with guns ablazing. See, because the only legal right they have to your property is the lease which they breached by not paying. Therefore, under your theory, they are now simple trespassers who are outside the protection of the law.
Because, generally, the law will leave things as-is until the dispute is resolved. The case comes to the judge with the squatters in the house and the homeowners outside the house. Unless and until evidence is shown that it should be the other way around, the judge won’t order anything. And why should he?
I agree that this case is infuriating and that the homeowners should be able to get an emergency hearing before the judge and show the chain of ownership to the property and get this dealt with in a hurry. I also agree that this is a serious abuse of the bankruptcy process to allow a stay on the eviction when you never had a right to be there in the first place. The law was meant for tenants who were late on their rent to have a little time to reorganize their stuff before being thrown out. These people (innocently) never had a right to be there to begin with.
That’s the nature of civil law. Make a claim, even a specious claim, and it has to be settled in court. The claim could end up being a crime as well, but it may take a civil resolution before a criminal case can be brought. Common sense applies, police will notice if someone is writing their fraudulent deed on toilet paper with crayon while they’re at the door. But if they have something that looks legal, the police aren’t in a position to determine if it is. And tying up people’s property out of spite or other reasons is kind of common. It’s a tactic used to tie up proceedings. There are recent laws that allow judges to determine if a suit is frivolous or intended to be disruptive with no basis and the claimants can be fined. But it’s still a civil matter taking up time in court. I recall when one of the first cases to fall under a frivolous lawsuit occurred in New York. A landowner was suing the Metro North railroad over a property dispute. Since the case had been argued and lost several times before the judge decided it was frivolous. But the fine was a paltry amount. Maybe enough to dissuade further suits, but nowhere near enough to compensate Metro North for their costs.
Because it’s a reasonably nice house with an alleged purchase price of $5,000.
Using common sense like they usually do.
Or perhaps burglars should start bringing phony leases along with them while they rob houses? Should that immunize them from arrest, and the homeowners be told that their remedy is to file a lawsuit over their stolen stuff?
When you file bankruptcy, it automatically stays all civil legal proceedings against you until the bankruptcy court can sort things out. The homeowners’ remedy is to file a “lift-stay” motion. Once that’s granted, the eviction can continue.
So the effect of the bankruptcy filing is to delay the eviction by a few weeks.
In this case, the squatters’ filing would appear to be an abuse of the bankruptcy process. If so, I hope they are punished for it.
Maybe, but not necessarily. Change the facts and make this guy not a crook. Say they lived there the requisite period of time, but there were legal facts that made the adverse possession claim shaky. Say it was a $100k house and a lawyer estimated a 40% likelihood of success at trial. The possessor would rather take $5k for a quitclaim deed than take the chance.
That’s legit. Or maybe it was a semi-gift but $5k listed to make consideration. Who knows? Certainly not the police responding to a burglary call.
But they do use common sense. Here’s the scenario you are setting up. I decide to rob your home, but I get the brilliant idea that I will forge a lease to your house to carry with me. It’s a foolproof forgery.
So, I break into your house, you hold me at gunpoint and the police arrive. We each have our dueling deeds. Now imagine yourself in the policeman’s shoes.
Here I am dressed in black, with burglary tools and claiming that I am leasing the place. There are you, dressed in your pajamas. There are pictures on the wall of you and your family. There are your car keys hanging on the hook for the vehicle parked outside. There’s your kid’s report card magnetically hanging on the refrigerator. Your dirty clothes are in the hamper. Your driver’s license says you live at this address.
Now they ask me. How long have you lived here? Why are you dressed like that? Show me your toothbrush. Show me your car keys. Show me a picture ID with this address. Why is brazil84’s picture on the wall? Describe the basement area to me. Where is the washer and dryer located? Show me a utility bill with your name on it. Oh, you pay your bills online? Go get your computer and log in to your account. Where is the computer room?
IOW, you see how easily that can be solved by police on the scene with common sense?
When I was growing up, it was not uncommon for squatters to move into unoccupied cabins north of Toronto on Lake Simcoe. They got welfare, which was big enough to to include rent costs. Avoid rent, and you come out quite a bit ahead.
One lady who lived near lake Simcoe described how neighbours came home from a weekend in the city to find a family living in their house. Of course, 50 years ago the local police had limited sympathy for this, so they left ASAP before the owners could call the police. For cottages unused for the winter, they often got several monts’ free rent and then left when asked to avoid a confrontation. It was all a big game, and a hzard of owning a second property.
So jtgain’s burglary scenario works fine for someone who just arrived; but where the person has been living there for months, moved in their possessions, appear to have been “in possession”, etc. - the police are not the ones to make a call. A squatter is not the same as a burglar. The squatters likely list the place as their address, have mail addressed to them, photos on the wall; and it’s possible the couple returning to their old house after a few months in the new one, don’t have the old address on their drivers licenses and all their photos are in the trash not on the wall.
(In the Canadian couple’s case, one concern was that the squatters had “resold” the existing furniture, which would also make it a theft case… if it could be proven in court.) Where there is some confusion as to who is right, the police will leave it to the courts to decide the case. That too is common sense. They get two conflicting stories and no obvious proof one is right, common sense says let the proper authority deal with it - the court.
Wonder who is paying the electric bill and if it is in the squatters name, how did they manage to get it out of the owners name? What about the insurance, and was there a mortgage?
Agreed, but it in this case, unless there are important facts which are not disclosed in the reports, it’s should be pretty clear to everyone involved that the squatters are trespassing.
Ok, don’t dress in black or wear burglary tools. Wait until the homeowners are on vacation. Just bring up a moving truck and start emptying the place out.