Squatters' Rights and Adverse Possession

[Doug_K]

@doreen

The owner doesn’t have to prove there was never a lease in an eviction action - but as a general rule the police are not going to make someone leave a house on-the-spot except under circumstances that make it very obvious that they never had the owner’s permission to be there. They aren’t going to get involved in whether the person had a lease and refused to leave at the end, or whether there was a month-to-month tenancy with no written lease or whether the “squatter” was living as a member of the owner’s household and the owner no longer wants them there or whether the squatter moved in without permission six months ago while the owner was on an extended vacation. Doesn’t matter- if it doesn’t look to the police like the intruder broke in recently, they will send you to court. Even if the onus is put on the squatter to prove they have a lease, the police are not going to make a decision on a civil issue.
if you read the article, you’ll see that the squatter had previously had a lease for that house, had changed the locks and therefore had the keys and had been staying there for months. Can’t see how the police can be expected to immediately determine that she was a squatter rather than a month-to-month tenant who the landlord wanted out.

My question wasn’t about that one particular case. Just the blanket statement before the example was given that if someone manages to get into someone’s house while they’re gone that the police are powerless to remove them. The statement I was questioning is this:

Not quite obtaining property through adverse possession but more to “squatter’s rights” is when someone moves into your house while you’re not there. Since you as the owner cannot prove there is no lease (can’t prove a negative) to the police they obtain renter rights to stay until you can convict them through the courts.

This seems to be saying that if I come home from work and discover that someone has managed to get into my house without causing damage and brought a bag of their stuff with them that the police can’t help me throw them out if they claim they live there.

[Saint_Cad]

@Doug_K

This seems to be saying that if I come home from work and discover that someone has managed to get into my house without causing damage and brought a bag of their stuff with them that the police can’t help me throw them out if they claim they live there.

That is correct. Scary, but correct.

[Doug_K]

@Saint_Cad

That is correct. Scary, but correct.

This is great news! I can save a fortune in living expenses by going from back door to back door with a backpack until I find one somebody forgot to lock.

Seriously, this just doesn’t pass even a casual sniff test. Don’t forget that you don’t have to actually break anything to be charged with breaking and entering. I’m going to need some cites from official sources (and not just from some lawyer’s website, I’m talking .gov addresses) before I can buy that.

[doreen]

@Saint_Cad

That is correct. Scary, but correct.

It’s not universally true - maybe it is where you live but it’s certainly not true where I live. But it’s going to be very fact-dependent - someone asked pretty much the question in a similar thread and the answer ( I think from Loach) was that in that sort of situation, the police have a certain amount of discretion and will ask things like “how long have you lived here” or to see mail addressed to the person or speak to the neighbors.
( Although I suspect it almost never happens that squatters move in without causing any damage when you simply went to work for the day - I bet this is an issue more with temporary guests who won’t leave)

[Saint_Cad]

@doreen

It’s not universally true - maybe it is where you live

Yep. So maybe I should have said YMMV.

[doreen]

@Saint_Cad

Yep. So maybe I should have said YMMV.

But even that article talks about homeless people moving into vacant rental houses or ones where the rightful occupants were on vacation or deployed. Nothing about the police being unable to remove people who moved in while you went to work for the day. The quote from Deputy Smith says

*According to Deputy Smith, it depends on the circumstances surrounding each case. As previously stated, one of the squatters said they were invited to live there by the previous tenant. However, none of the squatters were on the lease. Deputies then have to weigh how long the squatters had been occupying the house. Unfortunately, by the time this case became known to authorities, the squatters had been living in the home for more than a week and had moved their furniture inside.( emphasis added )

[mbh]

@Lemur866

Or, if you worked the land as a serf you couldn’t just be evicted because the lord of the manor decided to go into wool rather than wheat. You had a right to work the land even if you didn’t own the land.

Interesting trivia: In order to convert their lands from farms to sheep pastures, English and Scottish landlords voluntarily liberated millions of serfs. And liberals have been condemning them for it, for four centuries.

Another thing to keep in mind is, the notion that Nature is good, and wilderness should be protected, is a 20th Century idea. In the days when one bad harvest could cause mass starvation, unproductive land was anathema. So, if Joe was not using the land, and Bob was planting crops, the authorities were inclined to favor Bob.

Even forests were not wilderness. They were harvested for timber, firewood, hunting, fishing, and livestock grazing. They were under cultivation, as much as any cornfield. And they still are today. National Forests are completely separate entities from National Parks. The Forest Service is part of the Department of Agriculture. The Park Service is part of the Department of Interior.

[hibernicus]

@mbh

Interesting trivia: In order to convert their lands from farms to sheep pastures, English and Scottish landlords voluntarily liberated millions of serfs. And liberals have been condemning them for it, for four centuries.

That is not so. Tenant farmers and crofters at the time of the Clearances were not serfs; their eviction did not represent an emancipation.

[hibernicus]

@StraightTalk

How does such a thing exist? How is it someone can just TAKE your property without compensation? I don’t care if I’ve never visited the land that I own. I OWN it. It’s mine and I don’t see how someone can just take it by setting up camp on it for some period of time. Makes no sense to me.

**No, this hasn’t happened to me. I just read about it and thought WTH?!?

Consider it from the opposite viewpoint. Suppose someone turned up claiming that they owned your house and land. You’ve lived there all your life and your parents lived there before you. But this claimant has some kind of ancient document purporting to prove that they are the rightful owner. Should a court consider their claim, and if it is found meritorious, evict you and your family from your home without compensation? Surely not. It is good public policy to have a rule that the person’s claim, regardless of its original merit, has lapsed due to the passage of time, and that you have the right of ownership.

[pullin]

I thought I read about cases of Air bnb squatting where the house was fraudulently rented by a third party. The “landlords” broke into the home while owners were on extended vacation and then rented it thru the website. I can’t find the story now, but I’m pretty sure I remember this. I know there are some well publicized cases of previously legitimate renters who decided not to leave.

As we are planning long term travel in retirement, squatters etc. were one of the concerns about our home being unoccupied for extended periods. We’ve taken several steps to guard against this.

FWIW: Air bnb was one of those events where we discovered a large segment of the world is really, really different from us. When we first heard about it, we both laughed at the thought that anyone would actually let strangers from the internet stay in their house. We’re still astounded that people actually do this.