Why is the law so powerless against squatters?

[md2000]

I read about a situation in Greece where someone complained that illegal immigrants were squatting in her rental apartment. She asked the police for help and they laughed at her. Someone told her to go to Golden Dawn(?) the neo-Nazi right wing party. A contingent of party members with the Greek equivalent of baseball bats showed up and suggested to the squatters it was advisable to leave, and apparently the squatters agreed forthwith.

If you try that in North America, the consequence may be sorting out assault charges in court. Break and enter charges may experience the same issues - requiring proof of ownership/occupancy. Keep in mind, the essence of why the police don’t evict the squatter - there’s some question whether he’s a valid tenant and that was his residence. If the court decides he was, then you may face serious charges. (let’s say he has electrical and water bills in his name he was obviously living there) Being the landlord does not give you the right to toss out a tenant. It’s not like employment right-to-work law, there is no “right to landlord” law… yet.

[filmore]

It seems that the police should follow the requests of the legal owner of the property. The police should remove the squatters just like they would remove a burglar. If the squatters felt they were removed improperly, then that should be a civil matter. They could sue and provide whatever paperwork was necessary to show that the owner broke the law. But it seems crazy that the owner can’t do anything while the squatters are free to do what they want and possibly damage the property.

[md2000]

I suppose you could get a friend to show up while the guy was out, toss his stuff on the lawn, and change the locks. he would say “I just rented from the owner, there was abandoned property in the house, so I put it out for garbage collection.” Maybe he should have thre or four beefy friends ther “helping with the cleanup” Then maintain round-the-clock surveillance and occupancy until the guy is gone.

Counter-squatting?

The difficulty with property disputes is that guys with nothing to lose are not adverse to breaking big windows and slashing tires.

[Lemur866]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

Can you - or you with the help of a few burly friends - just march in, grab the squatter and his stuff and toss them out, with a warning that physical violence will ensue if he returns?

What would happen if me and a few of my burly friends went over to the place you’re living and tossed you and your stuff into the street?

Just because someone is trespassing on your property does not give you the legal right to assault them, or damage their property.

If someone is on your lawn and you tell them to leave and they won’t leave, you don’t get the right to beat them up and toss them in the street.

[TriPolar]

@filmore

It seems that the police should follow the requests of the legal owner of the property. The police should remove the squatters just like they would remove a burglar. If the squatters felt they were removed improperly, then that should be a civil matter. They could sue and provide whatever paperwork was necessary to show that the owner broke the law. But it seems crazy that the owner can’t do anything while the squatters are free to do what they want and possibly damage the property.

So if someone rents an apartment and the owner doesn’t like them the police should just toss you out even though you have a valid lease and your rent is paid? The owner’s say so isn’t worth much here. Occupancy is more complex than simple ownership. Maybe it’s too complex, I’d hate to be in any of these circumstances with squatters in my home (see previous post, I just dodged one of those). But contracts mean nothing if you can just use the police to break them.

[md2000]

@Lemur866

What would happen if me and a few of my burly friends went over to the place you’re living and tossed you and your stuff into the street?

Just because someone is trespassing on your property does not give you the legal right to assault them, or damage their property.

If someone is on your lawn and you tell them to leave and they won’t leave, you don’t get the right to beat them up and toss them in the street.

Exactly. This is the problem. If the guy’s a problem squatter, he’s been there for a few weeks and the neighbours may back up that fact. If so, then the new people are possibly breaking and entering, unless the squatter has been legally evicted after a court hearing and by a sheriff. the police certainly can’t be judge and jury and evictor, but they can arrest people who broke into where a person was obviously living, however legitimate that occupancy.

[Lemur866]

@filmore

It seems that the police should follow the requests of the legal owner of the property. The police should remove the squatters just like they would remove a burglar. If the squatters felt they were removed improperly, then that should be a civil matter. They could sue and provide whatever paperwork was necessary to show that the owner broke the law. But it seems crazy that the owner can’t do anything while the squatters are free to do what they want and possibly damage the property.

Again the owner of a property can’t call the cops to evict a tenant and toss him on the streets whenever they like. In fact a landlord often doesn’t even have the right to enter his own property whenever he likes. If you’re sitting in your apartment watching TV and your landlord breezes in, you can call the cops and have HIM escorted out.

People can’t seem to understand that just because you own land or property you don’t always or in all circumstances have the legal right to control who can be on the property.

Of course these laws were enacted to protect tenants from abusive landlords, not to protect squatters. But because we have laws protecting tenants it makes it more complicated than simply calling the cops and having the squatter arrested. And remember, usually simply being on someone’s property without permission is not a crime.

[filmore]

@TriPolar

So if someone rents an apartment and the owner doesn’t like them the police should just toss you out even though you have a valid lease and your rent is paid? The owner’s say so isn’t worth much here. Occupancy is more complex than simple ownership. Maybe it’s too complex, I’d hate to be in any of these circumstances with squatters in my home (see previous post, I just dodged one of those). But contracts mean nothing if you can just use the police to break them.

Yes, the police should toss them. It should be considered trespassing. The owner has a large financial interest in the property and they should have the power to immediately deal with problem tenants. However, the tenants also have rights. If they are thrown out in violation of their contract with the owner, then they should sue and the penalty should be severe against the owner. This way the owner will not egregiously evict residents and still have the power to quickly remove problem residents.

[Lemur866]

@md2000

Exactly. This is the problem. If the guy’s a problem squatter, he’s been there for a few weeks and the neighbours may back up that fact. If so, then the new people are possibly breaking and entering, unless the squatter has been legally evicted after a court hearing and by a sheriff. the police certainly can’t be judge and jury and evictor, but they can arrest people who broke into where a person was obviously living, however legitimate that occupancy.

Are you imagining that one day you might go out for the evening, and come back to find a hobo in your living room, and when you call the cops they tell you to get a court order to evict the guy first?

Because that’s not what’s happening here. These are cases where the owner is not occupying the property.

[even_sven]

@filmore

Yes, the police should toss them. It should be considered trespassing. The owner has a large financial interest in the property and they should have the power to immediately deal with problem tenants. However, the tenants also have rights. If they are thrown out in violation of their contract with the owner, then they should sue and the penalty should be severe against the owner. This way the owner will not egregiously evict residents and still have the power to quickly remove problem residents.

How many renters do you think are going to be ready to take on a legal battle with a landlord-- especially if the reward is that they get to keep renting from the jerk? Your plan would essentially make it easy for a landlord to kick you out mid-lease with no warning for no reason.

[jerryp8472]

Curious, how does this differ from theft? According to a number of sites such as Theft legal definition of theft, theft is defined as:
“the generic term for all crimes in which a person intentionally and fraudulently takes personal property of another without permission or consent and with the intent to convert it to the taker’s use (including potential sale).”

How is taking someones home, thereby depriving them of the use themselves, not theft?

I haven’t found a definition that says that the property has to be movable in some way for it to count.

[filmore]

@even_sven

How many renters do you think are going to be ready to take on a legal battle with a landlord-- especially if the reward is that they get to keep renting from the jerk? Your plan would essentially make it easy for a landlord to kick you out mid-lease with no warning for no reason.

A property owner would be foolish to do such a thing. Attorneys would eagerly take on cases like this for free. A landlord has a valuable asset–the property itself. If he just causally breaks the lease, he would easily lose in court and the attorney and client would easily win. A property owner who does such a thing would likely quickly lose the property (or other assets).

The problem with the current situation is that destitute squatters or renters can hold the owner hostage. Since they don’t have any assets, it doesn’t do any good to sue them. The owner has to pay for lawyers and loses revenue of the property while he goes through the eviction process. Meanwhile, the destitute residents are free to strip the property of any value. They can sell appliances, remove copper pipes, or just vandalize the place.

[Telemark]

@filmore

Yes, the police should toss them. It should be considered trespassing. The owner has a large financial interest in the property and they should have the power to immediately deal with problem tenants.

The tenants have a large financial interest in not being homeless. When you rent someone a place to live you give up certain property rights (it varies by jurisdiction) because being safe in your home is considered a valuable social right. All property is not equal.

Renting someone a storage unit isn’t the same as renting them an apartment.

[even_sven]

Laws vary, but it’s generally not considered theft to take abandon property.

We are not talking here about your home that you live in. We aren’t talking about your home that you rent. We are talking about property that you either don’t know or don’t care is being occupied, to the point where people can live on it openly for decades and you do nothing at all about it. This isn’t someone stealing your car. This is you leaving your car on the side of the road in Juarez in 1987, moving to Ohio and then being shocked when decades later you show up and the Mexican police aren’t interested in throwing the book at the family that is using it.

It’s a lot like copyright. Copyright is a legal construct that provides powerful motivation for artists to produce works. But it needs to be actively upheld. Otherwise, if the artist clearly doesn’t care, then the social good of opening up the work to the intellectual commons outweighs the good of copyright.

Likewise, if someone isn’t interested in maintaining their property, it’s better off in the hands of someone who will. And given the number of ways there are to own land-- especially historically-- sorting out competing claims is a nightmare. Go far enough back, and almost all of our land came from squatters. So how do we know who owns land? A big hint is that the person acts like an owner.

[even_sven]

@filmore

A property owner would be foolish to do such a thing. Attorneys would eagerly take on cases like this for free. A landlord has a valuable asset–the property itself. If he just causally breaks the lease, he would easily lose in court and the attorney and client would easily win. A property owner who does such a thing would likely quickly lose the property (or other assets).

The problem with the current situation is that destitute squatters or renters can hold the owner hostage. Since they don’t have any assets, it doesn’t do any good to sue them. The owner has to pay for lawyers and loses revenue of the property while he goes through the eviction process. Meanwhile, the destitute residents are free to strip the property of any value. They can sell appliances, remove copper pipes, or just vandalize the place.

I had a friend whose apartment building ceiling collapsed, ruining her processions and leaving her home uninhabitable. They didn’t even bother to tell her, so she learned this when she walked in to her building and saw a handyman with a box of her stuff.

Did she sue? No. To start with, she was homeless and distraught. They offered her one night in a hotel and half off of that months rent. By the time she found a new place, she never wanted to see their face again. Even if she knew what her rights were (and it’s a place with strong tenants laws) The moral is that when you screw the broke or the young, they are going to let it slide because they are mostly occupied with survival.

[stui_magpie]

@bob_2

In London, where the price of property is astronomical (and rising) the local councils own a lot of houses. These are not necessarily the cheaper ones, but may be big 4/5 bed houses on 4/4 floors. If the tennant, who may have lived there a long time, dies, they often find that they will have to spend a great deal of money from their overstretched maintenance budget to bring it up to the required standard. It is cheaper to board it up and forget it.

This literally happened in some cases - the council simply ‘forgot’ that they owned the house. Squatter move in and often trash the place, but sometimes they were replaced by more responsible citizens, who set about restoring it. So long as the council left them to it, they could, after 12 years I think, apply to register title to the house.

Have a look at the second one to see what you would get for £400,000 in a not very prosperous London suburb.

The law has now changed and squatting is illegal.

That is worth 400,000 pound?:eek:

And that is AFTER it’s been renovated? Geebus.

[UDS]

@jerryp8472

Curious, how does this differ from theft? According to a number of sites such as Theft legal definition of theft, theft is defined as:
“the generic term for all crimes in which a person intentionally and fraudulently takes personal property of another without permission or consent and with the intent to convert it to the taker’s use (including potential sale).”

How is taking someones home, thereby depriving them of the use themselves, not theft?

I haven’t found a definition that says that the property has to be movable in some way for it to count.

Land isn’t “personal property”; the law distinguishes between personal property and real property, and land is included in the latter.

Plus, you can enter onto, occupy or use land, but you can’t “take” it. It stays right where it is.

[md2000]

@Lemur866

Are you imagining that one day you might go out for the evening, and come back to find a hobo in your living room, and when you call the cops they tell you to get a court order to evict the guy first?

Because that’s not what’s happening here. These are cases where the owner is not occupying the property.

Huh? I think you misread my post.

When I was a child, there was a lady who looked after us while my parents were on a business trip. (Her late husband was a WWI sniper. That long ago…) In Keswick, north of Toronto, those used to be cottage country before further north opened up more. She told the story of people who went to Toronto for he weekend, and returned to find a couple living in their house. Apparently the welfare habituals would typically find a cottage and occupy it for the winter, it was not unusual for cottage owners to return in the spring to find their cottage had been lived in all winter.

Fortunately, this was before the days of meaningful Landlord-Tenant Acts, when the local police departments knew their area. In all cases, the arrival of the real owners meant the welfare bums got the heck out with no trouble (but no charges) and the only problem would be cleanup and a sense of being violated.

Fortunately I don’t have to deal with it, but from what I’ve read, today if your tenant decides to stop paying the rent, it could take months and possibly over a year to get them out.

A squatter who goes to court and claims some guy down the street (can’t find him now…) said he owned the building and gave him a lease… that guy has the same rights as any other tenant until the court says otherwise. The police are not going to evict.

Again, note, these are not cases of someone coming into your house while you are at work. These are cases where the people have been there for a while (a week, a month, more) and the owner does not live there while this was going on. Therefore, until the courts say otherwise, this person appears to be legitimately living there.

If you lie to police about this you will likely not get much cooperation going forward when they find the guy who “just broke into your house” has been the only occupant there for 2 months.

“Possession is 9/10 of the law” and “you snooze, you lose”.

[BMalion]

I’ll let you know.

My older brother is squatting in my mom’s house right now!

I had the utilities (that were in her name) shut off. She is in a nursing home with total dementia. have power of attorney but am unable to go to court in that county because of my disability. I was told that Medicaid will forclose soon. I hope so.

[Senegoid]

I’m seeing several points that I would think would be salient, but that seem to be conspicuously absent from most of the posts here.

First: There is much talk here about “landlords” vs “tenants” (or people who claim to be tenants), and question about tenants refusing to pay rent, or landlords trying to evict tenants without due process. Most of these posts seem to envision a non-resident landlord who did, or might have, rented out his unit to a tenant.

And there is talk here about the concern that willy-nilly evicting an alleged squatter leaves alleged squatter homeless. And there is occasional mention that the landlord is being deprived of the profits of his property.

WHAT about the resident homeowner, coming home from a weeks vacation in Elbonia, who finds a squatter in his home? That case has only been sporadically mentioned here. It’s NOT a matter of a landlord not getting his rent. It’s not a matter of the squatter being left homeless if he is evicted. It’s a matter of the RESIDENT HOMEOWNER being left homeless until the matter is resolved! What protection does the resident homeowner have against that? Not to mention (as has been mentioned here only sporadically) that the squatter may steal the homeowner’s stuff and strip the property.

Second: And what about the need to argue about whether there’s a lease? Generally (and always, if the landlord is a professional landlord), the lease is in writing, with the tenant having a copy. If the squatter claims he has a lease, shouldn’t the burden be on him to produce a copy of that lease immediately? Certainly, the homeowner can’t prove there isn’t a lease simply by failing to produce one. If my landlord tried to evict me, calling me a squatter, of course I could show my rental agreement.

That’s what written agreements are for. If I make a deal with my bank to borrow some money, I will have a written contract. If I get a cell-phone contract, I will have that (or know where to find it on-line, I suppose). If a dispute arises between any two parties over the terms of a contract, isn’t the party who can produce a copy going to win, against the party who can’t? And if a dispute arises over the very existence of a contract, isn’t it up to the party who claims the contract exists to produce a copy?

Now, true, informal landlords may rent out a house with no lease in writing. I myself lived in a rented house for TEN YEARS with no written contract whatever, and only the vaguest hint of even a verbal contract, with that tenancy even surviving two different owners, and all of it (mostly) amicably! But as this thread shows, that’s really a dumb thing for both the owner and tenant alike to do.