Now that’s a question for another thread: what do people use for “beat the shit out of somebody” clubs in different countries? In the US it would be baseballs bats. Cricket bats in Britain?
In those cases, there’s typically going to have been a number of crimes committed, and recently enough that it will be fairly easy to show - e.g. breaking and entry, theft of items in the house. The police can act on those.
Depends on whether the local law requires leases to be in writing; it may not. Even if it does, you can hardly ask the tenant to produce it immediately; a lease is not like a credit card that you carry around with you. Or, the occupant may assert not that he has a lease, but that he has permission to be there, either from the owner or from someone else who he believes to be the owner or to have a lease from the owner.
And can you produce it immediately?. When I opened my bank account in 1980 I must have signed something which is now the documentary basis for my overdraft, but please don’t ask me to produce it immediately.
The bottom line is that disputes over private property are just that; private. They’re not inherently a police matter. If you want to make them a police matter, then pass a law saying that it’s an offence to be on land without documentary evidence of your right to be there. But, when you see it written down like that, you may think it’s a very large sledgehammer for cracking a fairly small nut. How many people have returned from a week’s holiday in Elbonia and found themselves unable to regain possession of their house because squatters had moved in and could not be persuaded to leave?
I think you have a rosy view of the civil court system. Very few attorneys will take on any case on contingency. Most will need at least some retainer. And an “easy” win will often still take years to resolve. How many recently homeless residents can afford that?
As often in legal threads there are several points being made simultaneously. Talk of squatters and the need to bring formal eviction proceedures inevitably lead to talk of the reason why it is that way. It is an attempt at balance between landlord and tenants rights. That is not the main point of the thread but it is not surprising it went there.
Your scenario of someone coming back from vacation to find a squatter is so rare that it is not worth mentioning. That is a clear case of trespassing and the squatter would be most likely arrested.
Mostly it is going to be an abandoned property that someone has established residency in. Those are the cases that usually have to be heard in court. Anything involving contracts or possible contracts will not be sorted out by the patrol officer.
In the most vexing cases that have come up, the squatters do have a lease and other paperwork to show the police. They turn out to be well-crafted forgeries.
I beg to differ. In Texas I most certainly do have that right. Trespassing is considered a serious crime here, and our laws are strongly in favor of the property owner. Granted IANAL, but the statute (9.41) seems pretty clear that I may use whatever force is necessary to remove a squatter from my property. However, I’m not allowed to use deadly force unless the trespasser attempts to leave with some of my possessions. At that point I may do whatever is necessary to retrieve my property. (Statute 9.42 below)
I have no idea how this would work on the long-term squatters discussed in the thread, though.
§ 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE’S OWN PROPERTY. (a) A person in
lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is
justified in using force against another when and to the degree the
actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to
prevent or terminate the other’s trespass on the land or unlawful
interference with the property.
(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible,
movable property by another is justified in using force against the
other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force
is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the
property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit
after the dispossession and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no
claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or
(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using
force, threat, or fraud against the actor.
§ 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is
justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or
tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the
other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the
deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other’s imminent commission of
arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the
nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing
immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated
robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the
property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or
recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to
protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or
another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.
Just to reiterate - this is not about someone who broke in to your primary home while you were away for the weekend. These cases typically involve people who have lived there for a month or several, and the owner’s primary dwelling is elsewhere. The neighbours will attest to that, even if reluctantly. If they are living there, regardless of why, you may have difficulty.
the Texas law says “lawful possession”. So a lawyer needs to chime in about which side is in “lawful possession” if someone has been living in a place for 2 months undisturbed and then the title holder tries to evict them? It seems to me if the other person has lived there a while, the “possession” may be lacking. If so, the right to defend does not apply.
I have heard of this being done. The cops came, he had paperwork to prove he was the lawful owner, and lots of “witnesses” who confirmed that he was the owner and the people complaining about it were crazy. It kind of helped that the squatters were notorious in that area and had pulled the same stunt repeatedly.
At least, that’s what the guy claimed.
nm
In Mexico itself there are areas which are owned by the government and cannot be sold or otherwise transferred to anybody else; in theory they’re “common usage land” but in reality they’re unused until someone moves there and starts building houses. They can’t get title to the houses, because the law forbidding the sale of transfer of the land is superior to those governing acquisition by posession.
So, even within a same country and at the federal level, situations vary.
The stuff you quoted is correct. The conclusion you drew at the end is not: if you meet the requirements for adverse possession, your title to the land automatically vests. You don’t have to go to court and prove it; you are now the true owner. As a matter of practicality, it’s likely that you will end up in court, but you don’t have to sue to obtain title.
And as I understood it, the “true owner” does not have to get involved, does not have to sue. Just that if they do, meeting the criteria for adverse possession is a valid and winning defence.
I assume there is a process for claiming title by AP if the original owner is unknown and lost in space.
Nobody has to sue. Again, adversely possessing property for the period specified in the jurisdiction automatically vests title in the possessor. It doesn’t matter what the owner knows or does so long as it’s clear to other people that the possessor is on the land.
Counterintuitively, the owner can defeat an adverse possession claim by allowing the squatter to use the property. That means the possession is no longer hostile.
The law in France is quite similar to what I read in this thread about the USA. Openly occupy a property for a number of years (I believe 30 years) without reaction from the actual owner, and you’ll become the new owner (there are a number of other conditions for it to work, but that’s roughly the idea).
Not counterintuitive. Allowing someone to stay means that your status as owner is clearly known to you and aknowledged by the occupant. There’s no difference between that and renting the property to someone.
Something I read once was that if the true owner did in fact contest the occupation in time (i.e. try to assert his ownership rights) that cancelled adverse possession. AP requires the true owner to not challenge your occupation.
the common law concept is simple - if you’ve acted like you own it for a decent length of time, and nobody says otherwise, then someone can’t simply show up with some deep historical claim, that the King gave his great-grandfather a charter 100 years ago… and claim “no, that’s mine”. It avoids people having to dig hundreds of years back in the days of spotty records in a relatively illiterate society. It also prevents a field from lying empty and unused.
Those illiterates had a better concept of the practicality of the law than we do now. The concept of perpetual ownership is increasing in the modern world, to the benefit of a few and the detriment of the many. To own something is to possess it, and the concept that possession must be enforced by all of society without the active participation of the owner benefits only the owner.
No, that’s totally wrong. If the owner contests the occupation that actually serves as additional evidence that the possession is adverse. Of course, if the owner does assert his rights the police will eventually come and remove the squatter so there will no longer be continuous possession (unless he has already established the requisite time period.)
That’s a good way to go to jail yourself.
The reason it is a civil issue and not a legal one is imagine you are a legitimate tenant and the landlord decides to have a bunch of hired goons toss you out. The police are not in a position to show up to a piece of property and determine who is the legitimate owner and who is squatting. Police are there to arrest people who have committed a crime.
I’ve heard this question about squatters before, and a lot of people often come up with the quick (and ignorant) answer of “have goons throw them out and change the lock”. As I said, you could be charged with any number of crimes for doing that and liable for any damage caused.
The real answer is that the law is not “powerless”. The law is designed to determine that you are the legitimate owner and are not violating the rights of people living in your property. Once it does that, then you can show up with the Sheriff and have them tossed.
In New Jersey, I can’t simply toss my tenants out, even when their lease ends. Unless I plan to personally move into the property, the tenants violate the terms of the lease, I’m stuck with them unless they stop paying rent.
Absolutely not, according to the attorney who gave the speech I attended a few days ago, and her specialty is real estate and land titles (She’s an underwriter for Chicago Title). There is no “automatic” anything. Perhaps it is different in your country/state.
One of the reasons that a lot of succesful UK cases of “squatters’ rights” were in council-owned properties was precisely because there was a very easy way to see if they, or anyone else, was legally renting the property. If anyone was legally renting the property, or if the landlord (the council) was trying to let the property out, it would be on record and pretty much uncontestable in court. Council tenants can only sublet their homes with permission from the council, for specific time periods and specific reasons (like moving away for a few months to look after a relative), so there’d be a record of that and no doubt about who was the legal tenant.
It turned out that the councils just ignored the properties, didn’t let them out to anyone, and didn’t even try to let them out to anyone. All while having masive homelessness problems going on around them.
That made the rights of the squatters be very different to if someone turned up at your home while you were out for lunch and claimed they lived there. They might be able to fake up something or other, but you’d have real contracts plus utility bills in your name at that address, records of agencies like the tax office contacting you there, comments from your neighbours, etc, etc. If the “squatter” also has such evidence then either you’ve been away for quite a lot longer than a lunchtime or you’re in a blockbuster thriller movie.