Support NeoGAF

[BeEatNU]

haha his new neighbors is mad

 

[captive]

Who broke into this house.

Please show me a quote or time stamp in the video that says he broke into the house?

 

[Angry Grimace]

Please show me a quote or time stamp in the video that says he broke into the house?

Using a key to the front door on a house you are trespassing in is still trespassing

This guy followed a legal process, filled out the required form, and has done everything properly. Anyone who opposes him is ridiculous.

You might want to try reading the thread. Adverse possession by definition is illegal. He is not doing something legal at all.

How exactly will the courts "oppose" him? All the courts are concerned with is if the proper procedures are followed. If the previous home owner or the bank wish to file a lawsuit that's a separate issue but I think he's right that the previous owner probably can't afford to pay everything off (or they would have long since done so) and the banks probably view him as more trouble than he's worth.

My property law professor used to offer cash prizes for anyone that could find a modern United States case in which a bad faith claimant won an adverse possession case. It literally never happens.

 

[GoldenEye 007]

Texas Law.



All one has to do is to do is file a claim and wait for judgement. You don't even have to hold the title to do so, apparently. So long as you do it before the statutes run out. Doesn't even say you have to pay all the back payments on it. Although I suppose that if you do so, it would help your case. But here, I think just having possession of the title or a piece of the title would be enough to win.

This guy is tizzoast.

Just quickly scanning over that, I'm not seeing much where the guy would be "tizzoasted" or anything.

The three and five year statutes require the original owner to file a claim. After that, it seems like anyone claiming the property can file for the deed. And since this guy has filed the adverse possession, the statute of limitations clock started with that and he would be second in line if the original title owner does not step forward.

And obviously if the original deed owner steps forward, they would need to re-assume the mortgage payments. This guy wouldn't because he never signed loan paperwork in the first place. He is under no obligation to pay for the mortgage. The original deed-holder did and is still obligated to that debt.

Edit: How is adverse possession illegal in Texas, when the state has procedures and paperwork for filing for it in the first place under the present conditions?

 

[captive]

Using a key to the front door on a house you are trespassing in is still trespassing

if he was trespassing then how come the police didn't arrest him when the neighbors called them. Oh right, cause it's not trespassing if the state gave him the key.

 

[TommyT]

if he was trespassing then how come the police didn't arrest him when the neighbors called them?

Did you watch the video?

 

[GoldenEye 007]

Did you watch the video?

Yeah, they stated it was a civil matter. But that still doesn't explain the state providing a certain legal process, yet at the same time saying that process is illegal.

 

[CrankyJay]

Using a key to the front door on a house you are trespassing in is still trespassing

For all intents and purposes, the house was abandoned. I don't see how you can trespass on an abandoned property if no one owns it.

 

[captive]

Did you watch the video?

yes i watched the damn video. Angry grimace is trying to say the man trespassed, yet if he was wouldn't the police have arrested him? Exactly.

 

[TommyT]

yes i watched the damn video. Angry grimace is trying to say the man trespassed, yet if he was wouldn't the police have arrested him? Exactly.

That was answered in the video IIRC. Will watch again to confirm this for the funnies.

edit: It's at ~2:20 of the "damn video" you supposedly watched. :lol Damn you Grimace for ruining the fun!

 

[Angry Grimace]

if he was trespassing then how come the police didn't arrest him when the neighbors called them. Oh right, cause it's not trespassing if the state gave him the key.

Because trespassing is a civil matter.

 

[CrankyJay]

Because trespassing is a civil matter.

Yeah, and usually when someone is trespassing on your property you call the police.

WHAT HAVE I DONE?!

 

[Angry Grimace]

Yeah, and usually when someone is trespassing on your property you call the police.

WHAT HAVE I DONE?!

Because trespassing sounds in tort, not criminal law. The police don't have the ability to sort out disputed property rights without an order from the Court; hence why you have to actually win unlawful detainer proceedings someone before the police will actually physically remove someone.

You're barking up the wrong tree.

 

[2th]

He has no running water and no power. Isn't the guy actually just squatting? I mean he has to live there for 3 years before he can ask for the title of the house, so does that mean 3 years without water and power?

 

[CrankyJay]

Because trespassing sounds in tort, not criminal law. The police don't have the ability to sort out disputed property rights without an order from the Court; hence why you have to actually win unlawful detainer proceedings someone before the police will actually physically remove someone.

You're barking up the wrong tree.

Arf arf arf, woof woof!

 

[Enron]

Just quickly scanning over that, I'm not seeing much where the guy would be "tizzoasted" or anything.

The three and five year statutes require the original owner to file a claim. After that, it seems like anyone claiming the property can file for the deed. And since this guy has filed the adverse possession, the statute of limitations clock started with that and he would be second in line if the original title owner does not step forward.

And obviously if the original deed owner steps forward, they would need to re-assume the mortgage payments. This guy wouldn't because he never signed loan paperwork in the first place. He is under no obligation to pay for the mortgage. The original deed-holder did and is still obligated to that debt.

Edit: How is adverse possession illegal in Texas, when the state has procedures and paperwork for filing for it in the first place under the present conditions?

The law says nothing about having to pay past mortgage payments. If the creditor ends up with the title of the home, there will be arrangements to settle the amounts owed to other claimants if the need arises, so that won't even be an issue. They will have the title, and can have the adverse possessor evicted within the 3 year statute. If it goes beyond 3 years and a title is issued to the adverse possessor, then the other party will have to litigate.

However, news coverage has virtually assured this will not go beyond the 3-year limit as I guarantee all parties involved in the bankruptcy are now very aware of this property. Along with the residents (and their lawyers), there's too many people stacked against this guy to win, no matter what.

 

[CrankyJay]

The law says nothing about having to pay past mortgage payments. If the creditor ends up with the title of the home, there will be arrangements to settle the amounts owed to other claimants if the need arises, so that won't even be an issue. They will have the title, and can have the adverse possessor evicted within the 3 year statute. If it goes beyond 3 years and a title is issued to the adverse possessor, then the other party will have to litigate.

However, news coverage has virtually assured this will not go beyond the 3-year limit as I guarantee all parties involved in the bankruptcy are now very aware of this property. Along with the residents (and their lawyers), there's too many people stacked against this guy to win, no matter what.

Will see you in 3 years, holmes.

 

[Joel Was Right]

<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=356kiqllkU8" target="_blank" title="Go To The YouTube Page" class="ypg">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=356kiqllkU8</a>

lmao lmao

I really hope he gets to keep it. Neighbors are bitchy and should fuck off.

 

[Angry Grimace]

The law says nothing about having to pay past mortgage payments. If the creditor ends up with the title of the home, there will be arrangements to settle the amounts owed to other claimants if the need arises, so that won't even be an issue. They will have the title, and can have the adverse possessor evicted within the 3 year statute. If it goes beyond 3 years and a title is issued to the adverse possessor, then the other party will have to litigate.

However, news coverage has virtually assured this will not go beyond the 3-year limit as I guarantee all parties involved in the bankruptcy are now very aware of this property. Along with the residents (and their lawyers), there's too many people stacked against this guy to win, no matter what.

For the tenth time, it's 10 years, not 3.

 

[GoldenEye 007]

The law says nothing about having to pay past mortgage payments. If the creditor ends up with the title of the home, there will be arrangements to settle the amounts owed to other claimants if the need arises, so that won't even be an issue. They will have the title, and can have the adverse possessor evicted within the 3 year statute. If it goes beyond 3 years and a title is issued to the adverse possessor, then the other party will have to litigate.

However, news coverage has virtually assured this will not go beyond the 3-year limit as I guarantee all parties involved in the bankruptcy are now very aware of this property. Along with the residents (and their lawyers), there's too many people stacked against this guy to win, no matter what.

Here's the thing. Sure, the creditor can allow whatever arrangement they want with the original owner. But do you really think they are just going to forgive the debt and go on their merry way? That would be awfully nice of whatever bank currently has the deed. Obviously the person claiming adverse possession is taking a gamble that they won't care to pursue that. He said that himself in the video. It's a gamble - he knows that.

Then, if they want to file a lawsuit to establish ownership, are they going to want to sink more money into the property via court/lawyer costs when they already took a $300k+ hit?

And if I'm not mistaken, the bank only holds the deed as collateral in a mortgage arrangement, no? Then if payments are not made, they can keep the deed and try to resell it aka foreclose. If it doesn't sell, then it's just... there. The original name on the deed stays the same until they can resell it, right? Does the bank's name ever go on the deed?

 

[Angry Grimace]

Here's the thing. Sure, the creditor can allow whatever arrangement they want with the original owner. But do you really think they are just going to forgive the debt and go on their merry way? That would be awfully nice of whatever bank currently has the deed. Obviously the person claiming adverse possession is taking a gamble that they won't care to pursue that. He said that himself in the video. It's a gamble - he knows that.

Then, if they want to file a lawsuit to establish ownership, are they going to want to sink more money into the property via court/lawyer costs when they already took a $300k+ hit?

And if I'm not mistaken, the bank only holds the deed as collateral in a mortgage arrangement, no? Then if payments are not made, they can keep the deed and try to resell it aka foreclose. If it doesn't sell, then it's just... there. The original name on the deed stays the same until they can resell it, right? Does the bank's name ever go on the deed?

Most banks have attorneys on retainer and my guess is that this guy doesn't exactly have a vigorous legal defense team lined up.

In some states the bank's name does go on the deed. I'm no expert in secured transactions, so I couldn't explain exactly how it works, but the bank at the least has the right to repossess the property and presumably would want to do so since a property with a squatter on it isn't marketable.

 

[Lonely1]

No, the moon cannot be owned. Under international law, land is essentially classed as one of four types; sovereign territory of a state, res nullius (unowned land), res communis (jointly managed international land), and common heritage of mankind.

Since the Outer Space Treaty 1967, the moon is classed as "common heritage of mankind" property per international law.

Traditionally internationally, territory acquisition occurred through conquest but this has been illegal since apparently something big happened in the 20th century I can't quite remember the details but something about a big war or something?

Since then, ownership of property internationally has been demonstrated by possession and governance. The Island of Palmas case is interesting here--Spain gave the Phillippines to the US, the US showed up on the Island of Palmas, a Dutch flag was flying and Dutch people were living there. The US argued that Spain owned the island and thus they had the legal right to give it to the US, the court disagreed finding that the Dutch owned the island by virtue of having occupied it. This was sort of adverse possession; the court's ruling basically found that Spain would have owned the island had they occupied it, but since they didn't their "title" to the island was bogus.

The analogy is dumb, though, because this is a domestic property under the jurisdiction of Texas state property law, which clearly allows for adverse possession. Adverse possession ensures that properties do not sit rotting and decaying. Virtually all jurisdictions have a law allowing for squatter's rights, adverse possession, homesteading, or in some cases easement laws allowing for the use of the land without being able to claim ownership.

I think philosophically the world would be a better place if people focused less on anger at people who "scam the system". It is better to work on building a good world for yourself, your family, and friends, and enshrining systems that allow people to work hard and have a good chance at success than it is to waste significant effort making sure others don't get success that "they don't deserve". It's weird to be more worried about other people having something they don't deserve than worrying about people not having something that they do deserve.

But the "Come and take it!" law still applies, though. Examples: The Falklands, Tibet, Kosovo, South Ossetia, Northern Cyprus and Gaza settlements.

 

[Enron]

Here's the thing. Sure, the creditor can allow whatever arrangement they want with the original owner. But do you really think they are just going to forgive the debt and go on their merry way? That would be awfully nice of whatever bank currently has the deed. Obviously the person claiming adverse possession is taking a gamble that they won't care to pursue that. He said that himself in the video. It's a gamble - he knows that.

Then, if they want to file a lawsuit to establish ownership, are they going to want to sink more money into the property via court/lawyer costs when they already took a $300k+ hit?

And if I'm not mistaken, the bank only holds the deed as collateral in a mortgage arrangement, no? Then if payments are not made, they can keep the deed and try to resell it aka foreclose. If it doesn't sell, then it's just... there. The original name on the deed stays the same until they can resell it, right? Does the bank's name ever go on the deed?

The banks work out arrangements like this all the time. Who said anything about "forgiving" the debt? I said nothing of the sort. The creditors and the bank will get something worked out and if they don't, the bank still holds the title and can assert their "ownership" to get the adverse possessor kicked out. The law doesn't say you even need the title to do that, just a reasonable enough claim to get a judgement (which they most certainly will have)

 

[ameratsu]

Those neighbours strike me as nimbys would be outraged over just about anything. Something that they think threatens their property value or neighborhood quality would be opposed out of hand.

 

[Enron]

Those neighbours strike me as nimbys would be outraged over just about anything. Something that they think threatens their property value or neighborhood quality would be opposed out of hand.

And rightly so. Most people have nearly their entire financial well-being staked on their home.

 

[CrankyJay]

Couldn't someone just co-squat with him and try to force him out?

 

[jamesinclair]

For all intents and purposes, the house was abandoned. I don't see how you can trespass on an abandoned property if no one owns it.

In most states, you're only trespassing if you are asking to leave and THEN refuse to.

(a sign posted constitutes asking to leave)

 

[Piercedveil]

That's pretty awesome if he gets to live there for three years and claims complete ownership. Impressive.

 

[CrankyJay]

In most states, you're only trespassing if you are asking to leave and THEN refuse to.

(a sign posted constitutes asking to leave)

So you don't need ownership to ask someone to leave somewhere?

 

[Angry Grimace]

Couldn't someone just co-squat with him and try to force him out?

If Squatter A is there and Squatter B shows up on the land, he has to oust the second person or his claim of adverse possession is lost because his claim is no longer exclusive at that point.

In most states, you're only trespassing if you are asking to leave and THEN refuse to.

(a sign posted constitutes asking to leave)

You are a trespasser if you step foot on land you don't have rights to be on (the intent is merely the intent to enter the land, not to do so wrongfully). What you're talking about is having a revoked license to remain.

 

[GoldenEye 007]

Most banks have attorneys on retainer and my guess is that this guy doesn't exactly have a vigorous legal defense team lined up.

In some states the bank's name does go on the deed. I'm no expert in secured transactions, so I couldn't explain exactly how it works, but the bank at the least has the right to repossess the property and presumably would want to do so since a property with a squatter on it isn't marketable.

Its possible of course. But at the same time, the property was already on the market for a year and it failed to sell. Plus things were further complicated with the mortgage company going under.

If they don't attempt to resell it or don't care enough about it, then the guy will win on his gamble. Of course, he could lose on his gamble too. But all he would be losing is a court case, $16 and free rent. I'll assume taxes, other expenses, etc., would all be pretty much there no matter the method of him living somewhere.

 

[Angry Grimace]

Its possible of course. But at the same time, the property was already on the market for a year and it failed to sell. Plus things were further complicated with the mortgage company going under.

If they don't attempt to resell it or don't care enough about it, then the guy will win on his gamble. Of course, he could lose on his gamble too. But all he would be losing is a court case, $16 and free rent. I'll assume taxes, other expenses, etc., would all be pretty much there no matter the method of him living somewhere.

The chances of a house in a prosperous subdivision remaining empty and undisputed for 10 years is somewhere in the range of 0, and as I said, bad faith adverse possession literally never happens. It just doesn't.

 

[jufonuk]

Wish they had something like this in the UK, besides Squatters rights, tell you what aint America all about the land of oppertunity? this guy took a chance I say good luck to him...

 

[Angry Grimace]

Wish they had something like this in the UK, besides Squatters rights, tell you what aint America all about the land of oppertunity? this guy took a chance I say good luck to him...

Adverse possession exists in the UK, in fact it originated there. Of course, back then, the purpose was more that it was difficult to trace claims that went back more than a few decades so the court wouldn't side with a claimant that argued he received title prior to the reign of whatever monarch happened to be sitting on the throne.

I can't wait for the GAF debate on the Rule Against Perpetuities.

 

[MightyHealthy]

Angry Grimace claims adverse possession of this thread

 

[DrEvil]

Another thing to think about here is, the house sat unoccupied (And in forclosure/for sale) for a year, and no one bought it.

Must mean the neighbourhood isn't that desirable, and the neighbours are worried their resale value has plummeted already (hence the jealousy / desire for someone to BUY the home which would reassure their own beliefs in their overpriced homes)

it was probably a $300k+ home back before the bubble, but now? Obviously no one is buying.

 

[spiderman123]

Just google the damn thing. It's right there first page and you'll see that he's right.

 

[kehs]

When did Demi Moore become so jealous?

 

[Angry Grimace]

Another thing to think about here is, the house sat unoccupied (And in forclosure/for sale) for a year, and no one bought it.

Must mean the neighbourhood isn't that desirable, and the neighbours are worried their resale value has plummeted already (hence the jealousy / desire for someone to BUY the home which would reassure their own beliefs in their overpriced homes)

it was probably a $300k+ home back before the bubble, but now? Obviously no one is buying.

A more legitimate concern is that a guy who allows his home to fall into disrepair DOES lower property values.

Just ask my neighbors who are trying to sell their house but can't due to the ugly, dilapidated piece of shit next door with a Camaro on blocks in the front yard. It's been for sale for 18 months because they don't want to accept lower value than is prevalent in the neighborhood thanks to their douche neighbors that don't mow their weed lawn, paint their house or agree to not rev their boat's engines at 6 am.

 

[Bboy AJ]

this sounds like a bar exam question. i need to stop studying...

One more week, brotha! Exclusive possession, under no disability at the time he takes possession, notorious, under a good faith belief or claim of right (NY), continuous, and hostile. NY's statute of limitations is 10 years. Adverse possession against the state of NY is 20 years. BAM!

This guy followed a legal process, filled out the required form, and has done everything properly. Anyone who opposes him is ridiculous.

smh at GABORN not reading a thread before making such a reply. Respect lost.

 

[captive]

That was answered in the video IIRC. Will watch again to confirm this for the funnies.

edit: It's at ~2:20 of the "damn video" you supposedly watched. :lol Damn you Grimace for ruining the fun!

ok then get the original owner to say he was trespassing, oh right, that whole foreclosed and the owner doesn't want anything to do with the property thing.

 

[TommyT]

ok then get the original owner to say he was trespassing, oh right, that whole foreclosed and the owner doesn't want anything to do with the property thing.

That's kind of the point.

 

[jufonuk]

smh at GABORN not reading a thread before making such a reply. Respect lost.

at least it's not a thread about something depressing..for a change...bright side people

 

[Zoe]

Another thing to think about here is, the house sat unoccupied (And in forclosure/for sale) for a year, and no one bought it.

Must mean the neighbourhood isn't that desirable, and the neighbours are worried their resale value has plummeted already (hence the jealousy / desire for someone to BUY the home which would reassure their own beliefs in their overpriced homes)

it was probably a $300k+ home back before the bubble, but now? Obviously no one is buying.

But if the mortgage company went under, who would be trying to sell it?

 

[Angry Grimace]

But if the mortgage company went under, who would be trying to sell it?

The creditor of the mortgage company that inherits the account. It's not going to happen overnight, but eventually, the assets of the company including their mortgages, will get distributed to their creditors, who are going to want a clear title to flip the property.

Under Texas real estate law title to real estate cannot be abandoned; it will always have a record owner.

 

[Cat Party]

I only skimmed the Texas statutes, but it's pretty clear this guy will not get the benefit of the 3 year statute. And obviously, someone owns the security in this property and will kick the guy out before the 10 years are up.

 

[alphaNoid]

The creditor of the mortgage company that inherits the account. It's not going to happen overnight, but eventually, the assets of the company including their mortgages, will get distributed to their creditors, who are going to want a clear title to flip the property.

Under Texas real estate law title to real estate cannot be abandoned; it will always have a record owner.

And this people, should end these arguments. The creditors who inherits the loan/property are going to want dat monies. The fact that this guy and his story hit the television means the process is only going to pick up speed.

This guy will not end up 'winning' this house, the creditors are going to clean house eventually. When its all over, this guy will have lived a long time like a bum. Hats off to him for trying .. but the nail the in coffin was a combination of the due process, passionate neighbors and media coverage that will expedite that due process much faster.

Dude is going to lose, sorry folks.

 

[eso76]

Damn, that's cheap.

I don't mean the 16$ of course, but that's what 300k$ can buy you in Texas ?
Damn nice, you can maybe buy a 50 square meters apt here for that money.

 

[Zoe]

The creditor of the mortgage company that inherits the account. It's not going to happen overnight, but eventually, the assets of the company including their mortgages, will get distributed to their creditors, who are going to want a clear title to flip the property.

Under Texas real estate law title to real estate cannot be abandoned; it will always have a record owner.

I was commenting more on the point about it being unsold for so long. Sounds like it's more because there was nobody taking control of selling it rather than there being something wrong with the property.

 

[Angry Grimace]

I was commenting more on the point about it being unsold for so long. Sounds like it's more because there was nobody taking control of selling it rather than there being something wrong with the property.

That's just because the circumstances surrounding the disposition of it are unusual; but needless to say, it's not going to take a decade to work itself out.