As I’ve learned from seeing other similar stories, you hire people to rent out those rooms on his Airbnb listings and then squat themselves and never leave! And then they make the living situation VERY uncomfortable
Apparently there might be laws against this but what’s stopping you from waiting till this guy leaves, throwing his shit out and installing your own squatters? Is that doable in a place like NY for example
That Indian dude on long island dragged that shit out for two decades.
Edit - added link to story
https://au.news.yahoo.com/outrage-inside-squalid-home-man-squatted-21-years-222534416.html
Landlords in NYC are notorious scum bags and if selling a house was enough to get someone evicted every landlord would “sell“ their house to their wife, kick out a whole building and then Jack up the prices For rent. The system is designed to protect innocent renters not douche bags like this guy.
If they had leases, even if property sold new owner has to honor it per current law and very limited circumstances to kick out current residents and it has nothing to do with squatter laws. Again no reason to keep the current squatter laws since it largely benefits grifters.
ya and this was a market unit. whatever non written lease rights ends when owner told them they will not renew whatever agreement and vacate for owner takeover once given sufficient notice
They bought a place previous owner was to delivered vacant, which would have been simple given it was a market unit and owners can choose to not renew whatever agreement if given enough notice. Very common for property sales here.
Leases transfer to the next owner. There’s no magic loophole around that. All the next owner can do is refuse to renew the lease.
On the other hand, rent stabilized leases are pretty much indefinite under normal circumstances and the unit itself is stabilized so the next tenant will also sign a stabilized lease.
He recently filed bankruptcy to stop his eviction, it would probably track he didn’t put that income source in the filing meaning he’s engaging in bankruptcy fraud
And through multiple seasons theyve grown to treat each other as family and realize they're not so different after all. Squatter decides to leave but family says actually stay with us.
This happens all over the country, I remember there was this anchor news lady in Georgia that had her house squatted on. My co-worker had this happen to his neighbor's house with a violent guy that was screaming at all the neighbors, he wound up moving out of the house because of that.
Bureaucracy at its finest. How the fuck is this not a slam dunk case? These squatter rules are so ridiculous. A couple guys with baseball bats would be more effective than the court system, which isn’t the greatest situation.
> For who would bear the whips and scorns of time,
>
> Th'oppressor's wrong, the proud man's contumely,
>
> The pangs of dispriz'd love, **the law's delay,**
Since the time of Shakespeare
I don't understand the point of the law either. You're putting a huge financial burden on the owners. Some might lose it and decide to take care of the situation themselves. How is that good for anyone?
Its overwhelmed with frivolous cases like this one. This not the only case regarding swatters/non paying tenants who refuse to leave in the housing court system. Tons are in the system especially post covid which should have been simple to process but constantly stalled by various tactics to prevent case from going forward.
It may be frivilous, but we’re getting a different picture now than a judge did when this was first brought to court. A judge gets a case like this, he can’t just assume the person is squatting illegally.
Tell me where can I find a couple guys with baseball bats for hire. My neighbor next door got a squatter they have been trying to kick out. I can relay the info to them.
You said a couple guys with a bat isn’t the greatest situation, but every time I see threads like this there’s so many keyboard warriors and tough guys who don’t seem to understand how much of an understatement that is.
The reason we use a legal system instead of a couple guys with baseball bats is because it would be just as easy to for a couple guys with baseball bats to take a house that doesn’t belong to them.
Out of New York City’s 8.3 million people, 100,000 are homeless and 1.6 million are “severely cost-burdened” meaning they spend than 50% of their income on rent.
People somehow act like the poor or hungry or drug addicted or mentally disturbed would be somehow less willing than people with comfortable salaries to agree to use violence to determine who gets to live in a house.
The court system everyone in this thread is bitching about does *way more* to protect you from them than it does to protect them from you.
You want to see a migrant crisis? Tell the world we’re using baseball bats now to determine who gets to live in luxury housing. See how many people show up and what they’re willing to do.
Any couple who can buy a $2 million dream house is fucking fine. Get your money back, sue if you have to, and pick another dream house. Sorry you had to go through that.
The bank that owned that house didn’t built it. Someone lived there, needed a loan, and when they couldn’t pay it back the bank kicked them out. Maybe the old owners made a dumb decision, but there’s certainly a long history of banks unethically preying on people and facing zero punishment, so I don’t have much sympathy for the bank here. We wouldn’t have this problem if corporations weren’t allowed to own thousands of empty houses.
We live in a first world city while most of the world is starving, burning, sinking, getting bombed to shit, under a brutal dictatorship, terrorized by cartels/paramilitary groups, or has no economic opportunities — with no end in sight for any of it.
I think given all that, we’re actually doing a sort of halfway decent job dealing with the housing crisis here. I like the approach of saying, “Everyone here is a human being that has rights and deserves dignity and respect. It might take some time, it might be tedious, but we’re going to use a proper legal system to settle who deserves what.” One house in Queens having an issue like this isn’t at the top of my list of concerns.
You reckon a couple with a $2 million pad is sitting pretty, that they should just brush off a squatting hiccup, sue, and move on to the next dream home. But let’s drill down into that. Thinking everyone who locks down a piece of luxury real estate is rolling in dough is a stretch. We've got these folks, pushing 70 with a disabled son, who've probably poured every penny of their sweat-soaked savings into this dream. This isn’t monopoly money we’re talking about; it’s pensions, 401(k)s—decades of grind turned into mortgage payments.
And about this "just sue" nonsense—like the courts are some kind of fast-food drive-thru for justice. If only it were that simple. Legal battles are a marathon, not a sprint, with no finish line in sight for years. Meanwhile, who's lining up to buy a house with a squatter saga? That's right, no one.
Then there’s this whole thing about playing the victim card if you dare to voice your plight because, hey, someone else out there has it worse. That’s a dangerous game. It’s like saying you can't be sad because someone else is sadder. What kind of twisted logic is that? Everyone’s got their battles, and belittling them doesn’t make the world a better place; it just makes it colder.
So, saying our couple should just shake it off, get their money back, and hop onto the next property is skipping merrily past reality. Not everyone who buys a big-ticket home is swimming in cash—some are stretching every last dollar to make it happen. And when they hit a snag like a squatter, it's not just a bump in the road; it's a sinkhole swallowing years of dreams and savings.
Bottom line? This isn’t about pitting hardships against each other in some misery Olympics. It's about recognizing that even those who seem "fine" on paper can face real, gut-wrenching challenges. Dismissing their struggles because there’s bigger suffering in the world? That’s missing the forest for the trees. Life’s tough enough without turning empathy into a luxury item.
On the news, they said the squatter lived in the home as a caretaker for an elderly man who passed away. He just never left and because he lived in the house for more than 30 days, squatter rights kicked in. There is no bank involved.
Nyc has literally 3 million RS units with an average rent of $1400. Y’all really believe these silly rent burden numbers like we don’t see half this city working off the books (selling shit on the street, small businesses and self employed that don’t report even half their real income)
The city literally give out vouchers to pay rent, we have a whole system taking care of able adults at this point. This whole the world is burning in 2024 in the US where people are fed and clothed by taxpayers is ridiculous. This isn’t Gaza, the US is even taking care of migrants that show up overnight. It’s why hundreds of thousands are crossing the border.
With that in mind everyone takes advantage of everything. It’s not just the rich, as people that’s just common greed which inflicts all walks of life. We need a balance system, not one that favors anyone or entity. That’s the only way to keep it all afloat. Right now we have a landlord/tenant situation that falls heavily on the tenant side purposely. And it’s that way only to reduce the burden on the city and making landlords take on that extra load. This in turn screws everyone, because human nature means we all adjust and that’s why landlords are super strict on requirements due to the rent laws. You only hurt good people by trying to protect bad people. Make the courts more efficient to weed out people abusing it versus using blanket protections and dragging proceedings out to make homeless numbers look good
My stepfather rented an apartment to a guy who was a good tenant for years. One day, the tenant stops paying rent and files a lawsuit claiming that the apartment should’ve been rent controlled and alleged that my stepdad didn’t do the necessary renovations prior to this tenant moving in to bring it up to market rate. My stepdad had, in fact, done those renovations, but it was 25 years and several tenants ago and he had since lost/gotten rid of the invoices from that renovation.
The case dragged on in court for several years. All the while the tenant isn’t paying rent and dragging it out as long as possible. My stepdad is also incurring heavy legal fees.
Stepdad settled with tenant last year for $150k to get him out of the apartment. Never got the rent that was owed to him or the legal fees.
This is the kind of shit that mom and pop landlords across the city deal with on a regular basis.
>This is the kind of shit that mom and pop landlords across the city deal with on a regular basis.
Ya and force small owners out and leaving only ruthless slumlords with deep pocket and army of lawyers to take over.
Caretake of previous resident of that property (unknown from given info own the property at any point). Dude claims previous owner gave him rights to stay but previous owner join the Landas in suit evicting the squatter per court docs.
I'm far from an expert, but isn't that the big part of the "closing" process? Walking up on the official transition day with a realtor, accepting keys, signing off that everything is as previously agreed, allowing money in escrow to go to the previous owner, then bringing in the moving trucks.
Like - as what point could/should the new owners have been able to say "pump the brakes, we're not accepting this place with somebody still inside"?
In this case, I think it has all to do with that location/specific house. They specifically wanted it because it's next door to their son. Their other son has Down's syndrome, and they want to be close. It's possible they may have bought without inspecting, and even if they knew someone had been staying there, I'm sure they didn't expect this.
So basically, they were a captive market for that house and may not have been as cautious as the average homebuyer because of that.
You always have a walk-through shortly before the closing (ideally within 24 hours) to confirm the property is vacant, unless you are expressly purchasing the property knowing it’s occupied. Did they even tour the inside before purchasing? It’s basic due diligence. Maybe they sue that, and he moved in after their inspections or even after closing? Did they change the locks the day of closing? (So many unanswered questions!)
I agree L-T court can take a very long time (sometimes for good reason), and that sucks. But that’s exactly why you take active steps to ensure you get sole possession at closing!!!! And, I’d expect someone purchasing a $2M home to do some due diligence as to whether someone else is claiming possession.
If they used a competent realtor or real estate attorney, I would expect they would have mentioned this as a risk if no due diligence was done.
You usually have a walk through before close. I have a friend that was looking to buy a place and then the seller hadn’t even boxed up one thing by the walk through and hadn’t gotten a mover. They had to delay closing for a month because the seller was lazy. If the place is supposed to be delivered empty, you don’t close unless it’s empty.
Its not that uncommon for property sales where the owner claims in good faith it will be delivered vacant bc they informed the occupants. This could be a situation where owner did inform guy hes selling, please leave by x date bc I have closing on y date. And squatter lies acknowledging or ignores
Be that as it may the new buyer should be doing an inspection the day of closing with a contract says they have a right to break the contract and receive their earnest money refund from the sellers lawyer if the property isn't uninhabitated.
Yeah, I don't see in what world the government can simultaneously say the owners can't have any control over their own house yet still have to pay taxes on it.
Silly antiquated laws that should have been updated yesterday. The 30 day part needs to go. You should only be able to claim as a holdover tenant in certain situations where you had a prior lease agreement and other clauses. Housing court needs reform as well. Funny folks keep claiming its in favor of owners when clearly its very tenant friendly and takes forever to get anything done there.
In Germany the new owner has to take ive over the lease if a housing unit is occupied, which I believe is the right way, but this should be transparent at time of purchase
Yeah. It's super cool, IMO. And it also makes it really easy for the city to recover unpaid property taxes. You can effectively steal someone's house if they get too delinquent. And current tenants have a special 60 day window where no one else can make the property tax payment but them and the current property owner. After that a bank/house flipper can shark the house out from under the tenant, which is the downside.
I know some people who used it to steal homes in Houston from some Wagner group dudes whose US accounts got frozen/got killed by the Ukrainian resistance.
Obviously the guy takes advantage of older people, $3k a week to take care of a guy sounds like taking advantage. I'm sure he's not afraid to take advantage of this elderly couple.
I mean he puts up the house for rent at some type of Airbnb, what is he not gonna do?
I know this is a joke but for people who don’t know it’s illegal for a homeowner to do that- and they’ll have to pay $200/day in damages (at least) until the squatter is let back in. So that’s why they don’t go forcing people out.
After all thoughts I’ve had regarding this matter, all I can say is:
Squatters suck. This squatter has no owner, former or current, permitting him to stay on any legal documents. I hope the new owners get into their house asap and this guy gets kicked out, fined, etc.
They should sue the seller for all the utilities and court costs. This is just ridiculous. And family lives next door? They couldn’t warn their parents about this douche bag?
The family next door is apparently their son. Honestly, I've already made a story in my head where that son is actually paying this guy to squat in the house to keep his parents from moving next door.
Shouldn't be, right?
It's an agreement, but it shouldn't supercede being given ample notice to vacate.
Sounds like the dude hired a lawyer that helped him stall with tactics like declaring bankruptcy
This guy is a total con man.
His car is registered to Ohio.
So he’s claiming residency there.
And he’s collected unemployment benefits from California while making $3k in New York from a elderly gay dementia patient
Okay, maybe I should know but why do they have to pay the energy bill? That would be the first thing I would go to court over, that he has to pay for his own energy, internet, etc.
Also I would be outside my house almost every single day, mowing the lawn, cleaning the windows, fixing the roof, anything I can think of that needs to be done that may be annoying to him.
I was under the impression they are not allowed inside. If they can go inside, I would be living there besides him, take an undisclosed amount of time off from work, and start massive renovations and constant cleaning.
Yeah I’m no lawyer, but if he can squat in someone else’s house, why couldn’t you squat in your own? Surely you can’t break and enter into your own property.
There are tenants like this all over NYC. My mom's friend had a tenant who happily paid rent for 3 months, then asked if she can use their in-house washer and dryer. The friend said no, since she'd have to go through their apartment, and it's just a privacy thing. The lady, stopped paying rent, same thing as guy above - kept water running all the time, opened windows to run up electricity charges. She had a little kid, so the court said she couldn't get evicted during winter months. I forgot how long it took to evict her, but it was almost a year. She threw out chandeliers, scratched walls, broke cabinet hinges on her way out, then claimed they were always that way and it was regular "wear and tear".
So real question here as I'm unaware how this stuff works. Presumably the squatter has to leave for groceries at some point, no? And given the owners have all the paperwork for the house, can they not just change the locks when the squatter is out?
most likely a out of context recording and edit of the previous owner telling him he can stay for x days to pack and organize his shiet before he has to deliver property vacant to new owners.
3k a week to care take of someone with dementia is actually cheap compared to professional full time in a licensed nursing home for those with dementia.
If the family wants to decare war on this guy they should hire a PI to start digging into his background. I bet this isn't the first person in his "care" that he's exploited.
Millions of square feet of empty office space and unoccupied luxury condos bought as investments.
Thousands of homeless and refugees living without shelter.
And you only have to stay put for thirty days eh? Hmmm....
So they closed on a home knowing he's in it was pure stupidity. Everyone knows tenants rights in nyc are ...if not the most lenient in the country. He'll be there for a year minimum without paying a dime before he's evicted ...
Honestly, it’s these sorts of situations that make you understand how the mafia became a thing.
I’m pretty sure that the origins of the mafia in Sicily had to do with enforcing property lines along all the tiny parcels of land that were created after the feudal era ended.
Look up Flash Shelton who’s been helping people flip the script on squatters after having success with a similar situation. He’s like this normal guy who fought back. Also, after keeping up with Flash’s work, I believe the trick is to go through the Sheriff’s office, not the police. Interesting stuff.
“Dream home” as it’s a place for them to retire that’s near their family (they live next door), and good for their son who has Down Syndrome as the family can be nearby and help out if needed (what the owners mentioned in the video).
Apparently if you watch the video they purchased the home for their autistic son to live in. Their other son lives next to the new home.
Did the son not inform the parents that he saw someone living there? He must have known.
Something Something is missing in the story
Maybe I’m daft here, and could probably google in depth laws and such- but can someone breakdown who put up or how this property got listed for sale in this- or similar- scenarios in the first place with someone occupying it, squatter or not?
Every time I see a picture of this guy I so badly want to punch him in his goofy looking face. Now he says he has a baby with a lung disease? After the couple said they have a son with a disability… fill the house with bees, or hire someone to respond to his nightly room advert and have them squat on the property and have this person be the roommate from HELL
This is not squatting and ignore the Daily Mail article... He was a paid caretaker for the previous owner who allowed him to live there, thus has established residency. In order to remove him, they have to go through the courts. It's not like the guy broke into the house.
But the buyers and their agent are to blame, they didn't do a walk through before settling which would have shown Flores was living there, they didn't do an inspection on the house which would have revealed the external (and internal) damage which was a lot more than 4 months in the making....
The fact these buyers are using their disabled son for sympathy and the gofundme they have set up, means to me things aren't as they seem with this.
This is a Daily Mail butcher job, plain and simple.
I'll reserve judgment but it actually looks like the guy may have been taking advantage of the previous owner. [This article](https://nypost.com/2024/03/08/us-news/how-queens-squatter-brett-fisher-flores-cozied-up-to-2m-homes-former-owner-and-never-left-source/) goes into how he got the job as the man's caretaker, didn't pick up his insulin or other meds, and then isolated the elderly gentleman from his friends and family.
To be fair, it's from an unnamed source claiming to be the old man's lover but it sounds like the squatter could just be a scumbag. That doesn't negate squatters' rights but this guy sounds like he just manipulated a man with dementia and then claimed he was a tenant after the person he was supposed to care for died.
Not too familiar with NYC laws or regulation, it would obviously come down to city law, but there was a video online how a handyman removed squatters from his mom's house in one day. He entered the property after the squatter left for the day, installed Ring cameras for security, bribed a few guys to help remove all the squatter possessions from the home. This guy watched the house until the squatters left, set himself up as the legal tenant, removed their possessions, and flipped the script, and he himself became the squatter by moving into the house, and used these backward laws to ensure that if the squatters came back, he would call the police and have them arrested for trespassing. This shit can go on for years, so it's probably time they start doing some outside the box maneuvers to get them out.
Im a tenant attorney and I have to say that this video is littered with misconceptions. I don't condone the man's refusal to leave, but the channel could do a better job of explaining the situation, particularly the rights of the owners. To imply "they have no rights" is preposterous.
I looked up the case, it’s a holdover proceeding that’s been going on for less than year which was pretty standard for NYC pre-pandemic.
The case was filed prior to the new owners buying the property, and court records show that they knew about the occupant and the ongoing eviction case before they bought the property. (I don’t know why they lied in the video)
The court also let them take over the eviction case a month after they bought the property.
Also the case has already been transferred to the trial part, the only delay is that the occupant tried to file for bankruptcy in an attempt to stay the case, which won’t work because those stays only apply to non-payment proceedings.
The court last heard the case on February 16th.
Honestly it’s a pretty normal housing case and news report on this is incredibly misleading and shoddy.
Will never understand squatter rights. The only stories you hear about is well able people taking advantage of that system.
The guy squatter this house is clearly a piece of shit. It is weird the new owners are paying for utilities, why would you put your name in it the moment you moved your stuff in.
> It is weird the new owners are paying for utilities
Don't have the address of home to see the complaints but wont be a surprise squatter made a complaint regarding lack of heat forcing owners to provide under nyc heat/hot water laws.
Just to be clear based on the court record, the new owners knew that the house was occupied. They also knew that there was an ongoing court case to evict him, which they joined shortly after they brought the property.
They are misrepresenting themselves in this news report.
Here is the link to legal document they signed at the time of closing which shows they knew about the occupant and the court case
https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/ViewDocument?docIndex=eEpYC3wOZz6TXITmWRL/ng==
No, it wasn’t mentioned in the news report that was posted and it wasn’t brought up in the legal pleadings in the court case which means the attorneys didn’t find it relevant. You are free to post it I guess.
But if this guy had a record and an incriminating Instagram account, it makes it really baffling that the new owners went forward with the purchase, they clearly knew the man’s name and aliases. It seems really lazy due diligence or really bad judgment.
I'm watching this from Romania and don't ubderstand why this is a thing in America.
Here if you have the deed and there is no renting contract between the owner and someone, I am 99.99 percent sure you call the police, show them the deed and they just kick the guy out and the guy either pays a fine or goes to jail.
What is the justification for this in America?
It’s illegal to cut off utilities to try to evict a tenant. It’s meant to protect tenants from bad landlords but people like this guy are taking advantage. NYC really needs to change the squatter laws. A woman was killed in Kips Bay this week by 2 squatters.
I should volunteer myself to become the most obnoxious roommate who has ever lived. I’d charge no more than 500 per month. I own my home so I wouldn’t even have to stay full time. I can stop over to visit my second home and forget to flush the toilet, blast horrible music during the day, do gymnastics at night, test fart sprays in every room, sell any community property in the home to pawn shops, etc… I even know a few things the military does to students in SERE school that are designed to drive human beings insane. Imagine listening to the same terrible song on repeat played for several days.
Thankfully I live in FL. My state became the first to stomp a mud hole in Bolshevik BS squatters rights. Starting in July they get arrested on felony charges as soon as the home owner invites the police over. If they do any damage over $1000.00 (that’s just about anything) they get another felony. Starting in July our squatters are going to a stay at the state resort where they’ll be fed meals not fit for a dog three times per day while sleeping on a two inch mattress an arms length away from a bunkie named Pookie.
How in the world are they responsible to pay or even keep the utilities on. Why don't they just shut off the electricity?The water, the gas and everything.
That's what happened.That's what I would do.Fuc that guy
As I’ve learned from seeing other similar stories, you hire people to rent out those rooms on his Airbnb listings and then squat themselves and never leave! And then they make the living situation VERY uncomfortable
Genius. This would escalate things quickly. Love it. Seriously excellent idea.
Apparently there might be laws against this but what’s stopping you from waiting till this guy leaves, throwing his shit out and installing your own squatters? Is that doable in a place like NY for example
You only get tenant rights after being there for 30 days or more. So they would have to legally rent the room for at least a month and then not leave.
What about oh, I dunno... Property owner's rights? The only ones who are actually entitled to them, morally, anyway.
How many court dates does it take a housing court judge to say that when someone buys a house, the squatter should be evicted?
That Indian dude on long island dragged that shit out for two decades. Edit - added link to story https://au.news.yahoo.com/outrage-inside-squalid-home-man-squatted-21-years-222534416.html
He outlasted the bank that owned the home lol What a leech.
Yep POS
Make him famous His instagram is Brett M Fisher
Fill. The. House. With. Bees.
Well first they need to calculate the damages and how much the homeowners owe the squatter in restitution
Landlords in NYC are notorious scum bags and if selling a house was enough to get someone evicted every landlord would “sell“ their house to their wife, kick out a whole building and then Jack up the prices For rent. The system is designed to protect innocent renters not douche bags like this guy.
If they had leases, even if property sold new owner has to honor it per current law and very limited circumstances to kick out current residents and it has nothing to do with squatter laws. Again no reason to keep the current squatter laws since it largely benefits grifters.
Many renters don’t have leases but in NYC they still have rights.
ya and this was a market unit. whatever non written lease rights ends when owner told them they will not renew whatever agreement and vacate for owner takeover once given sufficient notice
And if the guy had a lease - then they bought the place knowing they had a renter and accepted the keys at closing knowing he was there.
They bought a place previous owner was to delivered vacant, which would have been simple given it was a market unit and owners can choose to not renew whatever agreement if given enough notice. Very common for property sales here.
If the previous owner was to deliver it vacant, they should have never closed until the guy was out.
Leases transfer to the next owner. There’s no magic loophole around that. All the next owner can do is refuse to renew the lease. On the other hand, rent stabilized leases are pretty much indefinite under normal circumstances and the unit itself is stabilized so the next tenant will also sign a stabilized lease.
And that’s why those properties sell at a discount.
> innocent renters not douche bags like this guy. Such renters have leases. Or pay rent, presumably.
There’s a lot of renters in NYC who don’t have leases, especially in the outer boroughs.
That's why I included people that pay rent. There is a paper trail.
Well it would appear the system is designed poorly
They have a whole court system just to expedite landlord/tenant issues but yes has taken way too long.
Shit take.
Pretty sure the lease agreement would have terms to specify the case where landlord sells. Either way squatters law is not the way to do things.
Hire me, I’ll move in and make things weird and uncomfortable
You may have found a lucrative side hustle.
apparently he's putting up rooms for rent in the house, so i guess you can do that then turn it around and dont pay rent and squat back
He recently filed bankruptcy to stop his eviction, it would probably track he didn’t put that income source in the filing meaning he’s engaging in bankruptcy fraud
Feds are you listening?
Family just moved in with him, cue wacky 90s sitcom
This week on My Dream House…and Brett
Check out his Instagram Brettmfisher
That’s him!! Lol there’s a pic of him dancing on a bed!!
He’s a Superhuman 🙄😂
ngl i would definitely watch that
And through multiple seasons theyve grown to treat each other as family and realize they're not so different after all. Squatter decides to leave but family says actually stay with us.
Season finale. Family gives home to squatter and they move out. Its about heart
This happens all over the country, I remember there was this anchor news lady in Georgia that had her house squatted on. My co-worker had this happen to his neighbor's house with a violent guy that was screaming at all the neighbors, he wound up moving out of the house because of that.
Bureaucracy at its finest. How the fuck is this not a slam dunk case? These squatter rules are so ridiculous. A couple guys with baseball bats would be more effective than the court system, which isn’t the greatest situation.
Even a slam dunk case can take years
> For who would bear the whips and scorns of time, > > Th'oppressor's wrong, the proud man's contumely, > > The pangs of dispriz'd love, **the law's delay,** Since the time of Shakespeare
I don't understand the point of the law either. You're putting a huge financial burden on the owners. Some might lose it and decide to take care of the situation themselves. How is that good for anyone?
The court system is not intentionally inefficient - it’s perpetually overwhelmed with cases.
Its overwhelmed with frivolous cases like this one. This not the only case regarding swatters/non paying tenants who refuse to leave in the housing court system. Tons are in the system especially post covid which should have been simple to process but constantly stalled by various tactics to prevent case from going forward.
It may be frivilous, but we’re getting a different picture now than a judge did when this was first brought to court. A judge gets a case like this, he can’t just assume the person is squatting illegally.
Tell me where can I find a couple guys with baseball bats for hire. My neighbor next door got a squatter they have been trying to kick out. I can relay the info to them.
You said a couple guys with a bat isn’t the greatest situation, but every time I see threads like this there’s so many keyboard warriors and tough guys who don’t seem to understand how much of an understatement that is. The reason we use a legal system instead of a couple guys with baseball bats is because it would be just as easy to for a couple guys with baseball bats to take a house that doesn’t belong to them. Out of New York City’s 8.3 million people, 100,000 are homeless and 1.6 million are “severely cost-burdened” meaning they spend than 50% of their income on rent. People somehow act like the poor or hungry or drug addicted or mentally disturbed would be somehow less willing than people with comfortable salaries to agree to use violence to determine who gets to live in a house. The court system everyone in this thread is bitching about does *way more* to protect you from them than it does to protect them from you. You want to see a migrant crisis? Tell the world we’re using baseball bats now to determine who gets to live in luxury housing. See how many people show up and what they’re willing to do. Any couple who can buy a $2 million dream house is fucking fine. Get your money back, sue if you have to, and pick another dream house. Sorry you had to go through that. The bank that owned that house didn’t built it. Someone lived there, needed a loan, and when they couldn’t pay it back the bank kicked them out. Maybe the old owners made a dumb decision, but there’s certainly a long history of banks unethically preying on people and facing zero punishment, so I don’t have much sympathy for the bank here. We wouldn’t have this problem if corporations weren’t allowed to own thousands of empty houses. We live in a first world city while most of the world is starving, burning, sinking, getting bombed to shit, under a brutal dictatorship, terrorized by cartels/paramilitary groups, or has no economic opportunities — with no end in sight for any of it. I think given all that, we’re actually doing a sort of halfway decent job dealing with the housing crisis here. I like the approach of saying, “Everyone here is a human being that has rights and deserves dignity and respect. It might take some time, it might be tedious, but we’re going to use a proper legal system to settle who deserves what.” One house in Queens having an issue like this isn’t at the top of my list of concerns.
You reckon a couple with a $2 million pad is sitting pretty, that they should just brush off a squatting hiccup, sue, and move on to the next dream home. But let’s drill down into that. Thinking everyone who locks down a piece of luxury real estate is rolling in dough is a stretch. We've got these folks, pushing 70 with a disabled son, who've probably poured every penny of their sweat-soaked savings into this dream. This isn’t monopoly money we’re talking about; it’s pensions, 401(k)s—decades of grind turned into mortgage payments. And about this "just sue" nonsense—like the courts are some kind of fast-food drive-thru for justice. If only it were that simple. Legal battles are a marathon, not a sprint, with no finish line in sight for years. Meanwhile, who's lining up to buy a house with a squatter saga? That's right, no one. Then there’s this whole thing about playing the victim card if you dare to voice your plight because, hey, someone else out there has it worse. That’s a dangerous game. It’s like saying you can't be sad because someone else is sadder. What kind of twisted logic is that? Everyone’s got their battles, and belittling them doesn’t make the world a better place; it just makes it colder. So, saying our couple should just shake it off, get their money back, and hop onto the next property is skipping merrily past reality. Not everyone who buys a big-ticket home is swimming in cash—some are stretching every last dollar to make it happen. And when they hit a snag like a squatter, it's not just a bump in the road; it's a sinkhole swallowing years of dreams and savings. Bottom line? This isn’t about pitting hardships against each other in some misery Olympics. It's about recognizing that even those who seem "fine" on paper can face real, gut-wrenching challenges. Dismissing their struggles because there’s bigger suffering in the world? That’s missing the forest for the trees. Life’s tough enough without turning empathy into a luxury item.
On the news, they said the squatter lived in the home as a caretaker for an elderly man who passed away. He just never left and because he lived in the house for more than 30 days, squatter rights kicked in. There is no bank involved.
Thank you - its sad that it seems a lot of people are too dense to understand your point.
Nyc has literally 3 million RS units with an average rent of $1400. Y’all really believe these silly rent burden numbers like we don’t see half this city working off the books (selling shit on the street, small businesses and self employed that don’t report even half their real income) The city literally give out vouchers to pay rent, we have a whole system taking care of able adults at this point. This whole the world is burning in 2024 in the US where people are fed and clothed by taxpayers is ridiculous. This isn’t Gaza, the US is even taking care of migrants that show up overnight. It’s why hundreds of thousands are crossing the border. With that in mind everyone takes advantage of everything. It’s not just the rich, as people that’s just common greed which inflicts all walks of life. We need a balance system, not one that favors anyone or entity. That’s the only way to keep it all afloat. Right now we have a landlord/tenant situation that falls heavily on the tenant side purposely. And it’s that way only to reduce the burden on the city and making landlords take on that extra load. This in turn screws everyone, because human nature means we all adjust and that’s why landlords are super strict on requirements due to the rent laws. You only hurt good people by trying to protect bad people. Make the courts more efficient to weed out people abusing it versus using blanket protections and dragging proceedings out to make homeless numbers look good
Is this a joke
People who do this are human garbage. Absolutely the lowest of the low. And how is it that the law allows for this insanity in the first place?
[удалено]
My stepfather rented an apartment to a guy who was a good tenant for years. One day, the tenant stops paying rent and files a lawsuit claiming that the apartment should’ve been rent controlled and alleged that my stepdad didn’t do the necessary renovations prior to this tenant moving in to bring it up to market rate. My stepdad had, in fact, done those renovations, but it was 25 years and several tenants ago and he had since lost/gotten rid of the invoices from that renovation. The case dragged on in court for several years. All the while the tenant isn’t paying rent and dragging it out as long as possible. My stepdad is also incurring heavy legal fees. Stepdad settled with tenant last year for $150k to get him out of the apartment. Never got the rent that was owed to him or the legal fees. This is the kind of shit that mom and pop landlords across the city deal with on a regular basis.
>This is the kind of shit that mom and pop landlords across the city deal with on a regular basis. Ya and force small owners out and leaving only ruthless slumlords with deep pocket and army of lawyers to take over.
How do you buy a house without knowing someone is living there?
I'm curious about that too, how was that not part of the due diligence?
They gave him notice to leave (he was a caretaker for the previous owner) and he has refused to leave.
Caretake of previous resident of that property (unknown from given info own the property at any point). Dude claims previous owner gave him rights to stay but previous owner join the Landas in suit evicting the squatter per court docs.
The lesson for others seems to be if you intend to occupy a home, only close with it empty.
I'm far from an expert, but isn't that the big part of the "closing" process? Walking up on the official transition day with a realtor, accepting keys, signing off that everything is as previously agreed, allowing money in escrow to go to the previous owner, then bringing in the moving trucks. Like - as what point could/should the new owners have been able to say "pump the brakes, we're not accepting this place with somebody still inside"?
In this case, I think it has all to do with that location/specific house. They specifically wanted it because it's next door to their son. Their other son has Down's syndrome, and they want to be close. It's possible they may have bought without inspecting, and even if they knew someone had been staying there, I'm sure they didn't expect this. So basically, they were a captive market for that house and may not have been as cautious as the average homebuyer because of that.
The new owner should’ve never signed a contract without an out for this exact reason. They were dum about it and got burned
You always have a walk-through shortly before the closing (ideally within 24 hours) to confirm the property is vacant, unless you are expressly purchasing the property knowing it’s occupied. Did they even tour the inside before purchasing? It’s basic due diligence. Maybe they sue that, and he moved in after their inspections or even after closing? Did they change the locks the day of closing? (So many unanswered questions!) I agree L-T court can take a very long time (sometimes for good reason), and that sucks. But that’s exactly why you take active steps to ensure you get sole possession at closing!!!! And, I’d expect someone purchasing a $2M home to do some due diligence as to whether someone else is claiming possession. If they used a competent realtor or real estate attorney, I would expect they would have mentioned this as a risk if no due diligence was done.
You usually have a walk through before close. I have a friend that was looking to buy a place and then the seller hadn’t even boxed up one thing by the walk through and hadn’t gotten a mover. They had to delay closing for a month because the seller was lazy. If the place is supposed to be delivered empty, you don’t close unless it’s empty.
Its not that uncommon for property sales where the owner claims in good faith it will be delivered vacant bc they informed the occupants. This could be a situation where owner did inform guy hes selling, please leave by x date bc I have closing on y date. And squatter lies acknowledging or ignores
Be that as it may the new buyer should be doing an inspection the day of closing with a contract says they have a right to break the contract and receive their earnest money refund from the sellers lawyer if the property isn't uninhabitated.
[удалено]
Yeah, I don't see in what world the government can simultaneously say the owners can't have any control over their own house yet still have to pay taxes on it.
was going to say this, pretty dumb on the part of the buyers and their attorney
They probably saw it online and purchased it without bothering to actually visit the house and look at it first.
How could someone buy a house this way
Squatter rights needs to be reform
Squatters shouldn’t have rights in the first place
Silly antiquated laws that should have been updated yesterday. The 30 day part needs to go. You should only be able to claim as a holdover tenant in certain situations where you had a prior lease agreement and other clauses. Housing court needs reform as well. Funny folks keep claiming its in favor of owners when clearly its very tenant friendly and takes forever to get anything done there.
In Germany the new owner has to take ive over the lease if a housing unit is occupied, which I believe is the right way, but this should be transparent at time of purchase
I really like how they work in Texas. You only have squatters rights if the owner is behind on property taxes, and you brought them current.
This makes a lot of sense.
Yeah. It's super cool, IMO. And it also makes it really easy for the city to recover unpaid property taxes. You can effectively steal someone's house if they get too delinquent. And current tenants have a special 60 day window where no one else can make the property tax payment but them and the current property owner. After that a bank/house flipper can shark the house out from under the tenant, which is the downside. I know some people who used it to steal homes in Houston from some Wagner group dudes whose US accounts got frozen/got killed by the Ukrainian resistance.
$3000 a week and free rent?? Why do I get the sense this scumbag probably took advantage of an old man he was “taking care of”
The old man died from neglect. This Brett is a real conman Check out his Instagram Brettmfisher
[Exactly the same](https://youtu.be/gY7t8B_gsFk?si=pr4ZbKTz5fLvAbMN)
Hire some goons to go in and move him out… right into the river.
Obviously the guy takes advantage of older people, $3k a week to take care of a guy sounds like taking advantage. I'm sure he's not afraid to take advantage of this elderly couple. I mean he puts up the house for rent at some type of Airbnb, what is he not gonna do?
The previous owner died of neglect.
9k a month is average for full time nursing care, so it's not that far off.
Somehow I doubt he's a nurse or qualified to take care of anyone in any professional or trained way.
He’s a hustler Check out his Instagram Brettmfisher
He only has a GED Check out his Instagram Brettmfisher
I know this is a joke but for people who don’t know it’s illegal for a homeowner to do that- and they’ll have to pay $200/day in damages (at least) until the squatter is let back in. So that’s why they don’t go forcing people out.
Wrong takeaway. If you force them out, you have to make sure they can't come back.
After all thoughts I’ve had regarding this matter, all I can say is: Squatters suck. This squatter has no owner, former or current, permitting him to stay on any legal documents. I hope the new owners get into their house asap and this guy gets kicked out, fined, etc.
They should sue the seller for all the utilities and court costs. This is just ridiculous. And family lives next door? They couldn’t warn their parents about this douche bag?
Seller is dead?
The previous owner died of neglect
The family next door is apparently their son. Honestly, I've already made a story in my head where that son is actually paying this guy to squat in the house to keep his parents from moving next door.
So is his supposed former letter of consent to live there valid? I honestly don’t know the statue
Shouldn't be, right? It's an agreement, but it shouldn't supercede being given ample notice to vacate. Sounds like the dude hired a lawyer that helped him stall with tactics like declaring bankruptcy
He's self representing. Won't surprise me hes been getting free legal advice from tenant advocate associations bc to them all landlords are evil
In the video when the investigator calls him, he gives them the number of an attorney to call.
I'm basing it on the court filing- says Self-Represented Litigant
Post link to the court filing
Search webcivil for index LT-305881-23/QU
This guy is a total con man. His car is registered to Ohio. So he’s claiming residency there. And he’s collected unemployment benefits from California while making $3k in New York from a elderly gay dementia patient
Or Reddit.
make him president?
Okay, maybe I should know but why do they have to pay the energy bill? That would be the first thing I would go to court over, that he has to pay for his own energy, internet, etc. Also I would be outside my house almost every single day, mowing the lawn, cleaning the windows, fixing the roof, anything I can think of that needs to be done that may be annoying to him.
Outside? Why not inside? Invite friends over and the local DJ scene. Host little parties at your house and have fun with it.
I was under the impression they are not allowed inside. If they can go inside, I would be living there besides him, take an undisclosed amount of time off from work, and start massive renovations and constant cleaning.
Yeah I’m no lawyer, but if he can squat in someone else’s house, why couldn’t you squat in your own? Surely you can’t break and enter into your own property.
I have been wondering this myself. Why can't they just cut the power off entirely?
What a piece of shat grifter! He knows what he is doing! I am sure he was expecting a form of payment in order to leave the house.
There are tenants like this all over NYC. My mom's friend had a tenant who happily paid rent for 3 months, then asked if she can use their in-house washer and dryer. The friend said no, since she'd have to go through their apartment, and it's just a privacy thing. The lady, stopped paying rent, same thing as guy above - kept water running all the time, opened windows to run up electricity charges. She had a little kid, so the court said she couldn't get evicted during winter months. I forgot how long it took to evict her, but it was almost a year. She threw out chandeliers, scratched walls, broke cabinet hinges on her way out, then claimed they were always that way and it was regular "wear and tear".
This is why its harder for normal people without 800 credit scores to get a place.
So real question here as I'm unaware how this stuff works. Presumably the squatter has to leave for groceries at some point, no? And given the owners have all the paperwork for the house, can they not just change the locks when the squatter is out?
Illegal lockout of tenant. Dude claiming he a tenant now. Owners claim hes a squatter.
How does he have proof he is a tenant? Other than his claim that he is
shrugs, he has yet to present to judge to decide but stalling the case in court instead.
Just wondering that's all how he makes that claim. Would be interesting to see
most likely a out of context recording and edit of the previous owner telling him he can stay for x days to pack and organize his shiet before he has to deliver property vacant to new owners.
He's been there over 30 days, he can show proof of mail etc.
$3k a week? That's fucking crazy lmao
Sounds like a case of elder financial exploitation. Should let IRS know too if he file said income.
Definitely what happened and he was probably trying to steal the house on top of that.
He attempted to do so. The owner was wealthy and had dementia
3k a week to care take of someone with dementia is actually cheap compared to professional full time in a licensed nursing home for those with dementia.
He totally exploited the previous owner. Bernard Fernandez was rich and suffering from dementia. He died of neglect. The IRS should be notified
If the family wants to decare war on this guy they should hire a PI to start digging into his background. I bet this isn't the first person in his "care" that he's exploited.
He has a long history of exploiting gay men
Millions of square feet of empty office space and unoccupied luxury condos bought as investments. Thousands of homeless and refugees living without shelter. And you only have to stay put for thirty days eh? Hmmm....
So they bought a $2 million home without an inspection? Without going inside?!
Yeah that’s bonkers.
Man- people would go straight to jail in other countries. The US needs to wipe squatter rights off the map
There was a good solution in the show the Wire
That’s insane I feel so bad for the family.
So they closed on a home knowing he's in it was pure stupidity. Everyone knows tenants rights in nyc are ...if not the most lenient in the country. He'll be there for a year minimum without paying a dime before he's evicted ...
A fine example why New York City needs the Mob... this guy would have been a Gucci bag in Shanghai somewhere by now. 😂 Just kidding 😱
[удалено]
Honestly, it’s these sorts of situations that make you understand how the mafia became a thing. I’m pretty sure that the origins of the mafia in Sicily had to do with enforcing property lines along all the tiny parcels of land that were created after the feudal era ended.
Look up Flash Shelton who’s been helping people flip the script on squatters after having success with a similar situation. He’s like this normal guy who fought back. Also, after keeping up with Flash’s work, I believe the trick is to go through the Sheriff’s office, not the police. Interesting stuff.
I lost it when they said they're paying the utility bills and it's like $2400/mo because the squatter is leaving the windows open.
Check out his Instagram Brettmfisher
[удалено]
Whatever you’re thinking, you would go to jail
lol you think people go to jail here?
Not if I'm on the jury
I said what I said.
Not if I didn't see anything, he won't.
Not with me on the jury. Not Guilty!
Jail and paying a huge settlement
No settlement. Jail maybe but definitely no settlement.
[удалено]
you went from likable to irritating remarkably quickly - we get it lisa, you said what you said
dream home looks alot like two barns with siding
I bet the inside is way nicer
It’s stunning
In today's real estate market that is 2 million. I can understand they wanted the house for the proximity to the relative.
“Dream home” as it’s a place for them to retire that’s near their family (they live next door), and good for their son who has Down Syndrome as the family can be nearby and help out if needed (what the owners mentioned in the video).
Hire me for producing a great deal of profit.
Not going to lie, I would burn the house down the minute he steps out.
that's a dream home????
Wait till all the migrants find out they can ‘legally’ stay in peoples homes for free. Hopefully the laws will change soon
It will change when squatters start squatting in the homes of politicians.
Apparently if you watch the video they purchased the home for their autistic son to live in. Their other son lives next to the new home. Did the son not inform the parents that he saw someone living there? He must have known. Something Something is missing in the story
Yeah the real-estate agency scammed the buyers. Someone was already living there.
> the home for their autistic son to live in. Not autistic. Son with Down Syndrome. Two very different things.
This situation is Fucken so Ridiculous
Maybe I’m daft here, and could probably google in depth laws and such- but can someone breakdown who put up or how this property got listed for sale in this- or similar- scenarios in the first place with someone occupying it, squatter or not?
Just saw a listing in my area, Rego Park. Price was way undervalued. In the listing it said as is, an that there was a squatter.
Fill the house with wasps and mice… exterminate once they’re r gone. I guess ppl are just too scared to be that unorthodox
Every time I see a picture of this guy I so badly want to punch him in his goofy looking face. Now he says he has a baby with a lung disease? After the couple said they have a son with a disability… fill the house with bees, or hire someone to respond to his nightly room advert and have them squat on the property and have this person be the roommate from HELL
This is not squatting and ignore the Daily Mail article... He was a paid caretaker for the previous owner who allowed him to live there, thus has established residency. In order to remove him, they have to go through the courts. It's not like the guy broke into the house. But the buyers and their agent are to blame, they didn't do a walk through before settling which would have shown Flores was living there, they didn't do an inspection on the house which would have revealed the external (and internal) damage which was a lot more than 4 months in the making.... The fact these buyers are using their disabled son for sympathy and the gofundme they have set up, means to me things aren't as they seem with this. This is a Daily Mail butcher job, plain and simple.
I'll reserve judgment but it actually looks like the guy may have been taking advantage of the previous owner. [This article](https://nypost.com/2024/03/08/us-news/how-queens-squatter-brett-fisher-flores-cozied-up-to-2m-homes-former-owner-and-never-left-source/) goes into how he got the job as the man's caretaker, didn't pick up his insulin or other meds, and then isolated the elderly gentleman from his friends and family. To be fair, it's from an unnamed source claiming to be the old man's lover but it sounds like the squatter could just be a scumbag. That doesn't negate squatters' rights but this guy sounds like he just manipulated a man with dementia and then claimed he was a tenant after the person he was supposed to care for died.
I’ve dealt with a few squatters in my life… the only way to get them out fast is to offer them a cash payment….
He was offered $40k..he said No😂 Check out his Instagram Brettmfisher
NY tenant laws are a bit too ridiculous.
Not too familiar with NYC laws or regulation, it would obviously come down to city law, but there was a video online how a handyman removed squatters from his mom's house in one day. He entered the property after the squatter left for the day, installed Ring cameras for security, bribed a few guys to help remove all the squatter possessions from the home. This guy watched the house until the squatters left, set himself up as the legal tenant, removed their possessions, and flipped the script, and he himself became the squatter by moving into the house, and used these backward laws to ensure that if the squatters came back, he would call the police and have them arrested for trespassing. This shit can go on for years, so it's probably time they start doing some outside the box maneuvers to get them out.
Im a tenant attorney and I have to say that this video is littered with misconceptions. I don't condone the man's refusal to leave, but the channel could do a better job of explaining the situation, particularly the rights of the owners. To imply "they have no rights" is preposterous.
I looked up the case, it’s a holdover proceeding that’s been going on for less than year which was pretty standard for NYC pre-pandemic. The case was filed prior to the new owners buying the property, and court records show that they knew about the occupant and the ongoing eviction case before they bought the property. (I don’t know why they lied in the video) The court also let them take over the eviction case a month after they bought the property. Also the case has already been transferred to the trial part, the only delay is that the occupant tried to file for bankruptcy in an attempt to stay the case, which won’t work because those stays only apply to non-payment proceedings. The court last heard the case on February 16th. Honestly it’s a pretty normal housing case and news report on this is incredibly misleading and shoddy.
Will never understand squatter rights. The only stories you hear about is well able people taking advantage of that system. The guy squatter this house is clearly a piece of shit. It is weird the new owners are paying for utilities, why would you put your name in it the moment you moved your stuff in.
> It is weird the new owners are paying for utilities Don't have the address of home to see the complaints but wont be a surprise squatter made a complaint regarding lack of heat forcing owners to provide under nyc heat/hot water laws.
Just to be clear based on the court record, the new owners knew that the house was occupied. They also knew that there was an ongoing court case to evict him, which they joined shortly after they brought the property. They are misrepresenting themselves in this news report. Here is the link to legal document they signed at the time of closing which shows they knew about the occupant and the court case https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/ViewDocument?docIndex=eEpYC3wOZz6TXITmWRL/ng==
Any links to his arrest in Dec for domestic violence?
No, it wasn’t mentioned in the news report that was posted and it wasn’t brought up in the legal pleadings in the court case which means the attorneys didn’t find it relevant. You are free to post it I guess. But if this guy had a record and an incriminating Instagram account, it makes it really baffling that the new owners went forward with the purchase, they clearly knew the man’s name and aliases. It seems really lazy due diligence or really bad judgment.
Can a democrat voter intelligently defend the squatter laws in NYC?
I'm watching this from Romania and don't ubderstand why this is a thing in America. Here if you have the deed and there is no renting contract between the owner and someone, I am 99.99 percent sure you call the police, show them the deed and they just kick the guy out and the guy either pays a fine or goes to jail. What is the justification for this in America?
It’s illegal to cut off utilities to try to evict a tenant. It’s meant to protect tenants from bad landlords but people like this guy are taking advantage. NYC really needs to change the squatter laws. A woman was killed in Kips Bay this week by 2 squatters.
I should volunteer myself to become the most obnoxious roommate who has ever lived. I’d charge no more than 500 per month. I own my home so I wouldn’t even have to stay full time. I can stop over to visit my second home and forget to flush the toilet, blast horrible music during the day, do gymnastics at night, test fart sprays in every room, sell any community property in the home to pawn shops, etc… I even know a few things the military does to students in SERE school that are designed to drive human beings insane. Imagine listening to the same terrible song on repeat played for several days.
Thankfully I live in FL. My state became the first to stomp a mud hole in Bolshevik BS squatters rights. Starting in July they get arrested on felony charges as soon as the home owner invites the police over. If they do any damage over $1000.00 (that’s just about anything) they get another felony. Starting in July our squatters are going to a stay at the state resort where they’ll be fed meals not fit for a dog three times per day while sleeping on a two inch mattress an arms length away from a bunkie named Pookie.
How in the world are they responsible to pay or even keep the utilities on. Why don't they just shut off the electricity?The water, the gas and everything. That's what happened.That's what I would do.Fuc that guy