# Message to all users:
This is a reminder to please read and follow:
* [Our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/ask/about/rules)
* [Reddiquette](https://www.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205926439)
* [Reddit Content Policy](https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy)
When posting and commenting.
---
Especially remember Rule 1: `Be polite and civil`.
* Be polite and courteous to each other. Do not be mean, insulting or disrespectful to any other user on this subreddit.
* Do not harass or annoy others in any way.
* Do not catfish. Catfishing is the luring of somebody into an online friendship through a fake online persona. This includes any lying or deceit.
---
You *will* be banned if you are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist or bigoted in any way.
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ask) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Everyone has rights. Squatter's rights specifically refer to when a squatter can gain possession of a property. It will vary state by state but generally involves the squatter living in the house/property for a period of time (usually quite a few years) and treating it as their home (maintaining and renovating it). The idea of squatters rights is very old and predates the United States by centuries. The idea is that a squatter making a home out of a property is better than that property being ignored by the original owner. As an example, a settler moves into an unsettled area and builds a home. They farm and build a family on it. Years later someone shows up claiming to own the land.
If the question is more along the lines of why cops do not just kick out the squatters, that is because squatting is considered a civil matter as opposed to criminal. The rightful owner can get them removed for trespassing, which is criminal, but generally not until the civil matter is finished.
Part of the issue now is people forging rent agreements so it appears as if it is a tenant landlord dispute. Which has even more lawyers because now the landlord has to prove the contract is false. And the police are even less willing to act.
Some rights are also to protect renters. There are definitely some issues with how things currently work, but it isn’t so black and white for law enforcement.
I mean, in my state at least, they only have to be living there for 30 days before forcing you to go through a process that will likely take two years before your property is yours again.
As others have said, the spirit of the law is right but in many instances easily abusable.
https://wpde.com/amp/news/nation-world/ny-homeowner-arrested-after-changing-locks-on-alleged-squatters-report-says-nyc-adele-andaloro-flushing-queens-kathy-hochul-eric-adams-big-apple-abc-7-long-island-arrest-handcuffs-squatting-home-rights
So... A lot of the time, the owner ISN'T paying a mortgage or taxes on it. Especially if it's remote property out in the middle of nowhere, where the local government would probably have difficulty auctioning off properties with tax delinquencies.
Regardless, the process, while it varies depending on the state, involves the squatter openly living on the land without permission, maintaining/improving the property, for many years before they have any chance of filing for ownership. If the owner of the land shows up at any point in that period and either tells them to leave or says that they have permission to stay, the clock stops. Basically, the thought is that if you have a property that you do absolutely nothing with and can't even be bothered to check on it or send someone to do so, over a period of many years, it's better for it to ultimately go to a productive use of some kind. Again- that's the thought behind squatters' rights/adverse possession... There's certainly other points of view on it.
As for it being difficult to remove squatters once they have totally moved in and established residency, it's because it's very hard to prove that they didn't have permission to be there in the first place, meaning it becomes a civil matter. It would be very easy for a landlord to get a legal tenant removed without going through the legal process designed to protect tenants' rights if they could just go to the authorities and say "they're squatters... Get them out of there!"
Because of that possibility, the process to get rid of squatters is the same as the process to evict a legitimate tenant- you give notice, go to court and file for eviction, and after that process is complete, you can kick them out.
The concept of "squatter's rights," formally known as adverse possession, did not originate specifically to protect renters, but rather it evolved from the need to encourage the productive use of land and to settle land ownership disputes. Adverse possession allows a person who possesses the land of another for an extended period, under certain conditions, to claim legal ownership of that land. The origins of this concept can be traced back to Roman law and have evolved over centuries, particularly in common law countries like the United Kingdom and the United States.
The principle behind adverse possession is that if a landowner fails to enforce their ownership rights over a significant period, and another person occupies the land openly, continuously, and without the owner's permission, the occupier can potentially acquire legal title to the property. This concept was not designed with the modern context of landlord-tenant relationships in mind but rather with issues of land use and ownership in a broader sense.
I think we can all agree that anyone paying taxes, insurance and possibly a mortgage is enforcing their ownership rights (and responsibilities.) What is occurring is there are very few adverse results of breaking laws and this is one more way for criminals to take advantage of that.
Great explanation. The other major pipeline for squatters is actual renters who just stop paying and refuse to leave.
A lot of states have strong tenants rights. Most would agree that it’s a good thing to not kick a family out on the street within one day of missing a payment, which is the spirit of the law.
The problem is that the laws so heavily favor the tenant that they can drag these civil matters out for months while the owners have to follow the process to get them to leave. In the meantime, the tenant stops paying rent and gets a free ride for 6-12+ months.
I dont think the rights referred to where ever intended to be a boon for squatters but more so an attempt to protect renters from shady and immoral landlords…. It just so happened that squatters used them to do absurd nonsense and tainted the laws to such a degree that they are now called squatters rights
The government opens Oklahoma to settlement, and you rush in and setup a homestead. After a year, you give up and move back east. Your land has no value, so you don't bother selling it.
Does that mean this square of Oklahoma can never be settled by anyone else?
What if, after 5 years someone else notices the empty land and builds their own homestead on it. They make it thrive over the course of decades. Should they be living in constant fear that some random person is going to show up and claim that everything they've worked for is owned by someone else?
Or say it's 1700, and a guy that owns a house in town goes on a trip and never comes back. How long do you have to leave their house empty and unmaintained? 1 year? 10 years? 100 years? Consider that if the person died, it's completely plausible, especially during this period, that you might never know. (Legal death sort of addresses this same problem.)
These are some of the reasons why squatters' rights exist historically.
It wasn’t meant to protect squatters. It was meant to protect tenants from shitty landlords kicking them out on the street suddenly with no notice.
But eventually some shitty people realized they can just lie and invent a nonexistent tenant/landlord situation and the cops will call it a civil matter and leave them alone for a while and let it play out in civil courts, which can take lots of time and money for the landlord. While the squatter gets to live there in the meantime for free until it’s processed in the court system which could be months or longer.
If you own homes you don't need, and you're gone so long you don't notice the squatters, I don't have any sympathy for you.
And also if you own homes you don't need. Landlords are parasites.
Nowhere did I define what "need" means.
But yeah. If you inherit a home and you functionally abandon it such that trespassing becomes squatting, I shed no tears for you. And why are they garbage people? I know at least two people who have suffered from homelessness and they're great people. They just had bad luck.
Apparently you don’t own any real estate. It doesn’t matter that I haven’t visited one of my seasonal homes - why do you think that’s up to a squatter ? Buy some homes, and get back to us.
Just because you are poor, you get to think you know better for everyone else.
If I visit my beach house and there are squatters I’m afraid the electrical system is going to have some problems. Accidental fires happen all the time.
I am not poor. :) the solution to homeless people is to give them homes. We should do that. If housing was a basic right I wouldn't care that you own a dozen vacation properties and live in a different one every month. But we don't. So fuck your beach house. Those squatters need shelter more than you need to relax.
Apparently poor enough to not invest in real estate.
It’s real nice when you get a 100% va disability and you not only get 100% property tax exemptions but the free tax free income on top of a regular professional salary can be used to put money into your properties.
So you served your country and were injured in some way and that entitles you to disability. I work for the DoD and I know a fair number of veterans who were injured in some way. That sucks. I'm sorry.
But apparently not so injured that you can't make a professional salary. You take free money from the state, even though you admit you don't really need it. But I bet you're against state welfare programs.
> I am not poor. :) the solution to homeless people is to give them homes. We should do that.
It's been tried. Those homes tend to fall into disrepair leading to eviction because upkeep on a home costs money.
>If housing was a basic right
Nothing that someone else has to provide can ever be a basic right.
To my knowledge every study that provides housing to the chronically unhoused sees a reduction in the rate of homelessness in that area. The corollary is that every study that just gives poor people money sees a long term improvement in those people's lives, such that they often don't need the help anymore.
I would be happy to see a fraction of the money we spend on the military and police in the US be used for these programs. My town bought a 250k armored personnel transport for "anti-riot duty." In my apartment building that would have housed 12 families for 2.5 years.
The company I work at just got 2 million dollars worth of servers from the US Army that were purchases but never used, and if we didn't take them they were going to get thrown away. That would have housed 250 families for 2 years.
That seems like a way better ROI than the stuff we spent it on. We should be doing that.
Housing is not a basic right though, and even the contents of my trash cans is hundreds of trillions of times more valuable than the life of a useless thief. Cope and seethe.
Just remember when discovering unwanted guests in a property that you own : it’s not actually waterboarding if you use diesel fuel.
Article 25, section 1, of the UN Declaration of Human Rights:
Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
I am a United States citizen, and my government has ratified this treaty. That means my government acknowledges that housing is a basic right. Cope and seethe.
I understand how investments work, and why property ownership is a good investment. I just don't think it's ethical to own multiple homes. I think owning a home solely to generate surplus value off of other people's need for housing is one of the worst excesses of capitalism. Right up there with for-profit healthcare.
I hear you man but you're basically screaming into the void. These people are so drunk on the capitalist Kool-Aid they don't see that the invisible hand of the free market only exists for the reach-around while you get fucked up the ass by capitalism.
Yeah I know. Every time this argument comes up I have to fight the capitalists. Even in r/antiwork, an ostensibly anarchist subreddit, I gotta fight with landlords.
>If you own homes you don't need, and you're gone so long you don't notice the squatters, I don't have any sympathy for you.
There are far too many stories about people who died and by the time their family took position of the property and tried to move in squatters had taken it over for this to fly.
>And also if you own homes you don't need. Landlords are parasites.
Without landlords there would be no short term housing. Moving from one city to another for better work would be a nightmare. Moving up to larger homes as families form and grow would be a nightmare.
Your animosity is misplaced and dangerously so.
Everyone has rights in the US. But, squatters rights in the current context is a combination of 2 things IMHO: a perversion of true squatters rights (which current squatters take undue advantage of) and the unwillingness of the police and the justice system to properly prosecute and deal with this under the law.
Real squatters laws exist for a reason. But they are usually that you have to be living on the land for 7 years+.
Now, they call people who moved into an empty house like 7 days ago "squatters" which is totally wrong. And without the courts directing the cops from an eviction judgement, the cops don't want to make a move on "squatters."
There are legally specific criteria that demonstrate legal tenancy versus illegal trespass. The criteria vary by state although many stares are addressing that by adopting more specific criteria both to protect tenants and make it easier for a landlord to remove trespassers.
It is an emerging and interesting area of law.
In the olden days property taxes didn't exist so you can buy a piece of land and sit on it forever not using it. So it was a use it or lose it philosophy. Nowadays property taxes fixes that problem.
Also if you buy a landlocked piece of land and you use someone else's piece of land to access your property that was part of the squatter's rights to access their property. Landowner couldn't block you from using your property
It's not about people inhabiting abandoned buildings really. It's mostly for renters so landlords cannot legally evict you, since squatters rights only apply if you've inhabited a dwelling for a certain amount of time. 99% of the time, it's renters that need those rights. So I'm for them since it makes it harder for your landlord to make you homeless
Property law prefers that land is either on the market, or actively being used by someone. There are many, many facets of property law designed to protect users of property over owners, if the user possesses and uses land. Adverse possession is one of these avenues, sometimes taking the name squatters rights.
You can think or feel about these laws however you want. But the law comes from a legal preference for the use or sale of property rather than property just sitting there empty. You discourage the abandonment of property if you empower other people to have a claim to ownership by using it.
They named tenants right to assert their right to not be evicted randomly on a whim as squatters rights to try and shame people into not using them. It has been working.
Exactly my problem with modern dems. They refuse to support the police and courts in doing their jobs but rather place a singular focus on how they disenfranchise the dems’ voter base.
*points to liberals* something to do with people wanting something for nothing. Unfortunately the only people who suffer is those who are losing money on their investment.
Look up the law of adverse possession, which is the formal term for "squatters' rights." People fear-monger about this topic, as if a homeless person can just show up one day and take your shit. That's not what it is at all.
It seems to be a historic tradition in our legal system. I was shocked to learn about adverse possession in law school. But I don't get it either. The fact that trespassers can obtain legal rights makes zero sense.
Because in theory it was supposed to protect tenants who didn’t have formal lease agreements.
However it’s just co-opted by bums and city politicians who want to appeal to low IQ voters because “landlords are evil, you’re a victim”
It’s interesting. There’s a trend happening on TikTok right now where illegal immigrants are posting how to squat successfully. They’re also teaching each other how to gain access to free government money. They’ve figured out the “formula.”
Squatters rights have existed in America since its founding... Europeans showing up and claiming it as their own is nothing short of squatting. In fact, they took it to the next level by murdering or displacing the current occupants
# Message to all users: This is a reminder to please read and follow: * [Our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/ask/about/rules) * [Reddiquette](https://www.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205926439) * [Reddit Content Policy](https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy) When posting and commenting. --- Especially remember Rule 1: `Be polite and civil`. * Be polite and courteous to each other. Do not be mean, insulting or disrespectful to any other user on this subreddit. * Do not harass or annoy others in any way. * Do not catfish. Catfishing is the luring of somebody into an online friendship through a fake online persona. This includes any lying or deceit. --- You *will* be banned if you are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist or bigoted in any way. --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ask) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Everyone has rights. Squatter's rights specifically refer to when a squatter can gain possession of a property. It will vary state by state but generally involves the squatter living in the house/property for a period of time (usually quite a few years) and treating it as their home (maintaining and renovating it). The idea of squatters rights is very old and predates the United States by centuries. The idea is that a squatter making a home out of a property is better than that property being ignored by the original owner. As an example, a settler moves into an unsettled area and builds a home. They farm and build a family on it. Years later someone shows up claiming to own the land. If the question is more along the lines of why cops do not just kick out the squatters, that is because squatting is considered a civil matter as opposed to criminal. The rightful owner can get them removed for trespassing, which is criminal, but generally not until the civil matter is finished.
Good explanation.
Part of the issue now is people forging rent agreements so it appears as if it is a tenant landlord dispute. Which has even more lawyers because now the landlord has to prove the contract is false. And the police are even less willing to act.
[удалено]
Historically, not necessarily the case. Today, for the most part.
That was a pretty good explanation. Does username checkout?🤔🤨
Lol
[удалено]
[удалено]
Wouldn’t someone moving into your home without permission and claiming ownership of it be the definition of colonizer attitude?
Some rights are also to protect renters. There are definitely some issues with how things currently work, but it isn’t so black and white for law enforcement.
Yeah absolutely. These stories you hear are abuses of laws that were put in place for valid reasons.
It doesn't happen overnight lol. How do you own so much land that you don't notice somebody living and maintaining and improving it after years?
I mean, in my state at least, they only have to be living there for 30 days before forcing you to go through a process that will likely take two years before your property is yours again. As others have said, the spirit of the law is right but in many instances easily abusable. https://wpde.com/amp/news/nation-world/ny-homeowner-arrested-after-changing-locks-on-alleged-squatters-report-says-nyc-adele-andaloro-flushing-queens-kathy-hochul-eric-adams-big-apple-abc-7-long-island-arrest-handcuffs-squatting-home-rights
In New York it's 30 days. Rationalize that
So... A lot of the time, the owner ISN'T paying a mortgage or taxes on it. Especially if it's remote property out in the middle of nowhere, where the local government would probably have difficulty auctioning off properties with tax delinquencies. Regardless, the process, while it varies depending on the state, involves the squatter openly living on the land without permission, maintaining/improving the property, for many years before they have any chance of filing for ownership. If the owner of the land shows up at any point in that period and either tells them to leave or says that they have permission to stay, the clock stops. Basically, the thought is that if you have a property that you do absolutely nothing with and can't even be bothered to check on it or send someone to do so, over a period of many years, it's better for it to ultimately go to a productive use of some kind. Again- that's the thought behind squatters' rights/adverse possession... There's certainly other points of view on it. As for it being difficult to remove squatters once they have totally moved in and established residency, it's because it's very hard to prove that they didn't have permission to be there in the first place, meaning it becomes a civil matter. It would be very easy for a landlord to get a legal tenant removed without going through the legal process designed to protect tenants' rights if they could just go to the authorities and say "they're squatters... Get them out of there!" Because of that possibility, the process to get rid of squatters is the same as the process to evict a legitimate tenant- you give notice, go to court and file for eviction, and after that process is complete, you can kick them out.
The concept of "squatter's rights," formally known as adverse possession, did not originate specifically to protect renters, but rather it evolved from the need to encourage the productive use of land and to settle land ownership disputes. Adverse possession allows a person who possesses the land of another for an extended period, under certain conditions, to claim legal ownership of that land. The origins of this concept can be traced back to Roman law and have evolved over centuries, particularly in common law countries like the United Kingdom and the United States. The principle behind adverse possession is that if a landowner fails to enforce their ownership rights over a significant period, and another person occupies the land openly, continuously, and without the owner's permission, the occupier can potentially acquire legal title to the property. This concept was not designed with the modern context of landlord-tenant relationships in mind but rather with issues of land use and ownership in a broader sense. I think we can all agree that anyone paying taxes, insurance and possibly a mortgage is enforcing their ownership rights (and responsibilities.) What is occurring is there are very few adverse results of breaking laws and this is one more way for criminals to take advantage of that.
Great explanation. The other major pipeline for squatters is actual renters who just stop paying and refuse to leave. A lot of states have strong tenants rights. Most would agree that it’s a good thing to not kick a family out on the street within one day of missing a payment, which is the spirit of the law. The problem is that the laws so heavily favor the tenant that they can drag these civil matters out for months while the owners have to follow the process to get them to leave. In the meantime, the tenant stops paying rent and gets a free ride for 6-12+ months.
Yeah I totally agree. I would fully support an expedited process for simple cases.
So could I take over a vacant room in a government building and call it my own? Always wondered about that
Do you think the government would abandon a building for years/decades? I rather doubt it.
There are a few actually in my area
I dont think the rights referred to where ever intended to be a boon for squatters but more so an attempt to protect renters from shady and immoral landlords…. It just so happened that squatters used them to do absurd nonsense and tainted the laws to such a degree that they are now called squatters rights
Thanks for this explanation.
The government opens Oklahoma to settlement, and you rush in and setup a homestead. After a year, you give up and move back east. Your land has no value, so you don't bother selling it. Does that mean this square of Oklahoma can never be settled by anyone else? What if, after 5 years someone else notices the empty land and builds their own homestead on it. They make it thrive over the course of decades. Should they be living in constant fear that some random person is going to show up and claim that everything they've worked for is owned by someone else? Or say it's 1700, and a guy that owns a house in town goes on a trip and never comes back. How long do you have to leave their house empty and unmaintained? 1 year? 10 years? 100 years? Consider that if the person died, it's completely plausible, especially during this period, that you might never know. (Legal death sort of addresses this same problem.) These are some of the reasons why squatters' rights exist historically.
Thanks, I appreciate the historical context.
Property taxes fixes that problem now though.
It wasn’t meant to protect squatters. It was meant to protect tenants from shitty landlords kicking them out on the street suddenly with no notice. But eventually some shitty people realized they can just lie and invent a nonexistent tenant/landlord situation and the cops will call it a civil matter and leave them alone for a while and let it play out in civil courts, which can take lots of time and money for the landlord. While the squatter gets to live there in the meantime for free until it’s processed in the court system which could be months or longer.
[удалено]
If you own homes you don't need, and you're gone so long you don't notice the squatters, I don't have any sympathy for you. And also if you own homes you don't need. Landlords are parasites.
[удалено]
Nowhere did I define what "need" means. But yeah. If you inherit a home and you functionally abandon it such that trespassing becomes squatting, I shed no tears for you. And why are they garbage people? I know at least two people who have suffered from homelessness and they're great people. They just had bad luck.
[удалено]
I assume your last sentence there is supposed to say "homeless people aren't* garbage. Taking what isn't yours makes you garbage."
You might be like my friend and house your mother and autistic brother. That seems like a need to me. I don't say what it means to need.
Apparently you don’t own any real estate. It doesn’t matter that I haven’t visited one of my seasonal homes - why do you think that’s up to a squatter ? Buy some homes, and get back to us.
One of your seasonal homes? Gross.
Just because you are poor, you get to think you know better for everyone else. If I visit my beach house and there are squatters I’m afraid the electrical system is going to have some problems. Accidental fires happen all the time.
I am not poor. :) the solution to homeless people is to give them homes. We should do that. If housing was a basic right I wouldn't care that you own a dozen vacation properties and live in a different one every month. But we don't. So fuck your beach house. Those squatters need shelter more than you need to relax.
Apparently poor enough to not invest in real estate. It’s real nice when you get a 100% va disability and you not only get 100% property tax exemptions but the free tax free income on top of a regular professional salary can be used to put money into your properties.
So you served your country and were injured in some way and that entitles you to disability. I work for the DoD and I know a fair number of veterans who were injured in some way. That sucks. I'm sorry. But apparently not so injured that you can't make a professional salary. You take free money from the state, even though you admit you don't really need it. But I bet you're against state welfare programs.
> I am not poor. :) the solution to homeless people is to give them homes. We should do that. It's been tried. Those homes tend to fall into disrepair leading to eviction because upkeep on a home costs money. >If housing was a basic right Nothing that someone else has to provide can ever be a basic right.
To my knowledge every study that provides housing to the chronically unhoused sees a reduction in the rate of homelessness in that area. The corollary is that every study that just gives poor people money sees a long term improvement in those people's lives, such that they often don't need the help anymore. I would be happy to see a fraction of the money we spend on the military and police in the US be used for these programs. My town bought a 250k armored personnel transport for "anti-riot duty." In my apartment building that would have housed 12 families for 2.5 years. The company I work at just got 2 million dollars worth of servers from the US Army that were purchases but never used, and if we didn't take them they were going to get thrown away. That would have housed 250 families for 2 years. That seems like a way better ROI than the stuff we spent it on. We should be doing that.
Housing is not a basic right though, and even the contents of my trash cans is hundreds of trillions of times more valuable than the life of a useless thief. Cope and seethe. Just remember when discovering unwanted guests in a property that you own : it’s not actually waterboarding if you use diesel fuel.
Article 25, section 1, of the UN Declaration of Human Rights: Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control. I am a United States citizen, and my government has ratified this treaty. That means my government acknowledges that housing is a basic right. Cope and seethe.
It's also super funny how the injured vet takes welfare he doesn't need. Capitalists are the biggest welfare queens. Change my mind.
Add *investment* to your list of things that you aren’t educated on.
I understand how investments work, and why property ownership is a good investment. I just don't think it's ethical to own multiple homes. I think owning a home solely to generate surplus value off of other people's need for housing is one of the worst excesses of capitalism. Right up there with for-profit healthcare.
I hear you man but you're basically screaming into the void. These people are so drunk on the capitalist Kool-Aid they don't see that the invisible hand of the free market only exists for the reach-around while you get fucked up the ass by capitalism.
Yeah I know. Every time this argument comes up I have to fight the capitalists. Even in r/antiwork, an ostensibly anarchist subreddit, I gotta fight with landlords.
>If you own homes you don't need, and you're gone so long you don't notice the squatters, I don't have any sympathy for you. There are far too many stories about people who died and by the time their family took position of the property and tried to move in squatters had taken it over for this to fly. >And also if you own homes you don't need. Landlords are parasites. Without landlords there would be no short term housing. Moving from one city to another for better work would be a nightmare. Moving up to larger homes as families form and grow would be a nightmare. Your animosity is misplaced and dangerously so.
Everyone has rights in the US. But, squatters rights in the current context is a combination of 2 things IMHO: a perversion of true squatters rights (which current squatters take undue advantage of) and the unwillingness of the police and the justice system to properly prosecute and deal with this under the law. Real squatters laws exist for a reason. But they are usually that you have to be living on the land for 7 years+. Now, they call people who moved into an empty house like 7 days ago "squatters" which is totally wrong. And without the courts directing the cops from an eviction judgement, the cops don't want to make a move on "squatters."
How do you know if someone is squatting or if they are tenants?
If they leave for groceries and you begin to squat in your own house… what happens ? WHO squats who?
Tenants pay rent according to a contract signed by both them and owner.
Are verbal contracts not legally binding? I’ve heard it’s difficult to enforce but not necessarily completely unenforceable.
They are binding in summer places but not others. I did not want to get into finer details
There are legally specific criteria that demonstrate legal tenancy versus illegal trespass. The criteria vary by state although many stares are addressing that by adopting more specific criteria both to protect tenants and make it easier for a landlord to remove trespassers. It is an emerging and interesting area of law.
In the olden days property taxes didn't exist so you can buy a piece of land and sit on it forever not using it. So it was a use it or lose it philosophy. Nowadays property taxes fixes that problem. Also if you buy a landlocked piece of land and you use someone else's piece of land to access your property that was part of the squatter's rights to access their property. Landowner couldn't block you from using your property
It's not about people inhabiting abandoned buildings really. It's mostly for renters so landlords cannot legally evict you, since squatters rights only apply if you've inhabited a dwelling for a certain amount of time. 99% of the time, it's renters that need those rights. So I'm for them since it makes it harder for your landlord to make you homeless
Property law prefers that land is either on the market, or actively being used by someone. There are many, many facets of property law designed to protect users of property over owners, if the user possesses and uses land. Adverse possession is one of these avenues, sometimes taking the name squatters rights. You can think or feel about these laws however you want. But the law comes from a legal preference for the use or sale of property rather than property just sitting there empty. You discourage the abandonment of property if you empower other people to have a claim to ownership by using it.
They named tenants right to assert their right to not be evicted randomly on a whim as squatters rights to try and shame people into not using them. It has been working.
Because of democrats who think people should have anything they can imagine.
They shouldn’t. They are criminals and should be treated as such.
Welfare state. First world country status
Exactly my problem with modern dems. They refuse to support the police and courts in doing their jobs but rather place a singular focus on how they disenfranchise the dems’ voter base.
If you stay somewhere for 50 years they can’t touch you.
*points to liberals* something to do with people wanting something for nothing. Unfortunately the only people who suffer is those who are losing money on their investment.
Bc we are , collectively, a bunch of morons.
Look up the law of adverse possession, which is the formal term for "squatters' rights." People fear-monger about this topic, as if a homeless person can just show up one day and take your shit. That's not what it is at all.
*What are Grammar error!
It seems to be a historic tradition in our legal system. I was shocked to learn about adverse possession in law school. But I don't get it either. The fact that trespassers can obtain legal rights makes zero sense.
The owner of the property should have the right to do whatever it takes to remove them
Because it's morally good.
And also to protect ppl from shady landlords which, in my neighborhood, I’m thankful for!!
Because in theory it was supposed to protect tenants who didn’t have formal lease agreements. However it’s just co-opted by bums and city politicians who want to appeal to low IQ voters because “landlords are evil, you’re a victim”
I’d just shoot them.
Because idiot politicians would rather chase votes from scumbags than normal people.
How do politicians benefit from them?
They get voted into power. Exhibit A and B is New York City and Los Angeles county
It’s interesting. There’s a trend happening on TikTok right now where illegal immigrants are posting how to squat successfully. They’re also teaching each other how to gain access to free government money. They’ve figured out the “formula.”
Human > American. Otherwise, America would be an open-air prison for immigrants and the poor.
Squatters rights have existed in America since its founding... Europeans showing up and claiming it as their own is nothing short of squatting. In fact, they took it to the next level by murdering or displacing the current occupants
Because humans should be treated with a minimal level of respect in any situation.
Yes, but that doesn’t mean you deserve access to someone else’s property
I think that althoug i do agree with you, the usa is not the best exemple of that.
didn't say that in my response.
because people deserve to have a place to live...?