Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

• 

  That Anonymous Coward (profile), 8 Aug 2011 @ 5:44pm

  
  

  Wow that poor woman in the revenge case.
  I find it sad even with proof showing her elsewhere, they pursued the case.
  Now she uses credit cards everywhere to leave a paper trail.
  And the DA who made her mind up because the woman was having business problems.
  
  Innocent until proven guilty definitely did not apply in this case.

  [ link to this | view in chronology ]

• 

  Anonymous Coward, 8 Aug 2011 @ 6:17pm

  
  

  Adverse Possession

  This article is FUD. Actually it is flat out incorrect.
  It takes more than just squatting in a house for three years to claim this right.
  
  Texas Civil Practices & Remedies Code Sec.16.021 et seq
  
  Among other things, the possessor must be paying all applicable sales tax, the rightful owner could not have tried to evict the possession, and, oh yeah, the possessor needs some kind of deed or title to show that he thought the property was legally his. And it takes more than three years.
  
  This law has a very good purpose. Presume two home owners have a fence between their properties. They each purchase the properties from prior owners. One now wants to build an extension onto his house. He gets a survey done of the property line. Lo and behold, 20 years before, one of the prior property owners put the fence up 10 feet into the other owners property.
  
  The fence line is the new border between the two properties. They both thought it was, both purchased the properties with the understanding that it was, and both have lived with that understanding.
  
  This law prevents a new owner from coming in and forcing you to demolish that garage, because it happened to be over the line that you thought was the line.
  
  Also, for our Texas freind, there is the equitable doctrine of "Clean hands." he knows it is not his property, and he says he moved in for the purpose of taking the property.
  He is also trespassing by the way, and the property owner does not need to be a party.

  [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • 

    PRMan, 8 Aug 2011 @ 6:31pm

    
    

    Re: Adverse Possession

    If the mortgage company went out of business and the owner walked away, there may be no current owner to evict the Texan. The house may be vacant and he may well end up with it.

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • 

    Nicedoggy, 8 Aug 2011 @ 7:32pm

    
    

    Re: Adverse Possession

    And the guy is still there and if he reaches 10 years no those things you said there don't matter anymore.
    
    
    Quote:

    Sharon v. Tucker (1892), the Supreme Court upheld the doctrine of adverse possession. This doctrine, which allows for an occupier of neglected land eventually to assert legal title to that land, supports a dynamic, business-oriented view of land law. It punishes landowners who leave their lands fallow and unproductive and rewards intruders who make profitable, cultivated use of the land.

    
    Source: http://american-business.org/2734-supreme-court-and-land-law.html
    
    Also you can read in there how Indians lost land by those same rules it was not as you claim something to just normalize titles of land ownership it was an instrument created first to deal with Indian-Americans and then to punish foreigners that owned land and did nothing with it, which later on was translated to be anyone who didn't work the land(i.e. speculators)
    
    There was a time that you couldn't find a jury in America to condemn a squatter not one.
    
    Other sources:
    http://www.justia.com/real-estate/docs/adverse-possession.html
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wi ki/Homestead_Act
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squatting_in_United_States_of_America
    http://en.wiki pedia.org/wiki/Preemption_Act_of_1841
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homes_Not_Jails
    http://en.wikip edia.org/wiki/Take_Back_the_Land
    http://squattercity.blogspot.com/
    
    Adverse possession in Texas
    http://www.lonestarlandlaw.com/Adverse.html
    
    Quote:

    Adverse possession is statutorily defined as "an actual and visible appropriation of real property, commenced and continued under a claim of right that is inconsistent with and is hostile to the claim of another person" [Section 16.021of the Texas Civil Practices and Remedies Code (CP&RC)].
    In Texas, the statute of limitations forms the basis for adverse possession. If the property owner does not file a suit or otherwise remove the trespasser within a certain period, the possessor receives "full title, precluding all claims" (Section 16.030 of the CP&RC). Oddly enough, four statutes of limitation govern adverse possession.
    
    Ten-Year Statute
    
    The ten-year statute is used more often than any of the others (Section 16.026). The statute bars the owner from filing a lawsuit to recover possession when the property has been held continuously and adversely for ten years by someone who cultivates, uses or enjoys it.
    
    The statute requires no deed for entry and no payment of property taxes. The primary issue is the amount of land the possessor may claim. Different rules apply depending on whether the land was enclosed (fenced) and whether the adverse possessor entered under a recorded deed or memorandum of title.
    
    If the adverse possessor enters without a deed or memorandum of title and the land is not fenced, the possessor may claim no more than 160 acres. If the land is fenced, the adverse possessor may claim all the land under fence if the entire fenced tract is held peaceably and adversely.
    
    Different rules apply when the possessor enters under a recorded (registered) deed or a memorandum of title that contains a legal description of the property. The possessor may claim the entire described tract even though only a part was actually possessed. Possession of part extends the claim to the whole. Fencing plays no role.
    
    Memorandum of title is not defined in the statute. Basically, it is a written document reflecting a transfer of title. A will meets the requirement as does a tax deed issued by the sheriff at a tax sale.
    
    Entry under a forged deed, while excluded under the five-year statute, is recognized under the ten-year statute. Likewise, the ten-year statute recognizes entry under a quitclaim deed while the five-year statute does not.

    
    Source: http://www.ntxe-news.com/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi?archive=41&num=34056
    
    http://law.findlaw .com/state-laws/adverse-possession/texas/

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • 

      Nicedoggy, 9 Aug 2011 @ 6:44am

      
      

      Re: Re: Adverse Possession

      This:
      "And the guy is still there and if he reaches 10 years no those things you said there don't matter anymore."
      
      Should read like this:
      
      And the guy is still there. If he reaches 10 years or more none of those things you said there will matter.
      
      Also apparently the owner must initiate the proceedings.

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • 

    Nicedoggy, 8 Aug 2011 @ 7:43pm

    
    

    Re: Adverse Possession

    The FUD is yours if the guy stay there long enough nobody will be able to remove him.
    
    See:
    Section 16.026 - only needs color of tittle which can be granted by torrens tittles.
    
    Section 16.024
    Section 16.025
    Section 16.029
    
    Quote:

    In Texas, the statute of limitations forms the basis for adverse possession. If the property owner does not file a suit or otherwise remove the trespasser within a certain period, the possessor receives "full title, precluding all claims" (Section 16.030 of the CP&RC). Oddly enough, four statutes of limitation govern adverse possession.

    
    
    http://law.findlaw.com/state-laws/adverse-possession/texas/

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • 

    Michael Ho (profile), 8 Aug 2011 @ 9:12pm

    
    

    Re: Adverse Possession

    It's clear that this guy doesn't own this house.. but he's laid claim to it -- and if all the right conditions align, he could very well end up owning the house. Unfortunately, he probably drew too much negative attention to himself and there may be plenty of neighbors motivated to evict him in any way they can.
    
    But there's still an outside chance that this guy could actually get the house -- or maybe there's a similar case that isn't getting as much attention.... and some squatters will profit nicely in a few years.

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • 

      Anonymous Coward, 8 Aug 2011 @ 9:37pm

      
      

      Re: Re: Adverse Possession

      There are some laws around the country which do favor squaters in abandoned buildings. In many states, squaters have the same rights as bone fide tenants, under certain circumstances, especially where they have spent time in the place, and have made improvements. That is not the case here.
      
      He could have one claim though, and that is by living in the property and maintaining it, the true owner has to pay him for value added. By maintaining it, he is not allowing it to lose property value and actual value.
      
      But I do not believe, under these circumstances, that he can ever get legal title to the house.

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

      • 

        JEDIDIAH, 9 Aug 2011 @ 6:43am

        
        

        Warped reality.

        If this guy is keeping up appearances then why is the HOA going to mind. Your typical HOA people are ALL ABOUT appearances. If this guy has been maintaining the property well, they may infact WELCOME him to the neighborhood. An owner occupant certainly has in general much more appeal to HOA members.
        
        Unless the squatter is doing something to make the neighbors think he's decreasing their property values, there should not be a problem.

        [ link to this | view in chronology ]

• 

  Nicedoggy, 9 Aug 2011 @ 6:23pm

  
  

  Adverse possession is the public way of doing the government analogue Eminent Domain LoL

  [ link to this | view in chronology ]