Do squatters have more protections than legal homeowners? (1 Viewer)

[SaintInBucLand]

Looks like this had been in the works and was passed unanimously by the Florida Legislature.

 

[WhoDatPhan78]

I don't get why all states aren't trying to get rid of squatters rights completely.

These are almost all really old laws that serve no purpose today.

 

[superchuck500]

Looks like this had been in the works and was passed unanimously by the Florida Legislature.

It seems fairly solid - though it basically just puts the process back on law enforcement to mediate these disputes. I think the specific criminal penalties will probably have some deterrent effect. There will likely be examples of abuses by landowners but this is always going to be messy - favoring the landowner by default is sensible.

 

[guidomerkinsrules]

Late stage capitalism update:
I get that the system slowly crushes the people most exploited by the system…
My question: why can’t I just shoot them to speed up the process?

 

[superchuck500]

I don't get why all states aren't trying to get rid of squatters rights completely.

These are almost all really old laws that serve no purpose today.

I’m not sure that’s true. Throughout the history of squatters rights, the issue is the idea that property that isn’t being used by the owner is potentially better utilized by people who are actively possessing it. It’s a social choice to favor possession over ownership under specific conditions.

There are various flare ups in western history where it was determined to vest rights for possession versus ownership in abstentia - and they invariably resulted from when livable property was in shortage. This happened in various peasant revolts, the settlement of the US West, and in post-war Europe.

The US is unquestionably in the midst of a compelling housing crisis. It’s clearly a policy choice for a society to make and there’s good arguments in both directions. But I don’t think “this is no longer valid” holds up.

But that doesn’t mean that the idea can’t be refined to find the right balance.

 

[WhoDatPhan78]

I’m not sure that’s true. Throughout the history of squatters rights, the issue is the idea that property that isn’t being used by the owner is potentially better utilized by people who are actively possessing it. It’s a social choice to favor possession over ownership under specific conditions.

There are various flare ups in western history where it was determined to vest rights for possession versus ownership in abstentia - and they invariably resulted from when livable property was in shortage. This happened in various peasant revolts, the settlement of the US West, and in post-war Europe.

The US is unquestionably in the midst of a compelling housing crisis. It’s clearly a policy choice for a society to make and there’s good arguments in both directions. But I don’t think “this is no longer valid” holds up.

But that doesn’t mean that the idea can’t be refined to find the right balance.

Yea, i just worry that we are going to start seeing people take matters into their own hands. I'd rather just get rid of squatters rights.

We definitely need to dramatically increase the supply of homes.

 

[guidomerkinsrules]

The US is unquestionably in the midst of a compelling housing crisis. It’s clearly a policy choice for a society to make and there’s good arguments in both directions. .

I’d be interested to hear the good argument in the direction of individuals and investment portfolios holding onto dozens (multiple dozens) of properties during (and maybe even creating) a housing crisis

Obviously we know that I am anti predatory capital, but Chuck I know you’re not one to throw out ‘both sides’ arguments when you don’t mean it

 

[superchuck500]

I’d be interested to hear the good argument in the direction of individuals and investment portfolios holding onto dozens (multiple dozens) of properties during (and maybe even creating) a housing crisis

Obviously we know that I am anti predatory capital, but Chuck I know you’re not one to throw out ‘both sides’ arguments when you don’t mean it

Well, I think the legal implications of private property ownership are fundamental to how our society is set up in America. It’s certainly not equitable but I don’t think that “predatory capital in housing” is a basis to allow unlawful and often destructive possession when contested by the owner. I’d prefer other mechanisms to address the ills of predatory investment in housing.

 

[guidomerkinsrules]

Well, I think the legal implications of private property ownership are fundamental to how our society is set up in America. It’s certainly not equitable but I don’t think that “predatory capital in housing” is a basis to allow unlawful and often destructive possession when contested by the owner. I’d prefer other mechanisms to address the ills of predatory investment in housing.

That type of capitalism likes a laissez faire attitude- let us do whatever, then the market (but really the government) can fix the problems we allowed to happen
This winds up costing the ‘innocent’ piles of money while rewarding the problem makers and ‘fixers’
This is fine for widgets, it really sucks for housing, food, medicine/health, industrial waste, education, art, et al

More equitable (progressive) policies would address basic needs first and THEN let capital carve out whatever additional duckers they care to

In theory we have guardrails to protect against monopolies for this reason
In theory

 

[hotairgypsy]

If the utilities were already on, cutting them off is a form of “constructive eviction” - trying to make the property uninhabitable. It’s self-help that the owner can’t do under eviction law. But if the utilities weren’t on, they don’t have to turn them on.

oh chuckaroo...let me throw a real world possibility...my parents have a former rental house they decided to not re-rent...so they are slowly working on it to get it ready for market to sell...very slow process..so they are currently paying for the utilities...well once they work is done they will probably turn off the utilities while it is vacant...So can a owner turn off the utilities in this case if a squatter slide in without them knowing but they were really turning them off cuz they got the work done???? hope that makes sense....another scenaro with them is they kept the gas and electric on for the winter to keep the heater on to prevent pipes freezing ...now that is warming up they could also turn off utilities since they are not needed for the temp issue.

 

[superchuck500]

oh chuckaroo...let me throw a real world possibility...my parents have a former rental house they decided to not re-rent...so they are slowly working on it to get it ready for market to sell...very slow process..so they are currently paying for the utilities...well once they work is done they will probably turn off the utilities while it is vacant...So can a owner turn off the utilities in this case if a squatter slide in without them knowing but they were really turning them off cuz they got the work done???? hope that makes sense....another scenaro with them is they kept the gas and electric on for the winter to keep the heater on to prevent pipes freezing ...now that is warming up they could also turn off utilities since they are not needed for the temp issue.

It’s really not a gotcha thing - constructive eviction is when the owner takes action ("extra-judicial action" meaning that it happens outside of the court process set up for eviction) for the purpose of making the property uninhabitable so that the tenants leave. Those activities you describe are normal property operation and if they turn the heat off every spring.

Another big point here is that 'squatting' requires time in which the property is occupied and the owner is unaware - due to the owner's inattention, it's not like someone can break in with a suitcase and instantly become squatters. In this day and age, it's pretty easy to monitor property from a distance. Yes, there's cost involved (likely requires electricity and internet) but it's certainly worth it compared to the cost and hassle of an eviction scenario. And the sooner the owner contests the possession (e.g. calls police about the break-in or trespass) the stronger their position is - and in most places, it's going to be very strong anyway because the law isn't favorable to squatting until the length of time has become substantial.

 

[DaveXA]

It’s really not a gotcha thing - constructive eviction is when the owner takes action ("extra-judicial action" meaning that it happens outside of the court process set up for eviction) for the purpose of making the property uninhabitable so that the tenants leave. Those activities you describe are normal property operation and if they turn the heat off every spring.

Another big point here is that 'squatting' requires time in which the property is occupied and the owner is unaware - due to the owner's inattention, it's not like someone can break in with a suitcase and instantly become squatters. In this day and age, it's pretty easy to monitor property from a distance. Yes, there's cost involved (likely requires electricity and internet) but it's certainly worth it compared to the cost and hassle of an eviction scenario. And the sooner the owner contests the possession (e.g. calls police about the break-in or trespass) the stronger their position is - and in most places, it's going to be very strong anyway because the law isn't favorable to squatting until the length of time has become substantial.

Is there a length of time when it becomes more difficult to evict a squatter? Like a week or month?

I'm actually thinking about renting my home here. I don't think I'll have to worry about dealing with a squatter, but never know when it comes up. I suspect I'll use a property manager to handle all that, but idk. Not sure yet.

 

[SaintInBucLand]

Is there a length of time when it becomes more difficult to evict a squatter? Like a week or month?

I'm actually thinking about renting my home here. I don't think I'll have to worry about dealing with a squatter, but never know when it comes up. I suspect I'll use a property manager to handle all that, but idk. Not sure yet.

Looking at it from that perspective, I bet property management companies loves this recently upswing in squatters.

 

[DaveXA]

Looking at it from that perspective, I bet property management companies loves this recently upswing in squatters.

Sort of, ultimately squatters do cost them money if they poorly manage the properties. But companies who manage them well, they probably don't care because their properties are rarely vacant, and squatters could cause novice renters to rely on the property managers. I good property manager is probably well worth the money if you don't have experience and time to deal with the ins and outs of renting. No one is gonna make a ton of money off a single rental tho.

 

[guidomerkinsrules]

Looking at it from that perspective, I bet property management companies loves this recently upswing in squatters.

What recent upswing in squatters?
After seeing this thread, I just happened to walk through a room and a center right news show was on and it had some scroll about squatters, and that’s the sun total if squatter news I’ve heard
Obviously we’re are several years into an urban housing crisis with banks sitting on vacant properties so squatting is not out of the realm of possibility, but is there really an upswing?

It seems more like someone hearing a crime anecdote from a friend and complaining about an upswing in crime even though rates are dropping