Squatter and the unclear house title

[TaraJo]

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-01-24...ity-ensues

Remember the housing bubble? All these deeds and titles were swapped around and traded and bought and sold so much by so many people that it created a house of cards that our economy rested on. Well, even after the bailouts and everything, banks are STILL selling those titles back and forth. So a more creative squatter decides to use that to his advantage; he squats in the house openly. The title has been passed around so much that's it's proving difficult to evict him. Then he relies on an old law called adverse possession, which says he can have the property if he can move in and stay there at least seven years.

[CapnAwesome]

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-01-24...ity-ensues

Remember the housing bubble? All these deeds and titles were swapped around and traded and bought and sold so much by so many people that it created a house of cards that our economy rested on. Well, even after the bailouts and everything, banks are STILL selling those titles back and forth. So a more creative squatter decides to use that to his advantage; he squats in the house openly. The title has been passed around so much that's it's proving difficult to evict him. Then he relies on an old law called adverse possession, which says he can have the property if he can move in and stay there at least seven years.

This is hardly unique actually, last time I was in Las Vegas, we found that tons of people were squatting in the houses that they used to own. The city had been so overbuilt that nobody had come to try to evict them. It's kind of strange to see it in the US, but in much of the rest of the world Squatting is normal. Some estimate around one billion people are squatters worldwide. I've seen cities in Panama where I'd say about 90% of people were just squatting.

[TaraJo]

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-01-24...ity-ensues

Remember the housing bubble? All these deeds and titles were swapped around and traded and bought and sold so much by so many people that it created a house of cards that our economy rested on. Well, even after the bailouts and everything, banks are STILL selling those titles back and forth. So a more creative squatter decides to use that to his advantage; he squats in the house openly. The title has been passed around so much that's it's proving difficult to evict him. Then he relies on an old law called adverse possession, which says he can have the property if he can move in and stay there at least seven years.

This is hardly unique actually, last time I was in Las Vegas, we found that tons of people were squatting in the houses that they used to own. The city had been so overbuilt that nobody had come to try to evict them. It's kind of strange to see it in the US, but in much of the rest of the world Squatting is normal. Some estimate around one billion people are squatters worldwide. I've seen cities in Panama where I'd say about 90% of people were just squatting.

It's also unusual because he's squatting in a 2.5 million dollar mansion and the legal system can't evict him; it's not that nobody wants to, it's that nobody can tell who the owner of the house is and therefore, they don't know who has the authority to evict him.

[CapnAwesome]

It's also unusual because he's squatting in a 2.5 million dollar mansion and the legal system can't evict him; it's not that nobody wants to, it's that nobody can tell who the owner of the house is and therefore, they don't know who has the authority to evict him.

Ha! I say good for him. If he found a way to fuck the system good for him. I'm sure someone will get him out of there eventually though, especially now that he has some press on it.

[Autumnlicious]

I hope not.

Banks have been losing paperwork and attempting to seize homes, often in bad faith. There was one well documented case of a bank (BofA I think) that foreclosed on a house the owners had bought with cash up front. They (the home owners who won after expensive litigation) even got the go ahead from the courts to seize assets of the local bank branch as compensation (before the bank very quickly paid up after stonewalling them for months).

I know people who are dealing with the issue of the bank attempting to foreclose on their home at the moment. Despite losing a fair majority of the paperwork, having questionable standing, not having their refinanced loan entered into the financial system (lien search providers), losing the deed of trust (which is a standard for which loans of this nature are secured), and filing in the wrong jurisdiction, the legal case has managed to cost the home owners well over 15,000$. They're living in a massively reduced quality of life, all because the current note holder has enough cash reserves to draw this out longer and longer.

And last I heard, their loan provider kept on refusing to place their loan under HAMP, which is all they wanted from the first place. I've forwarded them advice from my business contacts who know good legal representation, but it is costing them arms and legs.

Frankly, with respect to banks on cases like this, fuck them.

A bank should be held to a much higher standard, not a lower standard.

They clearly have the resources to create a well documented case if they did their due diligence and upkeep on records.

If they did not, they should suffer the consequences of bad business decisions and poor record keeping, not the occupant or unfortunate home owner.

[CapnAwesome]

I another article I read this quote from a neighbor:

"He's a squatter and that could pull a neighborhood down faster than anything," said Ellen Sagawa, a neighbor who lives a few housing down from the controversial home.

I'd love to get 10 of my dirtiest hippy friends and move in right next door to these uptight dickwads. These stepford wives live in such a little bubble, all they have to try to maintain their unhappy lives is trying to die in a 'good neighborhood'