Great points and questions.

You are correct. To my understanding, the person was not given permission.

The story from the person was convoluted. He basically was asleep at the wheel and did not monitor the property. The only facts I know for sure are - it was undivided, He paid his portion of the taxes and the county lawyer ended up with it through adverse possession.

DDSO said:

---

Well dang. Why not just put a no trespassing sign at the border? Problem solved.

---

Buying_time said:

---

Great points and questions.

You are correct. To my understanding, the person was not given permission.

The story from the person was convoluted. He basically was asleep at the wheel and did not monitor the property. The only facts I know for sure are - it was undivided, He paid his portion of the taxes and the county lawyer ended up with it through adverse possession.

---

There was a case up here a number of years ago in which one man who owned a few sections of farmland in several locations was not in good health his last 15 or 20 years or so and did not check his property.

When he passed away, he left it to a well known charity.

After three or four years, the charity sent someone to check on it and found a farmer farming a section of the land. They told him to get off but he went to court and filed for ownership of the land under adverse possession. The farmer proved his case and got the property.

There was also oil on the property. The charity had been receiving the oil royalty checks, but since the mineral rights had never been severed from the surface rights, the mineral rights followed the surface rights and the farmer got those as well.

The jurors didn't like it, but they really had no choice in the matter but to follow the law.

Sad, but great example of you gotta watch your back. He was able to show that he improved the property by farming it - he knew what he was doing and made sure he checked all the boxes.

Logos Stick said:

---

1. have someone else remove sign
2. go to house after sign removed and take pic of house with no sign
3. squat in house
4. profit?

---

The squatters don't even need to do that. They come with a signed lease agreement and just move in. Even though the lease is obviously fake, it's a civil matter and the cops can't do anything.

kb2001 said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

1. have someone else remove sign
2. go to house after sign removed and take pic of house with no sign
3. squat in house
4. profit?

---

The squatters don't even need to do that. They come with a signed lease agreement and just move in. Even though the lease is obviously fake, it's a civil matter and the cops can't do anything.

---

The guy out in California has the owners sign a lease agreement for him and then he moves in as a tenant so that he has the same rights to be there. And since his lease is with the actual owner, the squatters don't have a superior status to him. He sets up cameras all over and makes it more and more difficult for them to stay. Apparently they move out pretty quickly.

What I would like to know is what happens if you buy a house in the name of a private company of some kind and then lease it to yourself. You pay rent to the company. It seems reasonable to assume that now you are a tenant then you have the same tenant rights that the squatters claim if they ever try to move in. Even with squatters rights, they would have no legal ability to keep you out of the house. Squatters rights are, I think, only against the owner, not against other tenants.

eric76 said:

---

Buying_time said:

---

Great points and questions.

You are correct. To my understanding, the person was not given permission.

The story from the person was convoluted. He basically was asleep at the wheel and did not monitor the property. The only facts I know for sure are - it was undivided, He paid his portion of the taxes and the county lawyer ended up with it through adverse possession.

---

There was a case up here a number of years ago in which one man who owned a few sections of farmland in several locations was not in good health his last 15 or 20 years or so and did not check his property.

When he passed away, he left it to a well known charity.

After three or four years, the charity sent someone to check on it and found a farmer farming a section of the land. They told him to get off but he went to court and filed for ownership of the land under adverse possession. The farmer proved his case and got the property.

There was also oil on the property. The charity had been receiving the oil royalty checks, but since the mineral rights had never been severed from the surface rights, the mineral rights followed the surface rights and the farmer got those as well.

The jurors didn't like it, but they really had no choice in the matter but to follow the law.

---

They couldn't utilize jury nullification? I would. These people are thieves, and worse than common thieves, they pervert the law to unjust ends. Sounds like the law needs changing.

Bryan98 said:

---

eric76 said:

---

Buying_time said:

---

Great points and questions.

You are correct. To my understanding, the person was not given permission.

The story from the person was convoluted. He basically was asleep at the wheel and did not monitor the property. The only facts I know for sure are - it was undivided, He paid his portion of the taxes and the county lawyer ended up with it through adverse possession.

---

There was a case up here a number of years ago in which one man who owned a few sections of farmland in several locations was not in good health his last 15 or 20 years or so and did not check his property.

When he passed away, he left it to a well known charity.

After three or four years, the charity sent someone to check on it and found a farmer farming a section of the land. They told him to get off but he went to court and filed for ownership of the land under adverse possession. The farmer proved his case and got the property.

There was also oil on the property. The charity had been receiving the oil royalty checks, but since the mineral rights had never been severed from the surface rights, the mineral rights followed the surface rights and the farmer got those as well.

The jurors didn't like it, but they really had no choice in the matter but to follow the law.

---

They couldn't utilize jury nullification? I would. These people are thieves, and worse than common thieves, they pervert the law to unjust ends. Sounds like the law needs changing.

---

I'd like it if they made being elderly or confined to a bed or a nursing home or other such facility a legal disability that would raise the statute of limitations to 25 years.

Also, require the payment of the property taxes on-time every year by the person trying to claim it an element of the process. That way, as long as the owner paid the property taxes, they couldn't lose their property by adverse possession. Plus, requiring the other party to pay the property taxes on-time every year would start the statute of limitations all over again any time they didn't pay them on-time.

Bryan98 said:

---

eric76 said:

---

Buying_time said:

---

Great points and questions.

You are correct. To my understanding, the person was not given permission.

The story from the person was convoluted. He basically was asleep at the wheel and did not monitor the property. The only facts I know for sure are - it was undivided, He paid his portion of the taxes and the county lawyer ended up with it through adverse possession.

---

There was a case up here a number of years ago in which one man who owned a few sections of farmland in several locations was not in good health his last 15 or 20 years or so and did not check his property.

When he passed away, he left it to a well known charity.

After three or four years, the charity sent someone to check on it and found a farmer farming a section of the land. They told him to get off but he went to court and filed for ownership of the land under adverse possession. The farmer proved his case and got the property.

There was also oil on the property. The charity had been receiving the oil royalty checks, but since the mineral rights had never been severed from the surface rights, the mineral rights followed the surface rights and the farmer got those as well.

The jurors didn't like it, but they really had no choice in the matter but to follow the law.

---

They couldn't utilize jury nullification? I would. These people are thieves, and worse than common thieves, they pervert the law to unjust ends. Sounds like the law needs changing.

---

If I had been on the jury, I imagine that I would refuse to go along with handing the property over to the farmer.

By the way, well before I was born, the quarter section that our house is on was being farmed by someone not the owner. My grandfather was one of the earliest settlers and knew the owner of the quarter section and how to get a hold of him. My father wrote the owner and bought the property, built a house and barn and shop on it, and started farming. I have no doubt that the other farmer would have claimed adverse possession if not for my father buying it.

VP at Pierce and Pierce said:

---

What exactly is stopping these owners from simply beating the ever living **** out of these squatters? I feel like I am missing something when these stories are told. Some squatter breaks in while you are at work and says its his now? and the owner just rolls over?

---

Its only white progressive home owners that complain about squatters. All the rest just take care of it.

eric76 said:

---

TexasAGGIEinAR said:

---

Funny that this never happens in the South. I would absolutely love to see the attempt at my house or some of my redneck buddies/relatives. Hog bait.

---

Do you consider the Dallas/Fort Worth area to be in the south. They have had a number of problems with it there.

---

DFW in the South?! You can't be serious. It couldn't be further away from it.

BlueTaze said:

---

VP at Pierce and Pierce said:

---

What exactly is stopping these owners from simply beating the ever living **** out of these squatters? I feel like I am missing something when these stories are told. Some squatter breaks in while you are at work and says its his now? and the owner just rolls over?

---

Its only white progressive home owners that complain about squatters. All the rest just take care of it.

---

I see. I take it that most if not all are situations where the owner/resident is gone for an extended period of time and not simply at the office or running errands or on weekend trip? Are these squatters setting up shop while Bill and Susan grab lunch and run to the bank?

Also a huge problem in Atlanta