« Reply #28 on: July 21, 2011, 10:21:23 AM »
$330,000 house for $16. Amazing!
This guys neighbors are basically awful people, he's a genius.
Link: Amazing video with story here
won't work.
He may be able to add his name to the title this way, but it doesn't extinguish the mortgage. The bank will simply add his name to the foreclosure proceedings.
It's not that easy. In most states, adverse possession takes 10 years or 7 years with colorable title to withstand court scrutiny. And, the true owner can take any one of a dozen steps during that time to defeat it. Any first year law student knows better.
the neighbors imo dont want another neighbor that doesnt have any utilities turned on or doesnt have any financial obligation to maintain the property he is squating on. Wonder how that lawn will look in a few months. He is not a genius but rather a person who knows how to take advantage of a bad situation. I bet he doesnt pay his HOA fees or property taxes. What a piece.
(BoydsOilCan then went on to post that it only takes three years in Texas.)
I guess I'm just not impressed. Some guy thinks he found a loophole to home ownership without actually paying the real price. Instead, he hopes to capitalize on on the bad fortune of others. Congrats, system player.
Seriously, you think his neighbors are awful? You want this system player weasel as your neighbor?
He's far from a genius and his neighbors are far from awful people.
He does have utilities turned on. What would the lawn look like if he wasn't in the house? Where have you ever seen well-maintained abandoned property?
Just wondering why would you assume that he wouldn't/couldn't pay the taxes and HOA fees? What indicated to you that this would be the case? He's savy enough to know the laws, you don't think that he's smart enough to know that he has to pay taxes and HOA fees?
Link: Beware of a bit of salty language the last minute
Direct quote from the linked to news story:
"The house is virtually empty. Just a few pieces of furniture, no running water, or electricity..."
If you don't believe me, watch again starting at the 2:20 mark.
uhh, not sure why he is some sort of genius or why his neighbors are so awful (they see this for what it is, a stunt that can only hurt their property values and potentially create dangerous situations in their neighborhoods where people take matters into their own hands resulting in legal and possible other disputes). This basically amounts to a stunt, and looks like there are websites/get rich quick movements encouraging this nonsense (guess the site with the $40 fee will in fact get rich with all of these people who think if they follow this they will get a free house, they are preying on ignorant and naive people). The article makes little sense, appears the writer is muddling all sorts of issues. She says he took action while this was in foreclosure as the "owner" had left. All the bank has to do is complete foreclosure proceedings and he is out, which they will undoubdtedly do as even if the value is well below the $300,000 on the note, they will do better than zero if they just foreclose and sell it at market. Also, seems likely he had to violate some law (breaking and entering) to initially "occupy" the house, which when dealing with a dwelling is a much bigger deal than if you were talking about occupying some piece of land out in the middle of nowhere (where it would just be trespassing) and probably has a longer satute of limitations for criminal prosecution. Seems pretty dangerous to encourage people to start trying to do this, likely to be mistakes and multiple claims by competing adverse possessors if this becomes a big movement, and with gun culture in Texas its only a matter of time before someone miscalculates, enters a home assuming its empty with the intent to adverse possess and they get shot.
Bottom line, adverse possession is not something you can really plan ahead like this for, if you do, the real owner will take action and oust you. Its really for a situation where someone for a long period of time has just been doing this (e.g., you built a shed that spills onto your neighbors property, or you fence in and farm land that was next to yours, and over the years you keep doing it, nobody says anything, and time passes). In that situation, eventually you can rely on adverse possession to quiet title. Running into the house telling everyone you are adverse possessing the place (like Gomer Pyle screaming citizens arrest) assures that you will not be successful in such a quest.
This is along the lines of the militia types that think they don't have to pay taxes because they declare themselves a "sovereign person" or because some government printing manual somewhere was in the wrong font and therefore the income tax is unconstitutional, they all learn their lesson eventually when they head off to jail. I suspect similar lessons will apply here, they can try their little theory, and maybe they end up living in a place for a few weeks or months before the process has them removed, but good luck maintaining a normal life or making future plans. This house certainly has some value and you can bet the bank will go through with foreclosure, take title and oust them.
if the previous owners were in backruptcy, the new guy has violated bankruptcy laws and could face serious fines or even jail time.
The guy will wish he wasn't so "smart".
Or simply send him a letter acknowledging that he is on the property and saying it is OK with them. Then it goes from adverse to permissive and stops the 3 year clock.
Important to note that he has zero property rights until the 3 years has ran. So the fact he made a public filing only starts the 3 year clock.
He's got to do a lot more than simply live there to qualify for adverse possession. It is simply squatting right now. He's no genius, he's actually misapplying the legal definition of adverse possession.
Adverse possession is the legal term for what is commonly referred to as "squatter's rights." The state of Texas, along with every other state, enacted statutes that dictate the specific rules and time limits regarding the adverse possession of real property. The Texas statutes governing adverse possession are found in the Texas Civil Practices and Remedies Code Section 16.021 et seq.
Definition
Texas statutes define adverse possession as a visible and actual appropriation of real property under a claim that is hostile and inconsistent to another person's claim. Claiming ownership to property without purchasing it from the original owner and without the original owner's consent is possible in Texas, if the person claiming the property conclusively meets specific criteria.
Criterion
Possession is a key element in the case law supporting adverse possession; the person laying claim to the property must continuously possess the property with the peaceable intent to claim the title. Peaceable intentions include paying property taxes, caring for the property and visibly enjoying the property. Paying taxes, taking care of the property or sharing possession with the original owner are not sufficient grounds to assert an adverse possession claim. Another criterion for claiming property through adverse possession in Texas is that the property must have determinable boundaries.
Statutes of Limitation
Texas statutes dictate that the person making an adverse possession claim must visibly be in possession of the property continuously for three, five or 10 years. Within three years of being notified of an adverse possession claim by a person with a title or color of title, the original owner must bring a lawsuit to recover the property. The original owner has five years to file a suit reclaiming the property if the person visibly enjoying the property in pursuit of an adverse possession title claims the property under a registered deed. The adverse possessor must also pay taxes on the property. Without a deed, title or color of title, the person filing an adverse possession claim must wait 10 years before attempting to legally own the property.
So I take it you didn't click the link in my reply post? It is an interview with Mr. Robinson. He said that he does have utilities connected in the house.
if the previous owners were in backruptcy, the new guy has violated bankruptcy laws and could face serious fines or even jail time.
The guy will wish he wasn't so "smart".
That's rich, do tell, what bankruptcy laws would Mr. Robinson be violating?
Sorry, I missed your second link. Your post was barely worth the first link. I still havn't listened to to the second link, and I won't. This guy is trying to make off with a $330k home for practically nothing by working an archaic law and a situation in which several of the stakeholders are in dire straits. I'm sorry that I don't share your admiration for this guy, even if the guy has had the lights turned on. I'm the sort that admires people who actually earn things.
You have no idea if the guy who first purchased this house is in "dire straits," certainly the bank isn't. Sounds like your issue is with the law. This man is a law abiding citizen, what's the problem here? When did this country start to shun people who took the time to educate themselves on the laws of the jurisdiction in which they live? People are more pissed about this than they are about mainfest destiny, eminent domain, or short sales, or foreclosure auctions and I find it hilarious. Some guy gets in over his head, he isn't able to fulfill his obligation (I mean it's a $330,000 house lets not make whoever ditched the house some poor schlub on welfare) and we're mad at the guy who legally took over this abandoned property, lol.
I have a pretty good indication that the first guy who purchased the home is in dire straits since the home is in foreclosure and he abandoned it.
Some guy is trying to use a legal loophole to get something he didn't work for and doesn't deserve. I doubt he succeeds. I find it very odd that you're rooting for him. What is your motivation?
My issue is with right and wrong. Do you think that a guy swooping in on some legal technicality is in the right, regardless of the law?
if the previous owners are in bankruptcy, the property is under control of a Federal judge.
He has unlimited powers and some idiots attempt to seize the property away from him or violate the rights of the people in bankruptcy can be a contempt of court. There are tens of thousands of dollars in possible fines as well as jail time for this guy if the judge chooses.
Just watched the linked interview, now it is perfectly clear why you started this little fishing expo...
Genius? WTF?
The guy is a criminal. You think he is a genius, go figure......
Oil Can,
Your hypocrisy knows no bounds!!! You are calling his neighbors awful people while telling others not to judge the guy living in the house.
You are a joke!
I agree with and care for neither side in this.
1. there are a ton of houses out here where the the owner is way upside down now. Personally I know several that were nice ranch styles homes with pools bought in the $175k range. Perfect for starting a family in, etc. They crashed and are worth $50k now.
2. People have not lost their jobs, so they go buy a short sale in a nicer neighborhood and move up, then short sale and abandon their current home. They already have their new one, so hit their credit for 2-3 years with a short sale. Meanwhile, their old house is not taken care of, no utilities, lawn is just weeds, etc and the nice neighborhood turns into a mess with less than desired neighbors moving in.
Most are doing this because the banks refuse to work with them until they miss payments. Then they will work with them to start a restructured rate plan, as long as they make payments on time. Others buy a new place, then declare bankruptcy. Hear about it all the time on TV that it isn't that bad.
These are well-educated people making very good money. They are just trying to make the situation reasonable again. They make their payments a week ahead of when they normally would. Bank doesn't process it for a week and a half. Guess what, it is late by a day. Aww, sad, but you are out of the program. But we tried to help you. If you think this is not true, I can name you at least 5 people this has happened to. And see the lawsuit that Wells Fargo lost where it was shown they were holding transactions to increase and cause overdrawn accounts.
I don't agree that you should be able to work the system and just swoop in on a place. Also don't agree that the banks or the owner should be able to just abandon the place. HOA/city should go after the lein-holders to keep the place lit, clean and maintained. Or have a uniform time for short-sales and rent them out. Say it goes into a short-sale term for 3 month period (2 to try to sell it and then 1 to close). If not sold after the 2 months, it starts the foreclosure process. At the end of 3 months, it is the bank's to sell. Would force the banks to be more willing to work with people both to stay in their houses and to get short sales done.
Just my thoughts after watching entire suburbs go from very nice to trying to stay above crappy and keep their hockey team.
Link: Wells Fargo lawsuit, in case you missed it
Ironic - you call the guy a criminal for FOLLOWING the law. Look, I can see how this seems unethical, but most of these situations are eventual foreclosures which means the bank becomes the owner. If you think the banks aren't aware of this law and just let this guy "steal" their $330K house for nothing, you're wrong. This guy would have to be VERY lucky for this to fall thru the cracks with the bank/lawyers for 3-10 years (depending on state) to actually work. Sure he probably lives rent-free, but he also lives without utilities (those companies are picky about who they'll turn them on for). Would you care if you could live rent-free if you had no water, no electricity, no gas, etc.? He's staying in a really nice house that's stuck back in the 1800's, and they were better off then because they had outhouses and wells for water. Sounds like a dreamy life to me.
And if you think rent-free is that odd/bad, I had a friend that lost his job and needed a loan modification / short-sale / get foreclosed on so he could get out of his house that he could obviously not afford on unemployment. He tried to be upfront with the bank, but they told him they wouldn't even talk to him till he'd missed about 6 months of payments. By the time they finally foreclosed on him, it was 17 months after he'd stopped making payments. If you feel particularly sorry for an institution that doesn't care any more about it's property than that (or if they forget about this guys house for 3+ years), you have to wonder who's better for the neighborhood.
I hope he has deep pockets. The property taxes in TX are much higher than most of us are used to because there is no income tax in the state. Speaking from experience (lived there 15 years), his property taxes and HOA duea alone will run him about $10,000 a year on a house of that value. If he stays and doesn't pony up, what's to keep the state from putting a lein against his house that is worth $$9,984 more than he paid for the house? Wouldn't it be poetic if he decided to leave, but had to pay the taxes before the state let him go?
The guy may have followed a rule and taken advantage of the situation, but he's no hero. If someone found $330,000 in a duffel bag on someone else's porch and decided to take it, we would call him a thief. Finder's keepers...maybe. But still a thief.
« Last Edit: July 21, 2011, 10:26:58 AM by SkinnyBenny »
Logged
"walking around mhk and crying in the rain because of love lost is the absolute purest and best thing in the world. i hope i fall in love during the next few weeks and get my heart broken and it starts raining just to experience it one last time." --Dlew12
