A $330,000 home for $16? 'This is not a normal process'

[The Straight Story]

A $330,000 home for $16? 'This is not a normal process'

FLOWER MOUND — A little-known Texas law and a foreclosure could have a man in Flower Mound living on Easy Street.
Flower Mound's Waterford Drive is lined with well-manicured $300,000 homes. So, when a new neighbor moved in without the usual sale, mortgage-paying homeowners had a few questions.

"What paperwork is it and how is it legally binding if he doesn't legally own the house?" said Leigh Lowrie, a neighboring resident. "He just squats there."

Lowrie and her husband said the house down the street was in foreclosure for more than a year and the owner walked away. Then, the mortgage company went out of business.

Apparently, that opened the door for someone to take advantage of the situation. But, Kenneth Robinson said he's no squatter. He said he moved in on June 17 after months of research about a Texas law called "adverse possession."

http://www.wfaa.com/news/local/Texas-Law-Lets-Stranger-Move-Into-330000-Home-125528248.html

[dipsydoodle]

1. Seems to be associated with squatters rights in some way

Adverse possession is a process by which premises can change ownership. It is a common law concept concerning the title to real property (land and the fixed structures built upon it). By adverse possession, title to another's real property can be acquired without compensation, by holding the property in a manner that conflicts with the true owner's rights for a specified period. For example, "squatter's rights" are a specific form of adverse possession.

The circumstances in which adverse possession arises determine the type of title acquired by the disseisor (the one who obtains the title from the original owner), which may be fee simple title, mineral rights, or another interest in real property. Adverse possession's origins are based both in statutory actions and in common law precepts, so the details concerning adverse possession actions vary by jurisdiction. The required period of uninterrupted possession is governed by the statute of limitations. Other elements of adverse possession are judicial constructs.
Contents


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adverse_possession

[MikeW]

11. the police's position on this is incorrect

The house had to be locked which means he broke in.

The guys a criminal.

[The Magistrate]

12. It Is Right Enough For Government Work, Sir

In most jurisdictions, only the owner of a property can bring a complaint for trespassing. So if there is, in effect, no owner, there can be no crime of trespassing.

People can believe all they want that the man broke in; but unless someone is willing to swear they saw him break in, and do so under penalty of perjury, the police have no grounds to act, particularly if he has in his possession a working key. One expects police have checked that.

[MikeW]

14. sorry this isnt trespassing

If I am present in a condemned home, a home locked and under construction or a business building that was locked your arrested for B and E.

Think im wrong think again ... I used to build houses for a living it happens sometimes when we reach the closin stage with doors. We lock at the end of the day and have had punks arrested for B and E for getting in. They were never seen to my knowledge breaking in just that someone was in there.

[The Magistrate]

15. No, Sir, It is Not Trespassing: It Is Adverse Possession

The situations you describe all feature an owner; even a condemned property is owned by someone, whether private or a municipality. There is no owner here to make complaint. The man seems to have a key, and has filed legal paperwork, and is able to quote statute. There is not a shred of proof he boke in, and no one to complain of trespass.

[localroger]

16. All of your examples have owners

In this case it seems nobody can find the owner.

It can be pretty hard even for an active owner to pry a person claiming adverse possession out of a property, so if the guy is right about the whole deal being beneath the notice of whoever has the actual title, he might actually succeed in his goal of getting the house. Adverse possession laws exist for a reason, since it is in society's interest for a property to be maintained rather than fall fallow or into ruin.

It's understandable that the neighbors are upset that he might get for free what they are paying for, but they have no standing in his dispute. The breaking and entering claim is a non-starter, since he can always claim a key was left under the doormat. Unless someone saw him break in or can testify otherwise, the police have no basis for passing charges. And they have no basis for removing him from the property unless the actual owner asks; that would be the actual owner nobody can seem to find.

If there was an actual owner who cared it would not be so easy for this guy to brazenly set up shop as he has. And adverse possession requires the brazenness; you can't just lurk on the back of the property for X years, you have to openly act as the steward and owner yourself, so that if there is someone who might dispute your claim they will know what you are up to. So far it appears that this guy is doing everything right. All he has to do is get lucky in the matter of the real title holder not noticing, and he might have himself a spiffy new house.

[MikeW]

18. prob not correct

The mortgage company that went under had the title.

Whatever creditors they owed legally can claim any assets the company owned in court.

Mr Robinson is mistaken, read the Texas law, he also hasn't been in there 3+ years as required as well.

You guys live in some kind of dream world shangrala if you think that they are going to allow anyone to walk into

a 300+K home and just say "I own it".

Now that attention is drawn to it ... he's all done.

[localroger]

19. You're assuming the law is reasonable.

In actual fact, adverse possession law can be pretty unreasonable. While it would be unusual to lose a house in a subdivision like this, that's mainly because houses in subdivisions tend to have owners who keep tabs on them. This is the exact situation adverse possession was designed for, it's just that you usually see this kind of distant neglect from owners of rural land who don't visit their own property very often. In suburbia there are too many neighbors, as in this case, who are likely to alert the owner. Except that in this case nobody can find the owner.

Robinson knows he has to wait out the period; he seems to have done his homework so it's reasonable to assume it's 3 years in that part of that state (it does vary; seven is a lot more common). He is betting that the current title holder will be too distracted or incompetent to notice what he is doing, and I'd say he has a reasonable chance of being right. In any case he has established a claim that they will have to spend money going to court to overturn, and while they will prevail easily if they notice before the 3 years they have to actually file the paperwork and show up to establish their own superior claim. This is all reasonably standard and anyone who has ever considered buying land is warned to be very sure there are no such claims before doing so, because people lose their property to this kind of thing all the time. It's just that, as I mentioned, they don't usually lose it in suburbia because things get noticed.

[MikeW]

20. let me put it another way

When a company is dissolved and chopped up by equity firms the little guy loses.

Im sure the company that possesses the title is now fully aware that there is 300+K in assets floating around in their

circulation.

They wont hesitate to crush Robinson, hes got no chance doesnt look like he can afford water or electricity. He cant

afford an expensive legal battle.

[localroger]

21. What he is betting on is this:

Im sure the company that possesses the title is now fully aware that there is 300+K in assets floating around in their circulation.

Most likely, they are not aware of this. There may be a line item on some accounting sheet listing that home as an asset, but there is no human agency attending to it and because it's buried in a big black box of much tainted "assets" received from the failed bank, nobody is rushing to sort through it and see what is what.

Meanwhile, Robinson has paid his $16 to the state to broadcast his intentions, which shortens the time window to 3 years and puts the onus on the "owner" to show up with proper paperwork -- which might not exist due to the commoditization paperwork fiasco. It's far from a slam dunk, but given the general aura of incompetence and stupidity that brought the housing crisis on, it's quite possible that nobody at the firm that thinks it holds this title will notice in time to stop him from clearing it for himself. Then nobody will owe the original mortgage, Robinson will be able to use his newfound equity to clear the other liens, and he will probably sell it for what the neighbors consider a song but is a great deal of money to him.

[MikeW]

25. good lord

If the guy cant afford to light or have running water.

It also means hes got no chance of paying the property taxes over the 3 year period.

He's done , the city will take the house from him for failure to pay and auction it off.

For some reason people in here think the guy is some kind of modern day Robin Hood.

[arcane1]

2. I wonder why his neighbors are so involved and concerned?

Just busybodies..? :shrug:

[The Straight Story]

3. Probably because he is black and not wealthy like them (nt)

[tammywammy]

8. You have someone living in a house with no electricity and no water

How well would you expect them to keep up with the house?

I live in a much lower cost housing area and this same action would bother me as well. In addition I would be worried about how sanitary the living conditions would be without electricity/water. Oh and it's been over 100 degrees here for the last 14 days, it cannot be pleasant inside that house.

[MikeW]

10. if the house has no water and no electricity

I doubt he intends to keep up the home.

Which means it becomes the city's business and his neighbors.

[localroger]

17. The article makes that clear: it's unfair that they paid and he isn't nt

[indurancevile]

23. Life isn't fair; isn't that what we're always told when the big shot gets over on the little guy?

Personally, I could give a rip whether this guy is doing something fair or not.

I'm much more concerned about the guys who pumped up the housing bubble that led to this situation, but good luck seeing them get thier just desserts.

"Fair" doesn't enter into it. It's just the game, baby.

[damntexdem]

4. If it's legal, the neighbors have no standing to interfere.

And they are presumably better off with an occupied house on their block than with an abandoned house. I wonder what Robinson's skin color is -- just saying (and it IS Flower Mound).

[no_hypocrisy]

5. I'm confused.

If the mortgage company went out of business, does that mean that its assets and liabilities weren't purchased by another company and the mortgagor would pay the new mortgagee as the mortgage would have been assigned? I can't see a mortgage company going out of business and it leaves behind thousands of mortgages.

So if I'm right and there's a replacement mortgage company, why wouldn't the company evict Kenneth Robinson if the original owner walked away from foreclosure?

[The Straight Story]

6. They could evict him - but the process is long and costly (could take years)

They may well save money just letting it go, legal fees for 5-10 years would certainly up to more than they got the house for (they probably got it for a song when the other company went under).

[no_hypocrisy]

9. If I'm not mistaken, the "original" owner can take reasonable steps of

"self help" such as bringing a sheriff to change the locks on the door and evict the would be adverse possessor.

[tammywammy]

7. It appears from my limited reading that it would be more than 3 years he'd need possession

Texas adverse possession laws range from a minimum of 3 years to as much as 25 years before he could take it over.

No electricity, no water? He's a squatter.

[Springer9]

13. Adverse possession is hardly a little known Texas law.

This is just another reason not to believe much of what "journalists" report.

Anyone involved in Real Estate, be it agent, broker or landlord had better be well versed in this principle of law in every state.

I just took a quick look in my library and I have 3 full volumes relating to "adverse possession".

Most cases in residential RE involve things like fence lines or driveways (encroachment), landlords must make sure to file properly and swiftly if a tenant breaches a contract and never, ever, buy land sight unseen.

[Philippine expat]

22. Personally I applaud the man for knowing the law and

using it to his advantage

[Samantha]

24. Who is paying the property taxes to the municipality or State

If one fails to pay property taxes in Maryland, the State will auction off the house (f the owner owns it outright).

Sam