Man takes possession of $300,000 home for FREE using little known law...

[Dover]

I'm wondering how many others will follow suit in Texas.
Hilarious.
__________

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."...cont'd

story and video:
http://www.wfaa.com/home/related/Stranger-moves-into-foreclosed-home-citing-little-knownTexas-law.html

[rpannier]

1. Good for him

Wonder how long until the law is changed
Until then, we ought to find as many homeless people we can and get them the documents (and the money)

[dkf]

2. Isn't he screwing the original owner who may be liable for a deficiency judgment?

[upi402]

3. yeah but he's still in texas

too close to bushido

[cutlassmama]

4. well, time to get busy looking up properties then. One of my grown sons is homeless

and really NEEDS housing. Glad we're in Texas!

[Kaleva]

5. I believe there's a similiar law in Michigan.

[marybourg]

6. Adverse possession IS "squatting". Every state has such laws.

It comes from English common law on the theory that it's better for someone, even a non-paying stranger, to use the land than for it to be ignored by its true owner. It requires a very specific set of requirements to be met. Generally the adverse possessor(squatter) must posses "openly", ie, he can't be hiding, people must know about it and he must be claiming a right *against* the true owner. So if the true owner has given permission there is no adverse possession. It also must go on on unbroken for some number of years, perhaps seven. This is why people are warned to visit their property every year or so if it's vacant. Or they could possibly lose it. By the way, you can't adversely possess against a government entity.

[tammywammy]

7. He'll have to be there at least 3 years.

Again, I've said this before but he's living with no electricity and it's been 100+ here for almost three weeks. And no water either. I worry about the health/sanitary conditions in that house. He's also said that even if they do evict him, he's going to try and take posession of the appliances in the house.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

8. Previously discussed and pretty well debunked

[Dover]

9. debunked? Well I hope someone alerts the media, cause the story

ran last night with video. Do you have some links to the contrary?

[tuckessee]

10. He'll get booted out for code violations soon enough.

There's always an arm of government that can harass & fine the unconnected out of their businesses & homes.

edit - typo