High dollar homeowners take exception to man obtaining possession to home

[liberal N proud]

Texas man snags $330,000 home for $16 after researching obscure law online

http://l.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/fifTLl4tRN1MzjXWMbG4kQ--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7cT04NTt3PTYzMA--/

The internet helps one man become a homeowner for almost no cost

They say you can find anything on the internet, and for one Texas man, it proved true. Kenneth Robinson used an obscure Texas law he researched online called adverse possession, and used it to obtain property rights to a $330,000 home. His cost? Just $16 for the court fee to file the paperwork he printed off from the web.

<snip>

The Adverse Possession law states that unless the original owner repays the massive mortgage amount to the bank — and then the bank files papers to have Robinson evicted — the home and chunk of land it sits on is his. After 3 years of remaining in the home, Robinson can petition the court for the deed, officially sealing the deal.

Robinson, a former real estate agent himself, spent months online researching the complicated law and searching for the perfect instance to which it could be applied. Once the found the pristine abode in Flower Mound, he printed the necessary forms and filed them at the local courthouse, much to the dismay of his new neighbors.

The rest of the high-dollar homeowners on the street have taken exception to Robinson's manipulation of the system and have tried on multiple occasions to have him evicted. Unfortunately for them, home ownership is a civil matter, meaning local law enforcement is absolutely powerless to remove him from the premises.

<snip>

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/technology-blog/texas-man-snags-330-000-home-16-researching-153026467.html


No sir, don't like it one bit, this commoner living in a house built for a rich man, no sir, not one bit!

[kick-ass-bob]

1. I'm not sure why they care.

Did doing this reduce their property values? If so, how exactly?

Or is he just "not like them?"

[KharmaTrain]

5. Of Course Is Does...

and it also should lower their property taxes (if that applies). My bets are he flips the place in the near future for a nice profit.

[kick-ass-bob]

6. How so?

The home was empty and being foreclosed upon already by the bank, resulting in such a lowering. How do his additional actions really reduce their values?

Edit: As it states above, he has to be there for 3 years to obtain the deed, so I don't think he'll be flipping it any time soon.

[KharmaTrain]

26. The Foreclosure Is What Did It...

The foreclosure on the house did more to hurt local property values than his "squatting" in the house. If anything, if he's living in the house and has hopes of future ownership or to flip it he'll have to take care and maintain the property. In our area there are a bunch of vacant foreclosed homes that have fallen into disrepair as the bank has done little to maintain the property and this has led to property values of surrounding properties falling. Maybe we need a program where these vacant home can be with some rent-to-buy based on the person living in the home for a specified time and maintaining the property.

[liberal N proud]

10. I was pissed off when the rich moved into my neighborhood

[pitohui]

13. no you weren't EOM

/

[liberal N proud]

28. I wasn't until I had to put a sidewalk in

Outside of living on a semi rural road with no traffic and loosing that quiet country living near the city, I didn't care too much.

Then with the development and all the mc-Mansions and estate homes a sewer line which cost me $20K plus, Then to ice that one, I had to pour a sidewalk so the rich bags could walk their dogs and leave little presents in my yard.

Then they want me to tailor my landscaping to match their ideas. Hell yes I am mad as hell about the rich bags living in my neighborhood.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

24. My guess would be because he is black.

[hobbit709]

2. And the fact that Mr. Robinson is black gets their knickers in a wad too.

Flower Mound is hard core Republican.

[Romulox]

3. That's not generally how Adverse Possession works.

Generally, adverse possession cases involve things like disputed property boundaries and the like. In some states, for example, a squatter (which is essentially what the man in the OP is,) doesn't ever gain title to property this way. I don't know about Texas.

"The rest of the high-dollar homeowners on the street have taken exception to Robinson's manipulation of the system and have tried on multiple occasions to have him evicted. Unfortunately for them, home ownership is a civil matter, meaning local law enforcement is absolutely powerless to remove him from the premises."

The fellow is guilty of criminal trespass, breaking and entering, and other crimes, if I understand the fact pattern. "Nothing that can be done!" indeed! :silly:

[hobbit709]

7. Under TX law he can.

[Romulox]

8. Still, B&E, criminal trespass still apply here.

:hi:

[hobbit709]

9. On your own property?

Believe me, if the cops in Flower Mound could have charged a black person with a crime they would have.

[Romulox]

12. The "adverse" part of "adverse possession" specifically means it is *not* his property

Not until the title is transferred to him, after the prescribed period of time has passed.

[kick-ass-bob]

15. I don't think you know TX law.

This quote:
"After 3 years of remaining in the home, Robinson can petition the court for the deed, officially sealing the deal."

How can he remain in the home if he is not allowed to enter it? And if he were trespassing, why aren't the police getting him?

So, obviously, there is legal merit to his action and he is not breaking the law.

[Romulox]

18. If you forcibly enter a home you don't own, that's called "breaking and entering"

If you do so with the intention of committing another crime, it's generally a felony. Either way, the entire point of "adverse possession", is that you have to:

a) "adversely" (meaning not under legal right, but in opposition to the "true owner's" rights)
b) "possess" a property (which means enter onto the land, and treat it as your own.)

Put those two things together, and what it means is that you must enter and "possess" a piece of property which you do not have the legal right to enter and possess. It's part of the definition.

"After 3 years of remaining in the home, Robinson can petition the court for the deed, officially sealing the deal."

During those 3 years, he's guilty of breaking and entering, criminal trespass, vagrancy, and perhaps even grand larceny. That's why most "adverse possession" cases involve disputed property lines and such, rather than squatters breaking into whichever vacant house they stumble upon!

[kick-ass-bob]

22. Has he been arrested for this? No.

Look, I don't know TX law either, but so far they can't get rid of him. That's all I do know.

[kestrel91316]

23. Property owner has to complain to the police about the trespass,

or they can't do anything. How do they KNOW he doesn't have the property owner's permission?

If the owner is unhappy they can complain to the police and get the ball rolling, otherwise this is a non-starter.

[Romulox]

25. No. Criminal offenses are offenses against the state (community.)

One can be guilty of breaking and entering a vacant home for which no owner can be found. That's because CRIMINAL trespass is not a private cause of action, but rather a violation of the (public) criminal code.

"How do they KNOW he doesn't have the property owner's permission?"

Read the link in the OP! :hi:

[pitohui]

19. if you really believed this you would go get a home for $16 too, everybody would

you know very well what would happen if you did so all the arguments you make are just air

this guy has something else going on, considering he's a real estate agent, this is not some "poor" guy striking gold out of a hat, this is himself a rich guy gaming the system and almost certainly he has some hole card (such as influence in the police dept, town council etc) such that he knows HE wouldn't get arrested for the trespass

[hobbit709]

21. He's black and Flower Mound is rabid Republican.

If the cops could arrest him they would have.

maybe you should familiarize yourself with TX law.

[pitohui]

11. it would be interesting to see who on the police force the squatter is related to

i agree, the fact that this police dept. seems never to have heard of the laws against breaking & entering is highly suggestive

either somebody in this neighborhood REALLY peeved off the police chief or the squatter in question has ties to somebody on the force, we can't know which from here, but we know damn good and well that if any of us headed to texas and tried this, we'd be charged with numerous crimes

half the state of louisiana would already be there if we could do this

[w4rma]

27. You can't be charged with breaking and entering into your own home.

Nor can you be charged with doing it to land that noone owns (how else would the U.S. have been settled).

[Renew Deal]

31. $330K isn't high dollar

at least on LI. You'd get a house in bad shape in a nice neighborhood for that price around here.

[Lisa0825]

32. It can buy a lot of house in Texas. nt

[NashVegas]

4. Star-Bellied Sneeches

How dare he!

[MrScorpio]

14. Tough cookies nt

[no_hypocrisy]

16. Here's Texas's adverse possession. It is only three years possession, not 10 or 20.

http://www.lonestarlandlaw.com/Adverse.html

[hobbit709]

17. There are some strange laws on the books in TX.

some of them actually favor the little person.

[Romulox]

20. 3 years only for those who have "title or color of title". Not squatters.

From your link:

Sec. 16.024 - The Three-Year Statute

A person (i.e., the original owner) must bring suit to recover real property held by another in peaceable and adverse possession under title or color title not later than three years after the day the cause of action accrues.



Under this section, the possessor must have title (i.e., a deed as part of a regular chain of title) or “color of title,” which refers to a claim of title that has some reasonable basis but for some legitimate reason does not fit within the usual chain of title. So, the possessor must be able to produce some conveyance/title paperwork to support his claim if he is to assert adverse possession.

The important phrase here is "under title or color of title". Someone who is a mere squatter appears to take under the ten year provision, if at all.

[no_hypocrisy]

33. Thanks for the clarification. I thought three years was an awfully short period of time.

[damntexdem]

29. Snobby, racist pigs.

He did it legally. They are trying to subvert the law to remove him.

And the ironic thing is that a vacant house is going to really hurt property values around it -- whereas this occupied one, if it is indeed kept up, will not.

[LiberalFighter]

30. I wouldn't think the bank would be the one to file papers if

the original owner paid up the mortgage. Would think then the bank would have no interest in the property and the original owner would have to file the papers.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

34. There is a lot more to adverse possession that this and most stories discuss