Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis Stands With Floridian Property Owners Over Squatters
“The Florida Legislature unanimously passed a bill that would allow police to immediately remove squatters — a departure from the lengthy court cases required in most states.”
For some inexplicable reason, squatters’ rights laws are commonplace throughout these United States. In many states, a person or persons can enter and inhabit another person’s vacant property, set up house, and after—in most cases—a mere 30 days claim some form of bizarre “right” to inhabit the home in which they did not pay a day’s rent nor a single mortgage payment: a home they do not own, did not buy, and have no right to occupy.
But states, including red states, have an array of “squatters’ rights” rules and laws that will offend—nay, even assault—the senses of all normal, law-abiding Americans.
A former live-in Queens handyman has refused to leave the $2 million home where he once worked for several years, leaving the rightful property owners out in the cold — and it’s totally legal.
In Georgia, a property owner who left to care for his sick wife returned to learn that interlopers had moved in and changed the locks on his home, and he’s not allowed to kick them out.
The reason is a curious legal loophole that gives would-be trespassers the right to stay put if they only stay in a property long enough to claim legal residency — otherwise known as “squatter’s rights.”
Squatter’s rights, also known as “adverse possession” under the law, allow an individual to occupy a property and remain there without the owner’s permission.
Recently, there was great outrage when the public learned that a home owner was prevented from turning off utilities to his own squatter-occupied home. This makes NO sense. Who votes for this? Oh, right anyone who votes for Democrats.
But I digress.
In Georgia, a man was unable to claim his own home because squatters slunk in while he was away caring for is ailing wife.
A Georgia man claims he returned home from caring for his sick wife to find that squatters had changed the locks on his home and moved in — and now local laws are blocking him from evicting the alleged freeloaders.
“Basically, these people came in Friday, broke into my house and had a U-Haul move all their stuff in. It’s frustrating. It’s very frustrating. I can’t even sleep,” DeKalb man Paul Callins told WSB-TV.
Callins had sunk thousands of dollars into the home and renovated it with his own hands after he inherited it from his late father, but since squatters moved in, he’s found himself facing nothing but obstacles to evicting the alleged intruders.
. . . . Rather than forcibly evicting the squatters, Georgia law requires homeowners file an “Affidavit of Intruder,” which then needs to work its way through the court system before police can act, Callins explained.
Situations like Callins’ have become all too common in Georgia.
About 1,200 homes across DeKalb County are occupied by squatters, according to the National Rental Home Council trade group.
In New York, a homeowner was ordered to continue paying all utilities for the criminals who occupied her home.
New York homeowner is in a complicated battle with squatters who have taken over her property. She was arrested for trying to get them out.
Adele Andaloro, who put her $1.2 million Flushing, Queens, residence that she inherited from her family for sale, realized that someone randomly changed the locks, WABC reported. It was squatters that had been occupying the home where she grew up since February. In the city, squatters are considered tenants after living there for 30 days.
. . . . Police warned Andaloro that changing the locks could result in her arrest, but she called the locksmith anyway and said she wasn’t leaving her home.
. . . . Andaloro was arrested for unlawful eviction. In addition to changing locks on tenants, it’s also against the law for a homeowner to remove tenant possessions or shut off the utilities, per the New York Post.
That’s just the tip of the squatter property takeover movement, though. Illegal aliens are being taught how to take over American citizens’s homes via squatting, including learning how to turn their squatting ‘clam’ into “legal” theft of the rightful owner’s home.
A Venezuelan migrant has gone viral after he posted a video to social media that explained how illegal immigrants can take advantage of squatting laws and stay in American homes.
“I have thought about invading a house in the United States,” a man identified as Leonal Moreno said in the TikTok video. “I found out that there is a law that says that if a house is not inhabited, we can seize it.”
The man told his followers in Spanish that he anticipated his next business would be “invading” abandoned houses. He claimed that some of his African friends have told him they have already taken seven homes in the U.S.
Moreno also said that for migrants to avoid living on the street and not be a “public burden,” the law says deteriorated homes can be acquired by others, repaired and lived in. The man also claimed the new inhabitants can then sell the house.
. . . . Squatters and tenants’ rights laws vary across the country, with some states providing protection for non-paying individuals, allowing them to occupy a property for extended periods. In areas where complex laws bar police from taking action, homeowners have few options to reclaim their property beyond pursuing a civil case, which can take months.
This is pretty much unimaginable to most of us, but you really (and I mean really) need to look at the laws in your state, no matter how “red” you think i is, with regard to squatters’ rights to your property.
Florida governor Ron DeSantis is making great strides in protecting Florida home owners from this clearly organized and criminal squatter nightmare.
Fox Business reports (archive link):
The Florida Legislature unanimously passed a bill that would allow police to immediately remove squatters — a departure from the lengthy court cases required in most states.
“It gives me a real feeling of positive hope that we still have the ability to discuss challenges in our society and work with our legislatures in a bipartisan way,” Patti Peeples, a Sunshine State property owner who was barred from her own home after squatters refused to leave, told News4Jax.
The legislation, which passed both chambers earlier this month, would allow police to remove squatters without a lease authorized by the property owner and adds criminal penalties.
And that, my friends, is how it’s done.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Homeowners in Florida rejoice!
Long live Gov. DeSantis!
https://youtu.be/LRP8d7hhpoQ?si=Y6hMVjkTOK6LZMjp
I love our governor, Ron DeSantis!
He saw this major assault on property rights, and convinced the legislature
To act immediately!
If the squatters have a fake lease, they will be arrested on the spot
I hope he will be president when Donald Trump’s next term expires
When Democrats Legislate…
(The original laws, not DeSantis’s.)
At least Illinois is more sane with regards to adverse possession laws:
Illinois adverse possession laws require claimants to occupy a given property for at least 20 years and either “color or title” or payment of property taxes for seven of those years.
30 days and no skin in the game is absolute insanity.
Even those Illinois are ridiculous. Adverse possession should be eliminated.
Adverse possession is part of the common law, and exists in just about every legal system I’ve ever heard of. Without it you can have property that is abandoned for centuries and unavailable for any productive use because it still belongs to someone.
Wrong again Milhouse! As long as the property taxes are paid why should the government care about centuries of occupancy, if they are not paid the gov’t seizes the property and auctions it
Not in my former state. I believe that the time for property is 7yrs. If you take care of property, say a strip of land between you and the neighbor, and use it like yours with no objection then you can actually file claim on it as yours. I had to do this in a boundary dispute once. The land in question was part of my lawn and had been used, mowed etc by the previous owner for over 30yrs then me. Guy from away showed up, bought the neighbors house and proceeded to put stakes 20ft into my lawn. He was not happy when I won.
Paying taxes, if there are any, is a form of assertion of ownership and therefore stays adverse possession. But there aren’t always taxes. Or the owner didn’t pay but the claimant did; once the time required for adverse possession passes, that only helps bolster the claimant’s case.
But this story is not about adverse possession.
The operative words here are “still belongs to someone”.
NC requires 20yrs or 7yrs if the people in question believe the property belongs to them such as through a bad survey that no=one objects to. Still, I agree that if the property is yours time should not matter in the least.
The operative words should be “are still in use by someone.”
The concept of adverse possession isn’t necessarily eliminated by an eviction. The ‘squatter’ in a home belonging to another person is just removed. I didn’t see anything that suggests the ‘squatter’ couldn’t bring an action claiming adverse possession under the normal laws; usually requiring a showing of 7-10 years in most States of continuous, open and notorious adverse possession.
Yes, if the owner shows up at 7 years and 1 day, and they manage to evict the occupants, then the occupants can take the matter to court and perhaps get the property back.
But, that is as it should be. Because the owner failed to do what he needed to do to retain possession, and managed to evict the occupants based on bad information or fraud.
GWB, you are completely oversimplifying the problem.
In some states, it can be very hard to secure an eviction even on property you own where the squatter pays no rent.
Also, the owner’s only “need” to retain possession is to:
1. not sell it and retain records of ownership
2. pay any fees/taxes on it
If your logic were applied to Israel-Palestine, then you would side with Palestine as they attempted to “squat” on territory that Israel owned but was unable to possess after a series of awful global events.
OK, first of all, the comparison to Israel-Palestine is kinda silly. That’s about sovereign nations.
Common law thinks you need to do more than pay taxes on it. You need to at least keep an eye on it. Maybe ride the fence and make sure it hasn’t been cut. Ensure no one has put a road in on the property that wasn’t there before. Ensure there’s not a forest in the front yard of a house. Those things all would be attempts at maintaining the property.
If anything, you seem to be the one over-simplifying – making it entirely about some piece of paper that says its yours. Paying taxes on it helps, but isn’t entirely dispositive (note it does help the other person establish ownership).
Remember how long you need to ignore a property before it can become someone else’s. You have to really not care about it to let that happen.
The case of Israel is in fact relevant. The Arabs have no adverse possession for two reasons, depending on which common law tradition you’re using:
1. Under Jewish law adverse possession requires a claim of legitimate ownership. The passage of time merely removes the onus on the claimant to produce evidence. The fact that he used the property, openly and notoriously, and the former owner never protested serves as proof for his claim to have legitimately acquired it, and he can’t be expected to preserve his evidence forever. He had no idea that he would still need the evidence one day, so he lost track of it or destroyed it.
Under that system, since the Arabs do not claim to have legitimately acquired it from the Jews, an adverse possession case doesn’t even begin.
2. But under the common law no such claim of legitimate acquisition is required. If someone has openly and notoriously used someone else’s property for the required number of years, without any protest by the owner, then it automatically becomes the user’s, even if he openly admits to have been squatting on it all that time.
Still, even under the common law, the Arabs have no case for adverse possession, because the Jews have served notice of their protest, three times a day, and the whole world has known about it all that time, including the Arabs. For the entire time of the squatters’ occupation every Jew has declared three times a day his intention to return to the land when the time is right, and his hope that that time would be very soon; so no squatter had any basis for assuming it was abandoned.
No, it really shouldn’t.
Would you require that $20 bill to remain on the sidewalk forever?
If the owner (or his agent) can’t be bothered to visit the property for 20 years then I would say other people should be able to put the property to use. If you want to retain it, then bother to drop by and kick out anyone trying to assert adverse possession.
If someone wants to request, contest, or campaign for property that is unused, that isn’t necessarily a bad thing. The problem is that the government is now backing and sponsoring bad faith attempts at such with bad laws.
bad faith attempts at such with bad laws
Amen, brother! As I’ve noted elsewhere on this thread, the real problem is with 1) the “tenancy” laws being grossly over-balanced to tenants, and 2) conflating adverse possession with “tenants”, which is not right AT ALL.
You’re still conflating adverse possession with tenancy protection. Those are two completely separate topics.
Assuming the owner pays the taxes on the property faithfully and unless the property becomes a code violation for being overgrown, turned into a garbage dump, etc., it can remain unoccupied and unvisited for as long as they choose in my opinion.
It’s their property, not a community asset to be distributed at someone else’s whim. That theory has more than a slight taint of Marxism to it.
The common law disagrees with you. Whether you like it or not, adverse possession is part of the common law. It’s also part of every other legal system I’ve ever heard of.
None of which is relevant to this story, which is not about adverse possession.
Nope. If I OWN and occupy my own property and something happens to tke me away for a long spell (this actually happened.. I lived here, had to have a serious complicated surgery and needed exensive timeto recover and rehabilitate. I stayed wotn long time friends.. for more than a year. By your take anyone could have fiddled the locks and stolen my home, an added blow enabled by your stupid laws.
There is apiece of paper filed with the COunty Recorder that says this patch of dirt and everything on it is MINE. If YOU want it comefind me and pay me enough mney o convince me I really DON”T want it more than you do. Then your name will replace mine on the Deed of Trust.
If I leave a spare car parked at the side of my house for two years, does that give YOU the right to decide its yours? I always keep a running spare car handy in case ,y every day driver has an issue… as happened a few years back when it got hit and was not operational. I just charged the battery. gave the ol critter a twist, and I was off and running again. Of course I had to pay the state their bribe to convince them they need to let me drive it on the roads again, but that was a three mile bike ride to grease their palms.
There is no legal system in which adverse possession can be had in a mere year or two. The shortest period I’ve ever heard of is three years.
And adverse possession requires open and notorious use, and no protest by the owner. If you care about your property, the least you can do is serve notice that it’s yours.
Certainly not. I own land that I haven’t been to in a few years. I pay the taxes on it. A productive use clause disregards that land sitting unused is productive as is. It does not have to generate economic value to be in use. It is an asset that exists in its own right. No one has right to anyone else’s property simply because it is there and not actively in use. The flaw here is to not recognize common law in its environment of conception, when populations were much smaller and ownership was not easily confirmed. In the current era, basic due diligence is easily done, so such issues are already no longer relevant. In the past, deciding ownership could be impossible.
Or serve notice that it’s still yours and you intend to assert your ownership when you have the opportunity to do so. An ad in the local paper will do. Or a notice posted to the property fence. Or a registered letter to the occupant.
I am reminded of a family quarrel over land. My grandfather couldn’t pay taxes on his farm acreage during the Depression. My uncle asked his father if he could have title to the land if he paid the taxes. My grandfather assented, but he didn’t formally/legally assign title of the land to my uncle.
When my grandfather died 20 years later, my uncle gave the income from that property to my grandmother, his mother.
Fast forward 15 years, 35 years after the initial informal agreement. My uncle wanted to finally get the old agreement formalized with title to the land assigned to him.
My grandmother kvetched, but my uncle finally got his way.
By Illinois law, by virtue of paying taxes for over 30 years, that land would automatically have been my uncle’s. ( The land being discussed is not in Illinois.)
Squatters rights and adverse possession are two completely different things. There is nowhere in the USA (and probably in the world) where 30 days gives intruders possession. But in most states it gives them tenancy, and the owner must go through the same procedure as for evicting a proper tenant with a lease, in which the entire system is tilted toward the tenant because tenants have more votes than landlords do, and because legislators are more readily moved by sob stories about tenants cruelly thrown out on the street than by ones about someone not getting any income from their property, or not able to live in it.
Actually not. In most states all of this is covered by the same statute with different parts. Adverse, Hostile etc
Although the legal term is adverse “possession,” if a claimant holds the property openly, exclusively, and adversely to the title owner’s interest for 21 consecutive years (with no break in that chain of years), that claimant can legally assert his right to title to that property (not just possession). In this state the claimant would file a lawsuit against the current title owner seeking a declaratory judgment that title to that property is legally his by adverse possession. As long as he meets the statutory (or common law) requirements, the Court would award him title to that piece of property, and the judgment would be recorded in the chain of title as if it were a deed. Milhouse is correct. The policy behind this common law principle is to prevent a landowner from sitting on his rights and doing nothing while for 21 years someone else openly occupies, uses, and takes responsibility for the property adversely to the title owner’s interests.
This procedure and policy is a far cry from these outrageous “squatter’s rights,” which is little more than legalized trespassing and theft. Just as the Left seeks to undermine the right of a person to any meaningful self-defense, so they are using these “rights” to undermine legitimate property rights. The Left destroys everything they touch.
DeSantis has soap opera taste and sensibilities.
WTF does that even mean?
He picks issues from the soap opera news to appeal to the soap opera news audience.
So you are against property rights for home owners because it lets you keep convincing yourself Ron DeSantis is satan now?
Even Donald Trump has admitted that DeSantis did nothing wrong, he ran a good campaign, but that he (Trump) just ran a better one and won, and now that it is over it is time to unify.
I really do wish I could be optimistic about the person I am supporting for president but he apparently has a lot more common sense and integrity than you if you can’t forgive DeSantis for not being a monarchist who views Trump as his king (something Donald Trump himself does not believe in as shown by his own statement on the matter).
Glad Trump has the maturity to stop defending Disney to get to DeSantis, and glad DeSantis has the maturity that he didn’t let the attacks get under his skin….for you grow up the primary is over.
Seems like a positive thing for a Gov to look at what is currently happening in his State and decide to take action to prevent injustices from occurring. Usually they just bitch and moan and say they’d like to do something but the legislature or the Judiciary won’t let them.
On top of that, laws don’t make it through the legislature in 5 days, normally. So, unless Florida managed to do so, this has been in the works longer than the current hullabaloo.
Yep Visionary leadership. Noticed the trend line and worked to get in front of the wave.
Protecting the rights of property owners is not “soap opera news,” dingus.
You’re trying to outsmart yourself again, and failing miserably.
You are nuts. Plain and simple.
You can’t spare one word as to whether he’s right or not. All you can do is question his motivation. You’re useless.
Once again, the pseudo-intellectual contrarian steps in to show off his bona fides. You’re much cuter when you’re excusing rape, you pretentious ass.
Yes, how did these laws come to be on the books in almost every state? Was there a coordinated movement by the left to get such legislation passed? Was the Communist Party of the Soviet Union behind it? Did it happen in the leftist movements of the 1930’s?
It’s a combination of Democrats and dumb as a box of rocks Republicans that got all these laws passed over the years. Throw in various court cases from weak soft judges and here we are.
Like so many other things, they were put in place to handle a problem but have been corrupted by leftists.
Moat of these laws were created to combat the old warehouse slumlords that crammed poor people into tiny lofts with no plumbing, demanded everything be in cash, and threw them out the second they got somebody else to pay them more.
They were intended to give people that were paying rent some amount of rights to fight back against the scumbags exploiting them.
They were never intended to let criminals break into a house and declare that they were now ‘tenants’, which is what Democrats have twisted it to mean.
Remember to make a distinction between “adverse possession” laws, which are common law, and “tenant rights” laws (which are newer, but still based in American principles and contract law). Then there’s the idiocy of the laws that conflate the two.
The concept of adverse possession is ancient common law. The tenant rights stuff is mostly 20th century. Some of which was necessary to prevent very real abuses by jerk landlords who were ‘Dickensian’ in practice: Locking out tenants, refusing to make repairs and so on. The combination of the two was inevitable and it occurred in the past with squatters occupation of a house or building from time to time but not on the scale we see today.
IMO it’s not a huge conspiracy just a natural consequence of gradually being ‘soft’ in eroding property rights by over correction. Couple that with societal /civic decline and add in multiple tens of millions of illegal immigrants scrambling for housing along with a growing number native born loser a-holes who rather ‘take than make’ and here we are.
Aside from the over-correction in many tenant’s rights laws, the real problem has been the conflating of “squatters” and “tenants”. And it is absolutely based on un-moderated Progressive “compassion”.
Yep. Too much ‘compassion’ and not enough consequences but AWFLs feel so superior when they vote for these things and badger everyone else to do the same.
There is one problem with the Florida law. Many squatters already use the tactic of having fake leases drawn up to use when police show up. Once police see that paperwork they back off.
There probably should be some way to record at the county or state level that you’ve rented a property out that police can use to verify.
The other way to solve this problem is for people to start squatting in the houses of the politicians and judges houses. Including the houses of their family members.
Once that happens you’ll see real change.
Perhaps “vigilante repo teams” would help out. “Who you gonna call? Squat Busters”
Charlie Le Duff in Detroit did a video of kicking out a squatter. It involved getting permission from the legal owner to live there, getting the legitimate keys, and showing up ready to move in. Turned out the squatter was out on parole and was stealing utilities from next door. Cops show up, see the theft of service and the squatting, and arrest the squatter for violating parole – he/she (not sure – watch the vide and you’ll see why) went back to jail for 2 years.
There’s another dude in California who is helping people evict squatters by getting a lease from the actual owner, moving in, and annoying the crap out of the squatters – loud TV & other noise at all hours, smoke, smelly cooking, cameras EVERYWHERE, etc.
You can find both on YouTube.
YES!
Just shoot them, put them in the back of your pickup truck, and drop their corpses in Lake Okeechobee!
Biden has 4 houses
Just saying
So does Obama
I want to live in Hawaii!!!
No, actually, you don’t. Not unless you could throw all the Progs into the sea.
The problem is that paperwork is not required to establish landlord tenant relationship. Invite somebody to stay with you for a week and they decide they like being in your house just fine and refuse to leave? If you call the cops to have them thrown out you will be told it is a civil matter and you will have to evict the person. Change the locks or remove their possessions will see you charged with a crime.
The sad thing is It is probably going to be cheaper and less complicated for absent property owners (short term or long term) to hire someone or some company to make sure the home remains vacant.
Depends on the state. I’m pretty sure in many that a week makes you the same as a hotel guest. Hotel guests are not tenants, and can be removed without court action. I’d bet in most it’s at least thirty days before a houseguest would get the rights of a tenant.
Florida cops used to back off because there was nothing they could do about it but direct the owners to the system and warn them not to take direct action on their own. Not anymore.
The new Florida law drives enforcement of fraud laws on fake leases that used to be all but ignored. Further, squatters causing more than $1000 worth of damage to the property is now a felony as well.
Property owners now have the law on their side without having to go through months of lawfare to eventually get a wreck of a property back.
Not saying it’s free but you can counter that by having owner’s attorney present at the time of eviction.
Mark Twain warned us:
“No man’s liberty or property is safe when the legislature is in session.”
My state (Tennessee) requires 20 continuous years for adverse possession.
I think people are getting things mixed up here.
The type of squatter we are talking about is just a criminal who wants to live rent free. They very often use fake documents to accomplish this. Those fake documents are what often cause police to not act because police shouldn’t be in a position of determining it a document is false or not.
They aren’t trying to actually own the property because they know they aren’t going to be there 20 years. Eventually they would be evicted. Their goal is to live in a property for as long as it takes the owner to get a court to force them out.
Your state has a squatter problem like every other state. Might not be as bad as other states but you’ve got it. It’s a disease caused by leftism.
The fake lease docs for residences aren’t really a huge hurdle. Many jurisdictions already require the property owner to register as a ‘rental’ whether they lease or rent short term like AirBNB. Thus an easy list already exists for LEO to have dispatch check against to see if the place was actually for rent/lease and then throw the fraudulent ‘renter’ out and into the back of a squad car arrested for fraud and criminal trespass along with destruction of property if any.
It’s even simpler than that. If the squatter presents a purported lease that isn’t signed by the owner (0r their agent) it’s fake, and therefore fraudulent. The change in Florida law now makes that an arrest-able offense on the spot.
Confirmation of ownership can be as simple as a phone call to the county clerk’s office to see whose name is on the current title or even quicker, to the tax collector’s office to see whose name is on the tax roles.
One of the problems is with people who own a rental. And they can’t rent it for some period. So it sits vacant – and some thief moves in and whips out a fake lease agreement when the owner gets the cops involved. It should still be easily resolved (within hours, IMO) without resort to a court, followed by the cops ousting the thief with whatever is required.
Guys my point is there are ways to fix this crap and ways to deal with all objections from those who seem sceptical that nay solutions can exist.
Old fashioned Mob violence solved shit the normal Civil authorities refused to get involved in so ordinary folks turned to them for assistance. Not the best idea to intentionally create via gov’t inaction the conditions for the return of mob violence.
Just like the true minimum wage is zero the true consequences for a squatter could be a visit to a wood chipper before fertilizing the lawn.
Squatters can rent legitimately for a month or two then stop paying and keep contesting. It happens plenty.
Then there are the people who advertise a rental for property they do not own. They break in, change the locks, advertise on Facebook Marketplace, find a legit tenant, collect first and last months rent, give them a lease & the keys, and skip. If the tenant keeps paying them rent, all the better. But when the real owner shows up, they have a lease.. The tenants are the victims also. That’s happened a couple of times around here.
Actually no they don’t have a lease. They have a piece of paper not worth squat. That’s my point. The check v a central database would in most cases also require a Property Management company or the owner/alternative local point of contact.
Validation of the ‘lease’ would be simple. If the listed property management company is ABC rentals and the info on the ‘lease’ doesn’t match up its a fraudulent lease. The can GTFO or get arrested either way they can’t stay in the property.
This is as complex as some are making it. As this becomes more widespread due to inaction by the ‘official authorities’ then you can bet that folks will turn to ‘unofficial authorities’ to resolve their issues. No whining when Paulie Walnuts busts some heads, throws their crap on the street and sets it on fire.
They aren’t trying to actually own the property
I disagree… slightly. Some of them are probably interested in moving in forever. And they’re willing to commit fraud to do so. Some of them are interested in obtaining the property in order to make money off of selling it. (So, the pretense of owning it, in order to pass ownership to someone else.)
But, if you throw in the responsibilities of “owning” – paying taxes, maintaining the property, becoming a good neighbor, etc. – then, no, almost none of them are interested in “owning”.
At a minimum it is conversion.
Exactly on point. Florida in 2008 had an *immense* issue with faked deeds, because their Registrar of Deeds was far too weak and underfunded. It was so bad that banks had tranches of mortgages with *zero* documentation showing the banks actually had any kind of legal right to the property, so they hired shady third parties to ‘research’ the deeds who actually just forged documents for them, and the Registrar of Deeds was so overloaded they couldn’t just “Here’s the real deed. You’re not on it. Get out.”
There was some enormous money involved in that, and it didn’t flow in the direction of legitimate property owners.
Have they fixed it?
DeSantis is now my governor, as of 3/15/24. I always liked the guy, and his record of solid accomplishments speaks for itself.
I can’t tell you how strange and wonderful it is to be a conservative living in a thoroughly “red” and competently managed state, after decades spent living in the Dhimmi-crat cesspools of NYC, Vermont (during college) and D.C.
Florida welcomes you – and your remarkable collection of adjectives.
#meetoo. Been here a year and love it. The sun’s a killer and no one can drive, but I don’t care. What a chump I was for all of those years I paid city and state taxes in NYC.
And, as per usual, when it comes to property owners’ rights and citizens’ rights, as contrasted with the lawless behavior of criminal.sociopaths and illegal aliens, trust that the vile Dhimmi-crats will gleefully enable and side with the latter groups — as sure as the day is long.
There are plenty of LI commenters who side with illegal invaders, calling anyone who disagrees “racist.”
Others will come here and try to convince us that squatters rights are fair and good.
Who?
Name one.
“Squatters’ rights” ARE “fair and good” when properly balanced with property owners’ rights.
It’s when you elevate one over the other (and especially when you turn squatters into “tenants”, which changes the rules you’re applying) that you get problems.
If you leave property uninhabited and unproductive and don’t visit to check on it for 7-10 years then you have abandoned it. If you DO visit, then the folks who have moved in should be out of luck and removed for trespassing.
Are they paying property taxes on it? Yes? Then it’s theirs. Whether you think that someone should be required to do something with property is irrelevant.
That’s not “squatters’ rights”, it’s adverse possession. Though it usually takes longer than 7-10 years.
There are plenty of LI commenters who are lazy and think anyone that disagrees with them is on the opposite end of the spectrum politically and philosophically.
I honestly think (for the ones who aren’t just interested in burning it all down) this is “championing the underdog” sent into overdrive. That doesn’t make it less objectionable or stupid, but I think there’s that whole Progressive “Compassion” crap driving this sort of thing. For some of them.
If I can’t keep my house because of squatters, I’ll burn the place to the ground, with or without them in it. If I can’t have it, they can’t either.
I’ll be sure to have a strong iron clad alibi that I was nowhere near the place when it happens.
Or you could vote Republican and work to bring attention to the issue from your Republican elected officials like Floridian Republicans did….and it has the benefit of being something that works for millions of people.
we found out in 2020 that voting republican is a waste of time especially when have have Republican governors (Kemp) csrewing up the process
I do vote Republican
Vote Republican so they can cave to the Progressives every single time things get hairy???
THAT has been our problem for too long. Many “Republicans” are out for themselves, and don’t care about what happens to us….as long as they get re=elected. I’m sick of the John McCains lying to us, and then stabbing us in the back.
This is where becoming active in the local County GoP party is critical. Get enough grassroot folks who ain’t rino /establishment to show up and they can vote out the current County GoP Chair. Then spread that to the other Counties in your Congressional District. Then spread that to the other Congressional Districts in your State. Get enough support to change the State GoP Chair.
It ain’t easy to get reform. Someone has to be willing to roll up their sleeves and do the very difficult, time consuming labor to make change happen. No outside force is gonna do it for you. If you are less than impressed with your County and State GoP party leadership then it is up to you and those like you who want change to put in the effort to make it happen.
It can get done. Many Red states were d/prog dominated just a few decades ago. The reverse is also true and former GoP dominated States are now solidly voting d/prog. Look at CA and Alabama which are damn near political mirrors of each other in turning from one political party to the other over the same timeframe.
then it is up to you and those like you
And here’s the really hard part. It’s finding others like you and making others like you. It involves evangelizing people to your way of thinking. That’s where the really hard (and often, frustrating) work goes on. Because we are a “representative democracy” (which becomes a republic when you add in rule of law and a constitution) we have to convince enough people to work with us toward the same goal.
THEN you have to do the hard work of organizing those folks. It’s hard enough to convince cats to do what you want, but now you’re adding in herding them.
Ain’t none of this easy or fun. If it were other folks would have already done it and there wouldn’t be a bunch work to do. The only thing left to do would be monitoring the status quo to ensure no backsliding occurs.
But it isn’t easy or fun and still needs doing.
If you think you are going to win by forming your own party, you are delusional.
While monumental, its at least possible to reform the GOP from within. It is impossible to build from without.
Trump knows this as its why he is running from the GOP for POTUS.
Outside a few states (like Florida) where Republicans actually do things that’s useless. And it sure as hell doesn’t solve the immediate problem.
“You squatters just wait. Right now there’s a bill in committee! That’s right, IN COMMITTEE! And once it gets out of committee and they start voting on it, and after we elect a GOP governor, house, and senate, you’ll be sorry!”
And your concern trolling is noted.
AF Chief is talking about when your voting doesn’t actually help things. He’s discussing a non-soap box and non-ballot box response because those have proven ineffective in some places.
Also, a drastic response to that situation might also “work for millions of people” because it might 1) spark like actions against thieves (which is what squatters are if the property isn’t actually abandoned), which might 2) get the “representatives of the people” to remove their heads from their backsides and straighten up their mess.
Don’t fetishize voting.
Vote Republican. RIIIIIIIGHT.
Lindsay Graham. John Cornyn, Mitch McConnell. Kay Bailey Hutchinson, Adam Kinzinger, Liz Cheney, Ken Buck, Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney, Arlen Specter, Warren Rudman, Judd Gregg, Kelly Ayotte, John McCain, Chris Sununu, Nikki Haley, Michael Steele, George Conway, Steve Schmidt…..
The list of Republican disappointments is huge going back decades. Most are RINOs. Many are just cowards or weaklings.
Voting Republican isn’t enough. You have to do the legwork to vet the candidates before the Primary, and vote for good constitutional and fiscal conservatives. They have to be strong, willing to carry the fight to the Democrats and the media, and stand up for our families, principles, and values. They need to be able to articulate those values. If they can’t do a 60 second elevator pitch of what “conservative” and “constitutional” means they need to be a hard pass.
The ‘squatter’ would just disappear one day.
Yes
Call the squatter hunters.. Supply them with a legit lease..and they move in..
It is terrible the way the criminals call the shots. And it has been going on for decades..
Counter squatting is even more effective when you can keep your hands clean (no lease, no connection) so no lawfare can be applied.
When your counter squatters are bigger, meaner, louder, smellier, better armed, more larcenous, and more violence prone than the original squatters the originals tend to abandon ship.
Just make sure it’s all a surprise to you when/if the cops ask.
Also what guarantee do you have that the counter squatters you hired will leave once they’ve driven out the original squatters?
Texas squatters need 10 years
They should have no rights
https://www.limestone-country.com/squatters-rights-tx#:~:text=No%20special%20laws%20exist%20to,through%20the%20state's%20eviction%20process.
Which is why if you are a Texan it is time to start writing to your closest Republican elected official to demand attention to the issue.
DeSantis being first to do something has a strong record of starting a chain reaction. Be part of the chain reaction.
“Which is why if you are a Texan it is time to start writing to your closest Republican elected official to demand attention to the issue.”
“That oughta do it. Thanks very much, Ray.”
Why not?
If an owner has actually abandoned property (hence the 10 year requirement) then why shouldn’t someone else get to take it over and make it productive (by living there or improving the land)?
Do you also insist that you must leave that dollar bill on the sidewalk and no one can ever pick it up? Or that abandoned cars should never be towed?
Adverse possession laws (proper ones) do protect the owner’s property rights. But they also protect the right of someone to make use of something that has been abandoned.
Meh, if the owner is paying the property tax and keeping it in compliance with city code for overgrown yards or whatever else then it ain’t ‘abandoned’ IMO.
Now if we are simply referring to a neighbor encroaching with a fence or structure or path then sure that’s fair adverse possession for the affected portion of the total property but not the home or the whole thing.
Well, yes, it’s not abandoned if it’s being maintained. If you’ve got a vacant home that you haven’t maintained in years – drooping gutters, tall grass, African termite mounds in the yard, etc. – then it could be called abandoned.
But, if it hasn’t had the yard mowed in 30 days? Heck no. At least, not if your yard crew then shows up and says “Hey, Mr CommoChief, we got there and it looks like someone has moved in” and you go do something about it.
And, of course, the new resident has to do things like mow the yard, make repairs, maybe pay property taxes, etc. At least according to the common law-based adverse possession laws (and not the crazy, “tenant” laws they’re using).
One of the distinctions in cities and some smaller municipalities is that the city will condemn the place and take it from you (for it being “abandoned”) long before squatters can take adverse possession.
This is the road that Dems paved with supposedly good intentions in their repressive squatter communities.
You are Preaching to the choir. I owned short and long-term rental property in five States; condos, single family homes, town homes. I have first hand experience with nearly every aspect of property ownership other than some a-hole trying to ‘squat’.
Sold them all and sleep soundly while someone else worries about the hassle.
On another note Ron Desantis changed his boots today
Well, he had to. They were worn out from kicking so much Democrat ass.
The primary is over. Give it a rest.
Trump was right. They’re not sending their best and brightest.
I think these ‘squater’s rights’ laws are leftover from settler days. One may have had a bill of sale for land, but the cabin, barn, fences, etc. were built by whoever lived there sans deed, title, bank loan, etc. Life was hard and tenuous. People died or moved west for better prospects.; the property abandoned.
It was in society’s interest to make sure that land was productive. A squater had the law on his side to facilitate a good faith homestead of abandoned property.
The modern world now has titles, deeds, loan paperwork, lease ageements, rental contracts, etc. It’s very easy to prove who has legal claim.
A criminal who trespasses and breaks into a home shouldn’t have any claim in the modern world of paper trails.
Yet here we are in clown world where illegals post tiktoks on how steal property with impunity.
You’re thinking of adverse possession. This is tenancy rights. They are two different things.
But these examples were NOT actually tenants. They moved into a temporarily unoccupied home. Regardless of what a state law might claim about their status, that is NOT tenancy by the dictionary definition. That is adverse possession. It is squatting.
And that “confusion” is where the problem lies. There should be legal protections for tenants. And there should be adverse possession laws (squatters). But the two should never cross paths, really. No squatter should ever have rights where they squat, until the very lengthy time period has completed. Period.
From my experience, the unwritten distinction in Florida used to be that if you caught them within the first 30 days of their being there they were treated as trespassers. After that they were treated by the system as ‘unlawful tenants’ and thus the lawfare hassle.
Which this seems to have resolved?
Yes, I understand it’s a distinction with a difference, but my point applies to both: In the modern world of paper trails, it’s very easy to prove who has legal claim.
And the real problem is that the Progs have elevated the rights of the “underdog” above the property rights of the owner – in both cases.
And modern judges can make bizarre rulings that nullify your claims.
Had a neighbor lose an adverse possession case over a strip of land on which another neighbor had been dumping junk parts. Arizona adverse possession law requires 10 years. The dumping neighbor hadn’t even LIVED THERE for 10 years. Yet he won. Riddle me that.
I do understand that most states do have laws pertaining to both. Matter of fact, I believe in Texas the period for adverse possession is about 10-15 years, although Lord knows what the last legislature may have changed.
You are wrong about deeds and such changing in any way the adverse possession laws. If someone abandons the property and doesn’t visit in 7-10 years (and neither do their agents), then someone else should still be able to take over that property. It’s still important to the community that property be put to use and managed. But, ownership can be clearly established by deeds and such if the owner (or an agent) does visit the property and tells the squatter to get out, at ANY point during that lengthy required possession time.
Laws regarding adverse possession go back to ancient Rome and have been part of English common law and American statutory law for centuries. Now even though the news refers these instances as cases of squatters’ rights or adverse possession none of them meet all the elements required for that designation. That is where the confusion lies.
Most of all because claim is made by the trespassers that they have been given permission to occupy or have legal proof they are the rightful owners. That moves it from being about adverse possession which requires the property owner NOT GIVING PERMISSION FOR THEM TO OCCUPY THE DWELLING to be an issue of whether they are legal tenants. It also requires payment of property taxes, continuous occupation for 20 years or so, maintaining the property, and doing all this in an open manner all without the owner’s o.k.
In many states it only takes a person taking up residence in the home of another to establish a landlord tenant relationship. No lease required. No payment of rent required. No minimum length of stay required. If you want them out you are bound by landlord tenant laws and must file for eviction.
The problem is not so much about squatter’s rights but about law enforcement not having the means to challenge someone who claims they are not trespassers but lawful tenants. Once the owner lets it be known these people are trespassing and offers reasonable proof of this normal eviction procedures should not be required. At that point arrests should follow.
In many states it only takes a person taking up residence in the home of another to establish a landlord tenant relationship.
And there is the real problem. It’s the destruction of contract law and property rights. And that’s a brontosaurus sized pile of scat.
And I am with the other commenter who say to treat them as home invaders rather than mendacious squatters. And,thank you to Florida for doing this.
Agree with you on the “home invaders” thing. Texas considers any place where you own, not “state of residence” to BE your home, e.g. if you have your tax domicile in, say Nevada, but maintain a dwelling that is yours in Texas and you don’t rent it out but use it for your exclusive use, then if someone squats there, they are a home invader and the “castle doctrine” applies, at least according to what my family attorney advises. This came into play during the Scamdemic, when a large part of my family was in Uruguay and could not return. I had a few cousins living in family dwellings around San Antonio. A few squatters attempted to enter, and were met with 12-Gauge shotguns.
If you come home to a strange person in your house, the answer is to shoot them then call the police and tell the police that an intruder threatened you and you had no choice but to use deadly force on them. As long as you don’t live in a communist shithole you’ll be fine
I know exactly what would happen if police escorted men off my property and they not only came back but broke down my door to get in
As long as you don’t live in a communist shithole you’ll be fine
There, of course, is the fundamental problem in all this.
It seems like that would be a reasonable use of the castle doctrine.
As a near lifelong resident in Florida, it’s nice to see attention to detail on this issue. I wrote my local State Rep earlier this year about this very subject. I sense a bit of Soros in this national situation. What better way to destroy property rights than “squatters rights” invasion of homes. I don’t believe in coincidence when you’re seeing these stories pop up all over the country. FJB
It’s not a stretch when Soros is also funding and facilitating the foreign invasion of our country.
People who know have told me that here in Australia bikie gangs charge a fixed fee plus a door or a chair, depending on whether the door is open when they show up, to evict ‘unwanted tenants’. No charge if they aren’t gone the next day.
Reputedly they have never needed to pay a refund.
As the Chinese say, fight barbarians with barbarians.
can enter and inhabit another person’s vacant property, set up house, and after—in most cases—a mere 30 days claim some form of bizarre “right” to inhabit the home
I think you should do some research and back up that claim, Fuzzy. I don’t believe these crazy laws are in most states, I think a great many states (including NY state) still abide by the common law based squatter laws. NY state, for example requires 10 years of adverse possession. The problem is in, specifically, New York City, in the one case.
And, yes, there is a common law based right to inhabit abandoned property. The requirement generally requires improvement (or ongoing maintenance) of the property in some fashion to demonstrate ownership. And the long time period is to prove the property is truly abandoned. I think that’s a good thing, all around.
A lot of the problem in places like NYC is the conflating of “tenant”* with “squatter”. And a squatter is a thief if it’s not truly abandoned property. And they then apply tenant protections to the thieves. Because “underdogs” or something, and they hate successful people.
(* Even the NY Post story about the NYC squatters calls them “tenants” when they are anything but that.)
Legalese aside, if there was a wave of vigilante justice by rightful property owners against these vermin, the laws would quickly be changed. I wouldn’t hesitate to defend my property by ANY means necessary.
That crap doesn’t work in LA. If they’re there less than a month, they got 5 days, then eviction proceedings. Longer than that, 30 day notice then eviction.
To successfully claim the property, they need to be there 30 years. That can be stopped with the above remedy.
I’m honestly surprised. There must be a lot more home ownership in LA than renters. Or someone just hasn’t gotten around to mucking it up, yet.
Strong eviction laws don’t discourage renting. What would make you think that?
Someone just reminded me of another trick to winning as a landlord in Florida prior to the law change,
The unwritten rule was that if you bagged the squatter within the first 30 days they were considered trespassers. After that they were treated as unlawful tenants by the courts, which is a hugely different bucket of worms.
So smart money was on keeping an eye on your vacant property and taking action ASAP.
So smart money was on keeping an eye on your vacant property and taking action ASAP.
The thing is, that’s ALWAYS been smart. Keep an eye on all your property. Because someone is bound to try and take it from you. Heck, even keep an eye on family property that isn’t yours yet – that way you can keep a notorious uncle from moving in when grandma dies and making a mess for everyone with property taxes and such. Or it might keep the city from condemning your property because the guy you’re paying to mow the yard isn’t doing his job.
Yes owners should check their property but with families spread out, adult children in other States a deceased relative’s home becomes vacant and things move slow. Then some a-hole moves in with a fake lease. Eff that. If the LEO won’t act to remove then b/c the city/State refuse to allow it then they should kindly turn a blind eye to what follows as the true owners are forced into self help with possible ‘contracted’ assistance.
Which is why families should preemptively keep an eye on grandma’s house (as well as on grandma). To prevent all kinds of fraud and abuse she might encounter. Heck, there are known cases of a “live-in care provider” using this stuff to steal homes and such.
If you care about it – property or grandma – you should keep an eye on it and care for it.
And, concur on exercising your rights as a citizen if the state won’t do their job.
Look man IMO the City/ County bears some some level of responsibility for looking out for property as well. If they can’t/won’t then they can return the property taxes.
Not everyone lives in utopia with their kids and grandparents uncles and aunts cousins and in laws in the same place. Yes owners should look into/have someone look at their property. Same.for family members, even in different States.
Big BUT all that tax money should buy a little proactive policing on absentee owned property. If the City/County doesn’t want to or will not do so then ….send your property tax payments payable to Galt’s Gulch. Bet the damn ‘authorities’ make time to show up after you do that.
Squatter’s rights, also known as “adverse possession” under the law
Us old surveyors know about it. Historically the adverse possession had to be open and notorious and persist for 20 years before title was achieved. There’s some defense of that, of the use it or lose it sort; an owner should know her boundaries. But progressive urbanites got the timeline reduced, in various states, to 10 years or less – in extreme cases this miserable and larcenous 30 days. That’s lefty private-property-haters at work. Time to wake up and take action, as Governor DeSantis has, but few others are likely to emulate.
Again, no. Nowhere is adverse possession available after 30 days! This story is not about adverse possession but about tenancy rights. After 30 days the intruder is not considered to own the property, but must be treated as if he had a lease. You can evict him, but only by going through the same process you’d have to with a legitimate tenant.
The “soap opera” has a body count:
Two squatters who took over NYC home of woman found beaten to death, stuffed in duffel bag are being sought for murder: cops
To me, squatters are the same as looters after a disaster. They should be dealt with immediately, severely and with lifelong repercussions (e.g. if they can get someone to rent to them—made to put up a bond for the entire rental period). I don’t buy their excuses that they were “scammed”. If they were, that’s the squatter’s problem—NOT the true owner’s problem. I also believe there should be personal liability for politicians (meaning judges too) who deliberately perpetuate the removal of these squatting scum by forfeiture of THEIR money and permanent loss of property and ability to hold office. Enough is enough.
Interesting piece some years back from Hans Rosling, doing country vs. country a/b comparisons of economic development, noted the ones that did better had:
— Property rights
— Free markets
— Rule of law (common vs. administrative — BA)
If I had a squatter on my property, I’d offer them a lease with a back dated effective date to make them legal and a huge bill with security deposit to pay on signing. Of course, the monthly rent would be high enough for me to live comfortably in a rented oceanfront condo.
In other words, I’d make them an offer that they cannot afford. So, they would get no sympathy from the media for getting thrown out on the street for not signing a lease.
I want to thank you all for an interesting discussion. It prompted me to look into Texas law with regard to adverse possession, and may save me the loss of a part of my own property.
Adverse possession has historically not been thirty days, but rather more like seven to ten years.
Or even longer. 20 years or thereabouts. This story is not about that. These intruders are not being treated by the law as if the property were theirs. They’re merely being treated as if they were legitimate tenants. That’s bad, but not as bad as you thought.
I live in a very rural location.
If I came home and someone had begun occupying my home, they would have two minutes to evacuate before they got a bullet to the chest.
There would be no law enforcement response, and his corpse would be disposed of at greater than 8000′, never to be found.