- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Do police / courts really defend squatters in homes?
Posted on 2/8/24 at 11:27 am to Ace Midnight
Posted on 2/8/24 at 11:27 am to Ace Midnight
quote:
If it is a civil matter, then what about being a squatter magically entitles the person to police protection, when ownership doesn't? What am I missing?
The issue is that the police genuinely don’t know who has the legal right to the property. The squatters show them where they paid a utility bill and/or a fake lease and voila, they are now “legal” as far as the cop knows.
2
Posted on 2/8/24 at 11:32 am to Thundercles
Because our government hates its citizens.
Posted on 2/8/24 at 11:38 am to lockthevaught
quote:I've been here over ten years and I can tell you the Poli Board has a bunch of folks who have been living there seriously disturbed for longer than 5-7 years.
Only law MS has is if a person lives on a property "Undisturbed for 5-7 years".
Can we evict some of them please?
Posted on 2/8/24 at 11:40 am to MikeBRLA
quote:
The issue is that the police genuinely don’t know who has the legal right to the property. The squatters show them where they paid a utility bill and/or a fake lease and voila, they are now “legal” as far as the cop knows.
This should be considered a hardcore felony, and those that do that should be given a mandatory of 10 years in federal prison. That would curb things quickly.
Posted on 2/8/24 at 11:45 am to MikeBRLA
quote:
The issue is that the police genuinely don’t know who has the legal right to the property. The squatters show them where they paid a utility bill and/or a fake lease and voila, they are now “legal” as far as the cop knows.
My issue with that is that I assume in most cases it's pretty clear and obvious who is in the right and who is in the wrong. So all the "it's not our business" and letting it go to the court system (where it can take months) is bullshite. If that's the case then a simple proof of registered ownership should prove that you actually own it and they should kick out the squatters until the court date.
Posted on 2/8/24 at 12:08 pm to The Mick
Is trespassing no longer a thing?
Posted on 2/8/24 at 12:29 pm to Thundercles
This is a hallmark of left-leaning areas.
It starts with property law, which is not binary. In other words, there are degrees of possession of a property starting with the least degree - illegal trespassing, going through adverse possession, to rental, then lease, then mortgage holding, and ultimately the most absolute which is fee simple (IE owning the land free and clear).
Because property law is not binary (IE it's not just "do you own the land or not?") that allows us to much more easily do rentals, leases, and mortgages. This is a keystone of the US economy.
Unfortunately in left-leaning jurisdictions, they use this to buy votes by making tenants vs. landlords a political and/or racial issue. "Look at those mean rich white republican landlords trying to put you out, we'll stop them and protect you". While a degree of tenat protection is a good idea, which degree is still up for debate.
If you come to Alabama and try squatting, you will be out on the street and don't count on not being shot. In Los Angeles or Chicago, squatters have far more rights. Because possession is not binary (yes-no), those jurisdictions feel squatters should get their day in court which may take months.
It starts with property law, which is not binary. In other words, there are degrees of possession of a property starting with the least degree - illegal trespassing, going through adverse possession, to rental, then lease, then mortgage holding, and ultimately the most absolute which is fee simple (IE owning the land free and clear).
Because property law is not binary (IE it's not just "do you own the land or not?") that allows us to much more easily do rentals, leases, and mortgages. This is a keystone of the US economy.
Unfortunately in left-leaning jurisdictions, they use this to buy votes by making tenants vs. landlords a political and/or racial issue. "Look at those mean rich white republican landlords trying to put you out, we'll stop them and protect you". While a degree of tenat protection is a good idea, which degree is still up for debate.
If you come to Alabama and try squatting, you will be out on the street and don't count on not being shot. In Los Angeles or Chicago, squatters have far more rights. Because possession is not binary (yes-no), those jurisdictions feel squatters should get their day in court which may take months.
Posted on 2/8/24 at 12:35 pm to Thundercles
Squatters should be eliminated on the spot.
Posted on 2/8/24 at 12:43 pm to CocomoLSU
quote:
simple proof of registered ownership
Real property doesn’t have “registration” like vehicles do. The cops can’t simply run the plate and see who owns (or leases) it. Therein lies the problem
Posted on 2/8/24 at 12:46 pm to Thundercles
If they made them actually squat they wouldn’t stay near as long.
Posted on 2/8/24 at 12:48 pm to MikeBRLA
quote:
Real property doesn’t have “registration” like vehicles do. The cops can’t simply run the plate and see who owns (or leases) it. Therein lies the problem
If you have property taxes you have that information. You don't want to deal with a city cop on issues like this anyways, this is all sheriff stuff.
Posted on 2/8/24 at 12:49 pm to Thundercles
If the squatters disappear then they can’t squat any longer.
Posted on 2/8/24 at 12:52 pm to Thundercles
Yes they do and it’s bs
Posted on 2/8/24 at 1:59 pm to thadcastle
quote:
They entered an agreement with a the landlord and broke their end of the agreement.
If it was totally one sided land lords could throw people out on a whim even if they hadn't violated the agreement. The process does need to be faster.
Posted on 2/8/24 at 2:16 pm to Thundercles
I was in my house working. They broke into the house and I was afraid for my life. I stopped the threat.
Yes, it took 15 rounds to stop the threat.
Yes, it took 15 rounds to stop the threat.
Posted on 2/8/24 at 2:25 pm to lockthevaught
quote:
In Mississippi, squatters have no rights. Only law MS has is if a person lives on a property "Undisturbed for 5-7 years".
My buddy owns rental property in da hood. He get's LE to kick out renters all the time.
Posted on 2/8/24 at 3:05 pm to Thundercles
I don’t believe that there is nothing that can be done. What i think it is is that no one has looked into what can actually be done so that is just response given
Posted on 2/8/24 at 3:17 pm to BigBinBR
quote:
Yes and no. The courts allow the squatters to stay while the issue is adjudicated. Basically giving the benefit of the doubt to the squatter.
The problem is that in a lot of places it can take 12-18 months to get a court date so the landowner can get the person removed.
The biggest issue is that it takes too long to work through the court system.
Correct.
It blows my mind it can take over a year to do this in CA. Here, you can have a court date within a month if it's in the city limits. 5-day notice, file for rule for possession, and you can sometimes get a court date in 7-10 days.
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News