re: Homeowner arrested after tense standoff with squatters

quote:

---

In New York City, a person can claim “squatters rights” after just 30 days of living at a property. Under the law, it is illegal for the homeowner to change the locks, turn off the utilities, or remove the “tenants” belongings from the property.

---

So... some criminal can change the locks to my house... but I cannot then change the locks TO MY OWN HOUSE? In what universe does that make any sense whatsoever?

Squatters

quote:

---

In this thread, we see people think these are just brand new laws passed in blue states.

They can't fathom that they're in red states and have been around for over 100 years or more because it doesn't fit their narrative.

The worst part, no amount of explaining or posts they read will change their opinions. The next time this thread topic pops up, the same people will come in and say the same things.

---

This is, at best, a half-truth.

Squatters’ rights laws have existed for a long time. That much is true. However, squatters’ rights are not the primary driver behind these types of situations. Those laws provide a path to property ownership for folks who have lived on a property for years. You’re conflating these old laws about adverse possession with newer laws (which are still often colloquially referred to as “squatters’ rights”) about landlord/tenant relationships.

The primary issue in places like NYC isn’t “squatters’ rights” in the traditional adverse possession sense; it’s tenant protections. Many densely-populated areas, like NYC, have bent over backwards to protect tenants in recent years. The relevant laws in this case are A) the fact that in NY state, an occupant becomes a “tenant” after 30 days regardless of whether a lease exists, and B) the fact that in NYC, eviction of a “tenant” is notoriously difficult.

These laws are only tangentially related to the adverse possession laws most of you are referencing, in that a person who manages to squat for a long enough period of time (10 years in NY) can actually gain ownership of the property. The tenant protections are much more recent.

Problem solved it seems.

quote:

---

I agree with the first part, but walk in to your property, shoot them, call 911/police, "I walked into my home and there was somebody in the house. He started screaming and coming at me with a (kitchen knife/bat/golf club..., whatever you've got available). I thought he was going to kill me."

A. an intruder in your property.
B. police don't know if the person is a squatter or intruder.
C. You're allowed to protect yourself AND your property.

---

With how batshit absurd this law is, you're probably fricked because you as the property owner showed up unannounced to the "tenant"

quote:

---

Assuming you follow the law and let these things work their way through the legal system, how often do these squatters go to jail when it is later proven the had no right to be there?

At that point it’s just breaking and entering, often with document forgery included.

If not, then squatting is a positive defense for breaking and entering.

---

Among many issues, I think this is one of the main ones.

You have to go through he courts to "evict" them, which right there, sorta insinuates that they have a right to be there.


It should be you going through the courts to prove they never had a right to be there. As some have stated, when you call the police, you can't always blame them as squatters know the game and are producing fake signed leases so it's hard for a cop to know what is what.

So instead of the "eviction" process, it should be a process where you're proving they never had any right to be in your house, and once you prove that, the squatter is now charged with breaking and entering and then some form of forgery if they faked a lease. I think that's one of the major problem where I assume none of that is happening, and they just get evicted, and shuffle off to the next empty house.

quote:

---

I will NEVER understand the concept of "squatter's rights". Why do these blue states allow this?

---

People there vote entusiastically for Dems.

Then after they get what they voted for, they keep voting Dem.

Obviously, it’ll take a certain threshold of personal pain to get them to vote different.

And obviously, they haven’t suffered enough pain yet.

quote:

---

Can you retards stop with this?

---

Stop what- the truth? Nope. Not happening.

quote:

---

Not sure you thought this through if you think frozen paintballs are going to get the squatter to fear you and leave and never return

---

That’s just to get them out of the house. How are they gonna prove they were in the house if the locks are changed and all their shite is gone?