Posted on 03/29/2024 11:54:59 AM PDT by nickcarraway
Too many property owners are having trouble asserting their rights, but not everything is "squatter's rights."
A man's home is his castle. Or is it?
Over the past couple of weeks, squatters' rights—whereby someone who isn't a legal owner or tenant claims a right to stay in someone else's property—has moved from a 30 Rock joke to the subject of white-hot internet discourse.
Kicking off this controversy have been several viral episodes of frustrated property owners trying to eject unwanted people from their homes.
Most prominently, New York City resident Adele Andaloro was arrested on camera after trying to self-evict several people who she says had illegally occupied a home she inherited from her parents. Before that, Washington state landlord Jaskaran Singh went viral for staging a protest outside one of his rental properties where his tenant hadn't paid rent in close to a year.
In January, Bloomberg had an in-depth investigation into metro Atlanta's housing market, where a real estate industry group estimates as many as 1,200 for-rent, single-family homes have been illegally occupied recently.
Venezuelan provocateur Leonel Moreno made waves with a TikTok video urging migrants to move into vacant homes and claim squatters' rights.
The more sensationalist corners of conservative media have hoovered up these stories to declare an "epidemic" of squatting spreading across the country, which President Joe Biden is allegedly encouraging.
That in turn has provoked a stream of "well, actually" commentary from liberal outlets arguing all this talk of squatting is just right-wing "hysteria" and that the real problem is overpowerful landlords who can evict tenants on a whim.
So, is the U.S. experiencing a squatting epidemic?
This is a thorny and frustrating topic to discuss because, in the most literal sense, there's no such thing as "squatters' rights" in America. No lawmaker has introduced a "squatters' bill of rights." Open up your state's code, and you won't find a "squatters' rights" section.
The closest thing to literal squatters' rights would be states' adverse possession laws that allow people to take ownership of someone else's property after making exclusive use of it for years or decades. But as Pacific Legal Foundation attorney Mark Miller notes in a recent squatting explainer, adverse possession cases typically involve properties that have seemingly been abandoned, and bear little resemblance to the kinds of cases that are going viral right now.
Instead, we're seeing a lot of different situations where owners are having difficulties removing unpaying occupants from their property. These have all been lumped together, somewhat unhelpfully, under the umbrella of "squatting" and "squatters' rights," but the individual circumstances and laws at play vary considerably.
Many of what's being described as "squatters' rights" cases are episodes of already illegal fraud or trespass: someone moves into a home and falsely claims (often with the aid of fraudulent documents) to be the legitimate owner or tenant. The Atlanta cases Bloomberg covered are mostly examples of this. So is Andaloro's situation in New York City. It's unclear how often this happens or whether it is happening more often now.
Main Street Economics Discover the Biggest Ponzi Scheme in American History! SPONSORED BY MAIN STREET ECONOMICS LEARN MORE
The Bloomberg article suggests a few reasons why these episodes might be happening more often. The increasingly online, remote business of property management makes it easier for scammers to gain access to vacant properties. Online billing enables people to produce real documents allegedly showing proof of residence.
The scammers in these cases can be accurately described as squatters. Depending on the sophistication of the fraud and the local laws governing the removal of illegal occupants, reclaiming one's property might involve more than just a call to the police.
Andaloro's case has drawn a lot of attention to a provision of New York City law saying that a property owner can't unilaterally evict someone who's "lawfully occupied" a property for 30 consecutive days or more. Instead, they have to go to housing court and get a warrant to remove the unwanted occupant.
When Andaloro tried to change the locks on her home and kick out the people claiming to be legal tenants, she was arrested for trying to perform a warrantless self-help eviction.
It is shocking and unjust that Andaloro would be led away in cuffs for trying to reclaim her property. But, for all the reasonable outrage her case has attracted, it's not a neat example of "squatters' rights."
The police who showed up at Andaloro's house were confronted with one person claiming to be the legal owner arguing with other people claiming to be legal tenants.
Andaloro reportedly had the deed to the house with her but, from the perspective of the police, that doesn't immediately settle whether the people she was arguing with were actual renters or squatters.
In response to Andaloro's case and several other related situations, New York Republican lawmakers have proposed a bill allowing police to immediately evict someone from a residential property based on a homeowner's sworn complaint.
Main Street Economics Discover the Biggest Ponzi Scheme in American History! SPONSORED BY MAIN STREET ECONOMICS LEARN MORE
That would certainly make it easier for property owners to remove people squatting illegally. But it would also seemly leave legitimate, paying tenants, who have a contractual right to stay on someone else's property, without many protections.
It seems reasonable, as real estate writer Brad Hargreaves argues in an X post, that there would be a court process for sorting out these property disputes.
The problem, as Hargreaves notes, is that New York's housing court is deeply dysfunctional right now and it takes months or years to resolve landlord-tenant disputes. Currently, there are nearly 200,000 active eviction cases in New York state. That's up from 33,000 active cases before the pandemic.
Andaloro explicitly cited the time it would take her to vindicate her property rights in housing court as the reason for trying to do a self-help eviction.
For the most part, the cases gumming housing courts in New York and elsewhere aren't cases of illegal squatting or fraud, but rather run-of-the-mill non-payment eviction cases. About 80 percent of residential eviction cases in New York are for non-payment.
Reason covered the case of one New York City landlord who spent four years trying to evict a non-paying tenant.
New York is probably the worst offender when it comes to lengthy eviction processes, but lots of (mostly liberal) cities and states aren't much better. The delinquent tenant being protested by Singh, the Washington landlord, hasn't paid rent since May 2023, per reporting from The Stranger. He reportedly had a spotty record of paying rent even before that. It's inexcusable that landlords have to spend months or years trying to kick out a non-paying tenant.
Liberal and left-wing outlets that cover these cases typically glide over a tenant's non-payment of rent as a minor detail. Publicola, a Seattle-area news publication, spends most of its coverage of Singh's case explaining that Singh owns multiple rental properties and that conservatives of all people helped organize the protest outside his rental property (as if either is particularly relevant).
Still, to describe slow-as-molasses housing courts as examples of "squatters' rights," as some media reports are doing, is a stretch. The alleged squatters in question started as invited, legitimate tenants. The property owner is still within their rights to demand that they pay rent, and file for eviction if they don't.
At best, dysfunctional housing courts create procedural squatters' rights, where a tenant can spin out the eviction process for months or years while enjoying free housing.
There are a lot of reasons that eviction processes in some jurisdictions are taking forever right now. Pandemic-era eviction moratoriums froze the processing of eviction cases for months or even years. (It wasn't until January of this year that landlords in Los Angeles could pursue non-payment evictions again.) Courts are now trying to sort through that backlog of cases, even as new eviction cases are filed.
State and local right-to-counsel laws—which provide tenants facing eviction with free legal representation—have achieved their explicit goal of slowing down eviction cases even more.
Given that most eviction cases are for straightforward non-payment, tenant attorneys have an incentive to stretch out proceedings by as much as possible. That delays the inevitable eviction and potentially strong-arms the landlord into paying a tenant to leave.
Also gumming up housing courts are state requirements that landlords who accepted government funding during the pandemic to cover a tenant's unpaid back rent drop their eviction cases. In many of those cases, the tenant in question went right back to not paying, so the landlord had to go to the back of the line and file for an eviction all over again.
During the pandemic, to be sure, we did have something akin to actual "squatters' rights" when all levels of government adopted eviction moratoriums. As Reason has repeatedly covered, landlords were stuck with non-paying, occasionally abusive tenants and literally no legal ability to remove them.
Those moratoriums are over, but states and cities have incorporated many of their features into permanent policies. Los Angeles now prevents landlords from pursuing evictions against non-paying tenants who've been approved for housing assistance, for instance. They can't evict people who've adopted pets in violation of their lease agreement.
These policies aren't quite "squatters' rights." But they are part of a growing body of "tenant protections" that limit landlords' ability to decide who they want to rent to, how much they can charge, and whether they can even take a unit off the rental market.
Miller and George Mason University law professor Ilya Somin both argue that laws that needlessly burden property owners' ability to reclaim their property from out-and-out squatters or non-paying tenants could be considered unconstitutional takings. Landlords prevented from removing such people from their property would be within their rights to sue their local or state government.
Others have suggested requiring long-term leases to be filed with the government, with the idea that better records would protect legitimate tenants while allowing for the expedited removal of illegal squatters without court involvement.
One can see a lot of merit to this idea. It would also be a tough idea to implement given how poorly many local governments manage property records and the widespread informality of the residential property rental business.
In the immediate term, the best thing that states and localities could do to safeguard landlords' property rights from squatters and delinquent tenants alike would be to build up the capacity of their housing courts.
That could involve hiring more housing court judges. New York landlords have proposed creating a pre-court mediation program to handle non-payment cases before an eviction is filed.
It's likely not politically practical, but eliminating right-to-counsel laws and cutting government funding to legal service providers that cynically manipulate the housing court process would also speed up the processing of eviction cases.
Private property rights are a foundational part of any free country. It is therefore rather shocking how long it can take to protect one's property rights in the courts. It's an issue of urgent concern, squatting epidemic or not.
Yes.
Man. I’m more concerned with civil asset forfeiture.
*Squatters rights* should NEVER have been a thing to begin with.
It’s theft and theft should never be given a pass.
If you want property, buy it yourself.
It may be hard to completely get rid of it - it’s been around since the early Middle Ages. I don’t know if Congress would vote for a law.
someone moves into a home and falsely claims (often with the aid of fraudulent documents) to be the legitimate owner or tenant.Or someone falsely claims to own a property, and leases it to someone else.
In which case the tenant is just as much a victim as the owner.
BLAM! BLAM! BLAM! BLAM! BLAM! BLAM!
(reload)
BLAM! BLAM! BLAM! BLAM! BLAM! BLAM!
Now then; What squatters?
Squatters vs adverse possession. Adverse possession generally requires upkeep/improvements and a payment of property taxes. Otherwise, if I’m paying the property taxes, even if the place sits empty, it should never be up to someone else to grab.
The recent squatter epidemic is a very dangerous knock on effect of a more pernicious underlying problem of valuation. The median home price in the US is $450K. That’s insane. The people that own those homes will fight like hell to keep those values up. Those folks have a real stake in keeping inventory low. And the courts and LEOs aren’t built or equipped to handle the squatters that result.
He’s been involved in a dispute with an HOA board member over an unrelated matter, and the HOA guy has been trying to trespass across my client’s property to get to the HOA lot — just to be an intrusive @sshole.
My client’s lawyer has told him that he can file to get possession of the HOA lot under the state’s adverse possession (“squatter’s rights”) law if he has exclusive access to it for 35 years and he maintains it as if it belongs to him.
THIS is a legitimate application of a “squatter’s rights” law, in my honest opinion.
We’ll have AI and automation so many people will lose their jobs soon. Then we will have universal basic income. So in theory, we can tear down whole neighborhoods in cities like Buffalo, then we can 3D print houses. It’ll be real cheap. No reason for you to live in New York City or Austin, TX. You shouldn’t live there unless you have money.
“The Bloomberg article suggests a few reasons why these episodes might be happening more often.”
Then it totally fails to pin the problem on ultra-liberal pro-tenant laws that make it almost impossible to evict tenants backed by ultra-liberal DAs and judges.
We ran afoul of that mess 40 years ago with the first and only rental property we’ve owned. The tenant paid two rents, then quit. It took four or five months to get him legally evicted in Santa Cruz County (CA) and he utterly destroyed the place. Water and power had been shut off, but he continued to use the toilets. Knee-deep in filth and porn. Fixtures and all appurtenances on the hot tub were stolen.
Now we have to worry about going away for a couple of weeks and the bastards move in. Of course, things are different here in Idaho.
Squatter’s rights is an oxymoron.
I live in remote area, I have guns and a backhoe….and I show my neighbors where the keys for the BH are too, so that they don’t even have to wake me to help, if they don’t want to.
If you cannot immediately remove them, shooting them if necessary, then Yes.
There ARE NO SQUATTERS RIGHTS!!! Stop accepting the premise!!!
If I were to find a nice streamside site, set up camp, maybe even something more durable, can I claim squatter’s rights? Will the government let me stay on their land? How quickly can they remove me? Seems laws for private should match laws for public and vice versa.
Adverse occupancy, the correct term for “squatter”, is recognized if the property is in fact abandoned for more than a set period of time, but this is in terms of YEARS, not weeks or months. To swoop in almost with the departure of the prior resident’s moving van gives the new “occupant” virtually no rights whatsoever.
South Carolina, I believe, has some pretty lenient adverse occupancy rights, because when General Sherman was sweeping through the South on his march to the sea, the county courthouses, where all land records were kept, were burnt to the ground, and ownership could not be verified from the ashes that remained. Neighbors of a disputed property could simply move their fences, which would normally be treated as an encroachment, and without the records, the owner of the property thus attached had no recourse in the law. If the encroachment lasts for a period of several years, it is recognized as a legal boundary.
"Are 'Squatters' Rights' Out of Control?"
FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument
There is no such thing as squatters “rights” imo, such rights just another example of desperate Democrats and RINOs dreaming up politically correct rights to effectively buy votes to stay in power.
If your state wants to give strangers access to your house, then the only constitutional option that the states have is to buy your property imo, evidenced by 5th Amendment.
The problem is that we are currently stuck with a worthless Congress that is not doing its 14th Amendment duty to make penal laws to discourage state actors from effectively abridging your 5th Amendment (5A) property protections.
In fact, it in some cases it's probably easier for citizen voters to effectively "evict" lawmaking “squatters” from the nation's capitol in November, replacing them with Trump-supporting patriots who will strengthen your 5A protections, than it is to deal with local and state lawmakers to get squatters out of your house.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.