Posted on 03/07/2025 9:06:21 AM PST by Red Badger
The housing market is still utterly insane right now. So it's doubtlessly a relief when a prospective homeowner finds and buys their dream home.
Unless, of course, they're told that they, uhh, can't live in it:
The nightmare started last fall when [Meghan] McIntyre and her boyfriend decided to move back to Plymouth and purchase their own home. Months later, instead of moving into the house they bought, they are forced to rent an apartment while also paying the mortgage on a home they aren't allowed to live in. Instead, someone else is living in the house.
Finding out someone else is living in the house you just bought:
"It's like a never-ending nightmare," McIntyre said of her attempt to move back home to Plymouth.
It turns out that Ms. McIntyre purchased a foreclosed property. She was under the impression that it was vacant and move-in ready. But shortly before moving in, they got a call from a former occupant of the house — someone who was "never an owner," "never a tenant" and "never paid rent," yet who had lived there to care for her mother and who wanted to move back in after her mother's death.
Rather understandably, Meghan said no. And that's where the nightmare really began:
'The next day we got a call from the housing court that we had a court date,' she said.
The judge ruled that McIntyre had to give the woman the keys and allow her to stay at the house.
Raw footage of a judge forcing a woman to surrender her house to some random lady who wants to live there:
Real estate attorney Jordana Greenman said the scenario is "horrifying," but she said state law explicitly allows for someone's home to essentially be seized and used in this way:
'It is another one of those things that in Massachusetts with all of the consumer protection rules, nobody can be unhoused per se, without a court order,' Greenman explained. 'It might boil down to how much are they willing to pay to get this person out. And then they'll go, which is really very upsetting. It should not be so difficult.'
But folks, it goes beyond "difficult." The state is being outright capricious and spiteful in dealing with this situation.
A court has ordered McIntyre to "pay for a whole list of expenses" prior to starting eviction:
McIntyre said they had to pay to restore the floors after they ripped up the carpet to replace them. McIntyre is paying the utility bills and even had to put the woman up in a hotel and pay for her meals when the heat stopped working in the home.
McIntyre said this is on top of her paying for the mortgage, HOA fees and rent. She estimated they are paying around $10,000 a month just in housing.
Thankfully, there's some end in sight. The rightful homeowner and her squatter tenant reached an agreement:
Under the deal, the woman gets to stay until the end of March and McIntyre has to pay her $7,500 to put towards a new apartment.
Please remind me to never, ever buy a home in Massachusetts.
“How are these squatters not home invaders?”
Read the article.
If the house is an older one it should not be hard to discover it is unsafe to live in. We have asbestos, radon, poor wiring, lead pipes, non egress windows, raw glass where tempered is now required. Oh the code violations!
I think the proper owner should ignore the order about fixing the house up. Contempt of court will probably be less a strain on the purse than all the fixes ordered. She should then self report the house to code enforcement. She should stop paying any property taxes or assessments. With any luck the city will put a ginormous lien on the house for code violation fines. Because I honestly believe she would be better off dumping the house on the city. I don’t think she can win this battle in Massachusetts. She should also look into suing the bank and title company.
when public law doesn’t work, that’s when people turn to ad hoc private law, like mafia and gangsters
thanks leftists.
The owner did not due adequate due diligence—particularly on the legal front.
I would never close on a house without iron-clad legal guarantees that it would be vacant at the time of closing.
“The other lesson here is (hindsight being twenty/twenty) that the buyer should have put a paragraph is the sale agreement that states the transaction is being made with the understanding that the property is vacant.
If that was not correct then the sale contract becomes void.”
It was vacant.
Read the article.
I’m guessing that the property was purchased as is and if the mortgage company did not require inspection and one was not done.
If I’m reading this correctly the squatter had lived there and then left and was demanding to come back and live there again. If that is accurate then inspector would not have seen the squatter.
Read the dang article!
Good point—I clarified.
The home must be vacant at the time of closing or the deal should be null and void.
Most likely because the woman had been living in the house in order to care for her mother. There is no indication that her mother was not living there legally. So what happened is the daughter by living with a legal tenant (or owner,not sure of the mom’s status) established a tenancy as well. However there is no reason at all for a judge to not allow a normal eviction procedure to go through. The house was foreclosed. The house was purchased. Any current occupants get a notice of eviction. It goes to court. The judge says you have X number of days to vacate. End of matter. This judge is a tool.
The current owner needs a “Come to Jesus” moment with the title company and the bank.
The owner’s lawyer is the real clown in this transaction.
They did not do due diligence to protect their client.
“The owner did not due adequate due diligence—particularly on the legal front.
I would never close on a house without iron-clad legal guarantees that it would be vacant at the time of closing.”
I repeat:
1. The house was vacant at closing.
2. You did not read the article.
Not a squatter because she was living there by permission of her mother who was a legal occupant. Which means a landlord-tenant relationship was established when the new owner bought the property. BUT THAT JUST MEANS SHE WOULD NEED TO LEGALLY EVICT THE CURRENT OCCUPANT. That should have gone through without any needless delay. The judge is in the wrong.
OK—I read the article again.
The homeowner needed legal protection against this scenario.
It was the job of their attorney to make it happen.
Don’t pay the tax and watch how quickly Massatwoshits kicks the squatters out.
But, but, but... that’s ‘different’. Obviously, the state needs the money much more than the owner that they prevented from living there.
And this is the state that is known for ‘witch trials’. Which figures.
Squatters gotta squat is a guiding principle of the Democratic Party.
“The owner’s lawyer is the real clown in this transaction.
They did not do due diligence to protect their client.”
Assuming they had a lawyer, it is a stretch to say a lawyer would be able to predict that a relative of a former tenant would be able to make this claim.
Get a very big mean dog
Seems to me if you’re going to purchase with a mortgage (which I never do), you’re involved with 3rd parties all around. Appraiser, realtor, insurance agents, lawyers, bankers (that’s likely a dozen different people right there, Desks #1-12, greeter to final underwriter-executioner)...
All of whom I scrupulously avoid...
And none of them noticed anything?
When you’re looking for a mortgage, these people should be over there with microscopes looking for reasons not to lend.
That leaves the buyer who, above all, should be diligently examining the place and the paperwork, all of which should be broom clean of squatters and other vermin, plus the rights thereof.
I hate to say anyone is...really stupid...but you don’t get into this kind of fix without profound stupidity.
Furthermore if you’re that stupid you should not be owning a house, you should be renting.
If you don’t have a trash hauler from Hoboken on speed dial, and you’re not from a protected class (muslim, gay), you are doomed.
“The homeowner needed legal protection against this scenario.
It was the job of their attorney to make it happen.”
What would that be?
Lawyers have to get creative sometimes.
That is the difference between an excellent lawyer and a mediocre one.
A lot of the language in contracts addresses weird and one off scenarios that almost never happen.
In the case of a dilapidated foreclosed house this craziness—while not likely—is certainly foreseeable.
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.