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.
“And none of them noticed anything?”
What would they have noticed?
Because they own it and are responsible to disclose any negative issues about the property such as mold, water damage or grifters occupying the property.
Every seller agreement has such a discloser section.
Since it was a repo I'm guessing it was owned by a bank, mortgage company or Fanny/Freddy Mac.
They should be responsible any expenses the buyers incurred including the pain, suffering and the time they had to waist dealing with the government.
I am not going to write the legal language. That is what attorneys do.
Great attorneys foresee all kinds of wackadoodle scenarios and protect their clients against them.
I am not going to write the legal language. That is what attorneys do.
Great attorneys foresee all kinds of wackadoodle scenarios and protect their clients against them.
On Free Republic. Who has time for that? My response was an “If this, then this” reply. MY more thought out reply follows.
This should have been a simple eviction procedure. Unfortunately since the occupant had been living there by permission of a legal occupant/tenant (her mom) she would under law be regarded as a legal tenant as well. When the new owner purchased to house she became the new landlord. What I fail to understand is why a judge did not let the owner evict the current occupant. The new owner certainly has cause to evict current occupant.
The repair demand is most unreasonable. Normally a tenant would have paid a security deposit which a landlord can use to cover any damages by the tenant upon surrendering the lease. Obviously the new owner has no such funds available. The repairs are solely the responsibility of the tenant.
Maybe the new owner has a case against the bank and the title company. I sure hope she does.
The fine print is in the contracts.
That is why the borrower’s attorney is critical.
To me the moral of this story is don’t try to save money on a cheap real estate attorney.
You get what you pay for...
“Lawyers have to get creative sometimes.”
What you are implying is that every purchase of a rental property, the lawyer should investigate the prior tenants and have them sign an agreement that they and any concerned relatives agree to relinquish all claims on the property!
Get real.
You are right if she had one. I did not read if there was a real estate attorney involved.
I am not an attorney and cannot micromanage one on how they would protect my interest.
That is their job.
“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.”
The house was vacant at closing. The new owners had started renovation of an empty house when the judge gave the squatter the keys.
What should have been established is whether any party had a right to claim tenancy.
A quick internet search of the term “Squatters Rights” produces the insanity below:
—
Understanding the California Squatters Law (California Civil Code section 1007)
In California, the legal concept of squatter’s rights is defined by state law and varies from other states. Under California Civil Code section 1007, a squatter can establish legal possession of a property by occupying it openly and continuously
—
—
Can you turn off utilities on a squatter in California?
AI Overview
No, you cannot turn off utilities on a squatter in California. This is illegal and is considered self-help eviction.
Explanation
In California, squatters are considered tenants as long as they have possession of the property.
Turning off utilities to force out a squatter can lead to legal trouble for the property owner.
The eviction process for squatters can take 30 to 90 days or longer.
https://primior.com/squatter-rights-in-california-guide-for-landlords/
https://martinezlawcenter.com/squatters-rights-california-30-days/
Find a judge who is not so biased against landlords.
“Unfortunately since the occupant had been living there by permission of a legal occupant/tenant (her mom) she would under law be regarded as a legal tenant as well. “
Mom died.
Skunk oil works but the tenant will claim that is revenge. It’s better to put some pieces of shrimp in the drapery rods. They’ll never figure out where it’s coming from but it begins too smell really dreadful.
The same sort of people that voted for those idiots that make rulings lie that are the same ones that allow such crap to continue, so I really don’t feel for them.
That could take a few years, but I've bought lots of great houses from tax sales. However, the state (county) doesn't care who's in a house. Tax sales are strictly buyer beware, as is. The pig in the poke is the buyer's problem.
Anyway, in my state there's a lot of undeveloped land to which one can relocate vermin, if they are found, but one should personally inspect before bidding. Also, during the winter you can usually tell when a squatter is in a house because of the smoke and the sirens. :)
“What should have been established is whether any party had a right to claim tenancy.”
How would they do that?
The house was vacant.
The previous tenant was dead.
I worked in commercial real estate which did include properties with squatter issues.
We had attorneys either on staff or on retainer with the licenses to practice in all fifty states.
We never lost a squatter case.
I have no idea what the attorneys did or how they did it.
We paid them a salary or a fee. They got it done.
Have 5 of your biker friends move in
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.