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.
Have 5 of your biker friends move in
The woman did not purchase it as a rental property. She purchased a foreclosed vacant house to be an owner occupied dwelling. Not sure why she did not do a public search on the property’s history. At the very least looking at the past property tax records probably would have shown if the house had homestead exemption. If there was none that is a clear sign the house was used as a rental. Checking court records would have shown any liens on the house as well as any prior landlord/tenant disputes.
Any of these should make a prospective purchaser seek the help of a good real estate lawyer. But just blindly assuming all is well (especially on a foreclosed house) is just going to lead to heartache and a depleted bank account.
The time required to establish a squatter right is usually more than a decade. It certainly is not just a matter of months.
I don’t know this woman’s political persuasion, but she’s in Massachusetts, where they vote for this.
Should’ve picked a Blue state, lady!
Make that a RED state.
Dang it.
Whatever the circumstances might be, I am convinced some warped liberal, so-called ‘judges’ take great pleasure in screwing decent people in favor of any sort of freeloading reprobate.
“Any of these should make a prospective purchaser seek the help of a good real estate lawyer.”
What would the lawyer have found?
Why do you think we call them “Massholes”?
Yes I know. The article read the woman had lived in the house while caring for her mom. Not sure how long a gap there was between the mom dying (I assume that is when the woman first moved out) and the woman deciding she wanted to move back in.
“The time required to establish a squatter right is usually more than a decade. It certainly is not just a matter of months.”
Apples and oranges. They are not claiming ownership.
We have no idea what the lawyer would find—or what contract language they would draw up—because that is their job.
If there are any real estate lawyers on this thread then they can enlighten us.
Massatwoshits is bad? New York isn’t much better.
“When the new owner purchased to house she became the new landlord”
The house was vacant when they purchased the house. No tenants.
“We have no idea what the lawyer would find”
Nothing.
Well the Martin Hubbell guide might be a good start. The state bar association should have a list of local attorneys and their area of practice. A local realtor should also be able to give some references. It might even be useful to look up real estate related court cases and find out which attorneys represented the landlords. If one really want to delve into researching a prospective lawyer you can always look up whether any disciplinary action has been taken against them by the state bar. Also any complaints filed should be public record.
Or you could always quickly take a photo of the lawyer’s bus ad as it zooms past you in traffic.
I would like an opinion from a Massachusetts real estate attorney.
Lol.
You ducked my question.
Squatters, human habitation, the potential for legal disputes. In particular the inspectors for the lender. It's their job to protect the entity actually paying the tab. The inspectors for the insurance agency, too. They will find a cracked attic window and require someone to fix it or no-loan-for-you!
Who's paying the utilities? Even when they're off, there are charges. Who maintains the premises, clears the snow, mows the lawn? If no one does, that mortgage application is in the doldrums. Moreover, a reputable lender is highly unlikely to lend on a foreclosure, which supposedly is the case here. Everyone I mentioned bears some responsibility; too bad for the buyer that judges like to get home on time for dinner so "legal" responsibility is a pipe dream. They should have noticed, and having noticed, they should have mentioned the problems to the buyer. Who should have asked questions. They're pros; buyer is clearly a kitten on the expressway.
“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.”
Interesting idea, I wonder if it would work. There’s something called the merger doctrine, which basically says that when you sign the deed, the contract of sale merges into it and ceases to exist. Essentially, after the deed transfers, you can no long sue for breach of contract.
At least that’s how I remember it. It’s been a while since law school (though I did once have a client get bit by this with “squatters” of a sort - squirrels in a crawlspace that chewed up some wiring).
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.