He’s a squatter who has been squatting on private property for 27 years, living for free. If all the liberal do-gooders like him so much, maybe they can pitch in and buy him a nice cabin on the river so he can continue to live for free. But instead, they paint the land owner who wants to build his own riverfront cabin on his own land as the bad guy.
Not sure what kind of compromise the squatter expects. Does someone need to build him a new cabin? He also has 4 kids and a brother, none of them seem to be in contact with him.
He’s not really a squatter. He was a guest. He lived there with permission of the owner. He should thank the owner for the 27 free years of no rent.
Isn’t that what they did for Comrade Bernie?
Meanwhile, in Venice Beach, CA, thousands of filthy bums live on the beach and and control the boardwalk so normal, decent folks cannot go there any longer
The fact that yahoo “news” is writing a sympathetic article tells me all I need to know!
Heck. You’d think with how much the liberals defend tent cities on private and public property they would be all in for this guy.
As a Realtor for many years, these types of cases are studied each year. The laws are different state by state, but adverse possession occurs after a statutory amount of time. Should a land owner not remove someone from the property, they risk losing the property.
Often you see this with property line disputes where fencing is put up wrong and if nothing is done over a period of time. The new property lines can follow what the new fence lines are.
Bottom line is, as a property owner, you need to be aware of what is happening on your property or you could end up on the wrong side of a judge's decision.