The owner apparently leased the house to the person that is now the squatter, but had to evict everyone because the house was uninhabitable.
The squatter claims that she fixed the problem, and has a construction lien on the house. But, she also filed a claim with the city, saying the house was "abandoned".
I don't know how much of this is true. In typical form, the reporter didn't bother to check out any of these claims: asking for a copy of the lease, checking for a construction lien (that's public record), or doing basic legwork to determine who is telling the whole truth.
Before buying a house about 10 years ago my lawyer called me one day and said there might be a problem.He said that the property's boundaries,as recorded with the county,may be off by a few feet and,as a result,the house next door may be occupying some land that should belong to me when I close.He said it was a problem because of what he called "adverse possession" which,he said,could result in the people next door being able to legally claim the land in question even though they didn't pay for it.
I wonder if the same thing might be in play here.
It’s a common scam to claim you have a lease or have paid rent, though.
It’s also common for con men to rent or lease a house they don’t own.
That's what the squatter claims, but the owner disputes that.
Surely the squatter would have a copy of the lease if true.