Need somehwere to live? Take someone else's House

How is this possible?

http://denver.cbslocal.com/2012/07/28/s ... co=cfd-1.0

CBS4 first met Troy and Dayna Donovan and their two young children in a relative’s basement in Greeley. The family of four was living in one room because their house was taken over when they were out of town.

Last August the Donovans moved to Indiana to pursue a job opportunity. They winterized their home on South Mabre Court and left for the Midwest for eight months. To their surprise, when they returned, a new family was living in their home, claiming they had a legal right to do so.

......and this:

The Donovans were required to provide as many movers as necessary to empty the home in one hour.

Why should moving expenses be their responsibility at all?

This is like something right out of the Twilight Zone. These squatters should've been forcefully ejected and jailed for these actions. Welcome to the new world where anybody can lay claim to what is yours just by showing up.

Oh man, I saw that and it just blows me away! I can understand that the squatters were swindled, but, they "purchased stolen property". What happens when you buy stolen goods? You lose them, and it's not some point in the future, it's the instant the theft is discovered. For a judge to allow the squatters to stay is way, way out of line. Can you imagine getting stopped in a stolen car and having a judge say "You will probably have to return it, we'll see in a few months". BULL! You would not drive that car one more inch! The squatters should have been out that day. If they had no place to go they would be shown the local shelter as any homeless family would.

WOW ....

.... politely asked them to leave ......

????
Are you kidding?? I'd have snapped!! I'd have that whole family outside - with all their *censored* too - in about 3 minutes. I'll be damned if I have to sleep somewhere else because somebody stole my house!!

But then again that would never happen here - not in this neighborhood.

I'm still trying to figure out how that could happen, what does Indiana do just have a pink slip & no taxes or fees involved when you sell a home? You got to wonder how, when & why some of these laws were ever put on the books & why when no longer needed or replaced are never removed. Don't know why some laws were ever needed but different times & areas have done some strange things.

Freddy wrote: For a judge to allow the squatters to stay is way, way out of line.

The issue I believe Freddy is the law itself because the property was "abandoned" or at east that is claim of the squatters and the guy involved with selling the property. I haven't read up on it but it's probably some 150 year old law that made sense 150 years ago. At this point in time the claim for bankruptcy should be moot since it's been determined they have no legal right to reside there. They set up a lot of these laws to protect people which I can understand to some degree but when you get someone that knows how to work the system it becomes a nightmare for a family like this that can't live in their own home.

Richard S. wrote:because the property was "abandoned"

I did a quick search for the Colorado law of "adverse possession". The property must be abandoned for eighteen years!!! It is only common sense that the owner could show the judge the taxes were paid and that proves it was not abandoned.... and then for the judge to say nothing can be done while a bankruptcy is on going.... bull crap! This whole think stinks and I'd be calling my state representatives and asking why a judge with zero common sense is allowed to get a paycheck. Grrrrrrr

A few years back in Mass some landlords had a problem with a squatter moving into vacant apartments, paying a couple of months rent then refusing to pay any more. He then forced the landlords to go to court for eviction procedures which could take several months.

Just when the eviction was about to happen, he would call the city housing board and complain about a minor perceived violation like the light bulb in the bathroom was broken, delaying eviction.

Finally, after the property owner was able to get him out (losing a few thousand dollars in the process) the man would just move into another apartment.

I know that this a problem not only in Mass but almost everywhere. Some people know how to play the game and screw everyone else in the process.

See this..

Smart man! He did his legal research well. I believe that in 3 years the house will be fully and legally his!!! I also see this as not being a case where someone else's house was taken, since the owner and the mortgage company (both parties with prior claim to the title) both defaulted and/or went bankrupt.

I see it completely differently in the case brought to us by Richard at the beginning of this thread however.

Both crazy story's, but like I always say when it comes to everything. Know your rights and know the law..

SMITTY wrote:WOW ....

.... politely asked them to leave ......

????
Are you kidding?? I'd have snapped!! I'd have that whole family outside - with all their *censored* too - in about 3 minutes. I'll be damned if I have to sleep somewhere else because somebody stole my house!!

But then again that would never happen here - not in this neighborhood.

smitty would just threaten to fix the guys car, that would get them out quick.

grumpy wrote: Know your rights and know the law..

But in the case of the original story the people that should have the rights have been stripped of them and the law is on the wrong side. Being denied a house that you own and paid for because someone else has moved in is beyond ridiculous. We shouldn't be having this discussion because those people should have been arrested on the spot.

Sounds like the squatters know the law better than anyone.

grumpy wrote:Sounds like the squatters know the law better than anyone.

Apparently if they posses the property for 18 years without anyone else claiming it they can actually own it. That's not the case here because they will obviously never live there for 18 years, the Realtor was taking advantage of both the people that "purchased" the home for $5K and the homeowners.