Family returns home to find it sold to Squatters

[Lachrymose]

I kind of hate blowing the $150.00/mo. on the MPI. I think it will be 7 years or so before that goes away if I maintain payments as I am.

But yeah, it was me trying to maintain sanity by moving to a place with no shared walls. So, in a way, it was an impulse move. But I couldn't take the noise any more. (People have mentioned something about getting used to noise in another thread...nope..not me. Someone would have ended up hurt. Even if it was me.)

Sanity has been mostly preserved.

[Jetfire]

I can see it. In fact I'm surprised it's so rare.

Think about it, the housing market went bust and banks are foreclosing on properties left, right, and centre often kicking people out with only the clothes on their back. All it takes is a scammer with some official looking paperwork and a for sale sign. They find a house that's not terribly secured, change the locks stick the sign up and tell the new people "The house was foreclosed and we need to sell it fast so we're offering it for dirt cheap!" They get the money, get the people to sign the bogus paperwork and BAM! off and running before the true owners return.

It's not all that rare actually; but it is usually done at the Rental level. Some unscrupulous scammer will take some random photos of a house or apartment building, and list on CraigsList or Kijiji that they have an apartment/house to rent. People rent it, often site unseen (bad on their part but surprisingly common), and when they finally do come to claim their new rental, they discover someone already living there who has always lived there. Common especially in University towns.

Sounds like this case was an extension of that scam that someone got away with (more or less)

[PepperElf]

http://statelaws.findlaw.com/propert...se-possession/

Adverse possession laws allow people who move onto property and possess it in an open and obvious public manner to potentially acquire title, after a certain amount of time.

The problem here is that "a certain amount of time" in Colorado is 18 years. And the landowner still has 2 years to challenge it.

The owners finally moved out less than ONE year ago, which means the "adverse possession" requirements for CO weren't even close to being met.


I mean I have seen cases where it's been allowed - I saw a case where a man paid 16 bucks to file a claim that he was taking over an abandoned property, but in that case the original owner still owed money and the bank had given up on the property.

But in this case... the family still owned the property and weren't behind on payments it seems so... yeah that's fucked up.

[bainsidhe]

Ok I was curious for an update, so I used my google-fu and found the following.

http://denver.cbslocal.com/2012/07/2...judges-ruling/

How friggin' stupid is this?!? They had to prove it was their own home and then even after going to court and winning, they still can't move in. Why? Because the squatters got a restraining order against the owners and then refused to move. Owners had to hire a sheriff and were required to have enough movers on-hand to remove all possessions quickly (why should the owners be responsible for that cost!) and THEN the squatters file bankruptcy. And because of that, the owners have to go to court AGAIN, which could take weeks/months (not to mention cost!) before the courts rule they get their own home back. At which point, good luck getting the assholes to move!!

What the hell does bankruptcy have to do with anything? They had no contract with the owners and no lease. They are trespassing.

Just reading about this completely pisses me off.

[TheHuckster]

These squatters are professional scammers, plain and simple. After reading this, I remove all doubt that they knew what they were doing from the start and were possibly even in cahoots with the "realtor" who "sold" the property. What's sad is in the end they'll simply be forced to leave the property but won't be charged with anything, and they'll do the same thing all over again in some other town.

[Andara Bledin]

Oh. Yeah. With the trouble they're giving the owners (particularly with the bankruptcy play), I have no doubt at all that they are professional scammers.

At this point, I kind of hope that the moving van (while not being driven) burns to the ground with every belonging they own inside.

^-.-^

[bainsidhe]

These squatters are professional scammers, plain and simple.

I have to agree. The judge allowed them to plead their case, but warned them that anything they said could be used against them. So the scammers (ahem, squatters) chose to say nothing. This suggests they KNEW it was a scam. And their current actions support it even more.

Thing is, I understand about the whole process of tenant/eviction, even if I don't agree with it when someone never had permission in the first place and they're trespassing. But why does bankruptcy affect anything and why would it give the squatters temporary protection? The owners are not creditors and per the courts, the squatters do not have any legal right to be there.

[s_stabeler]

bamkruptcy matters because the only way to (legally) remove someone from a house is eviction. That si then stayed during bankruptcy, and now the donovans yet again need to prove the home is theirs. Still, while this is an absolute asshole move on the part of the scammers, this is just about the last thing they can do. ( technically then can appeal the ruling of the bakruptcy court, but that would be rejected in short order) so while it is likely to take some time, bankruptcy cases tend to be fairly quick. I would imagine it depends on how long it'll take to come before a judge. After that, i don't think the judge'll take long to throw out the bankruptcy, allowing eviction to proceed.

[bainsidhe]

It stays an eviction, even AFTER it's been approved by the courts and the 48 hours they had to leave has passed? So frustrating that the police still call it a civil matter, when at that point it should be criminal. The bankruptcy filings was after all of this.

And good luck getting a quick case before the judge. When my father filed bankruptcy, it took most of a year before hitting the courts. As soon as he retained a lawyer, his creditors were basically put on hold. Yet it took months to scrounge enough money to pay the lawyers bill (he was prepaid). So almost a year passed until everything went through the courts, meanwhile the creditors were left hanging. So yeah, this could take a while.

[s_stabeler]

yes, it stays an eviction, though you might be able to argue contempt of court. Eviction is the enforcement of an order of possession, which formally grants possession of the property back to the rightful owner. ( in a more traditional eviction, the tenant's lease must be ended first, then you evict as with squatters) Then enforecement is carried out by the sheriff, to minimise the potential for claims the landlord broke the tenant's stuff. (the same reason the owner went through and documented the condition of the tenent's stuff, by the way)

basically, the system is designed to have several protections because the assumption is that the squatters have no-where else to go.

ultimately, though, I think we can all agree that the scammers should GTFO of the house, allowing the family to return. Lord knows what damage the scammers will do in the meantime.

[lordlundar]

At this point I'm inclined to say shoot them and claim castle doctrine.

[Aethian]

I'm moving right now into a house I'm buying on a 2 year lease-to-buy. I came by one day to find cars in the driveway and a lady happily came up to the mail truck asking for a change of address card because they were going to be moving in. I stared at her blankly for a second before asking...very dumbly... "What?"

She repeated that their realtor was having his secretary draft up the papers for them to sign and they were going to be moving into this lovely little house. I took no pleasure in informing her that her dream is a lie... I had already signed papers on the house with the owner of the house, two days prior.

When I informed my, technical, landlord he told me that he had already been angerly informed by the other realtor that I had cost him a commission on the house and that I should be kicked to the curb.


Some realtors...don't need their licenses.

[bainsidhe]

Aethian, that's unnerving as hell. So the realtor not only promised them this home, but thought he could forgo the whole bidding process. I hope someone made a complaint to whatever agency regulates realtors.

[Aethian]

Aethian, that's unnerving as hell. So the realtor not only promised them this home, but thought he could forgo the whole bidding process. I hope someone made a complaint to whatever agency regulates realtors.

It's not the bidding process that he tried going against. The property wasn't even listed with the realtor companies. The rouge realtor just happened to notice the sign that proclaimed the house for lease cause we hadn't had a chance to take down the sign yet.

And yea my, landlord, has made a complaint and made sure ALL of his other properties are being removed from the system. He's had more then a few problems with agents promising the homes for rent when he only does lease-to-own's.

[MrsEclipse]

Okay, I don't know exactly how to say this, but this is the gist of what I'm thinking:

All of the protections that the squatters are getting in the law should only count if the person had a right to be in the house in the first place. The phrase "tenants" keeps coming up in reference to them, but they are NOT tenants. And how the hell did they get a restraining order?