Squatters "Rights"?

I'm surprised no one else posted this--

Marcy Kaptur tells homeowners facing eviction to exercise their squatter's rights. She told Congress earlier this month, "I say to the American people, you be squatters in your own homes. Don't you leave," and was interviewed by Lou Dobbs last week on the subject.

Read the Blade story here:http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090131/NEWS16/901310383/0/SPORTS08

I'm no lawyer, but I do have the magic of the Internet : ), which means I could be way off .... the definition of squatter's rights hinges on the "absence" of the real owner, and/or the absence of any documentation demonstrating ownership for a minimum 10-20 years. If a bank were to send an eviction notice because the mortgagee breached contract, it would seem to me that the squatter has no legal ground to stay and they can expect the Sheriff to come a knocking in 31 days.

If I stayed and the bank had a problem with it, they could come and change the locks
while I am at work, and then I'd have to negotiate to get my possessions. This is customary with rental properties. (Side note: A bank just sent a locksmith to the house across the street that went into foreclosure in October. In Gladys Kravitz fashion, I watched them take the doors off the hinges and change the locks).

I found a couple of things online regarding people living in other family member's homes claiming squatters rights because they made the house payments and paid the taxes. According to the legal advice these people received, in these cases, the "adverse possession" might have legal basis.

The people Kaptur is talking to would not be making payments and would likely be behind in taxes as well.

I think she is right to tell people to hang on and to try to work something out, but calling for squatter's rights may not have been the wisest choice of words--unless you are trying to call attention to the issue, of course....

Your rating: None Average: 1 (1 vote)

I think one of the main points was to make the banks produce the note.

"Sandusky lawyer Dan McGookle, who is representing a homeowner trying to have a predatory loan rescinded, said mortgage firms may not be able to prove they complied with truth-in-lending laws and other state and federal procedures.

"We have strong reason to believe that a majority of the mortgage loans made in the last 10 years are defective - unenforceable for various reasons," Mr. McGookle said."

Pink Slip

That makes sense...there ahs been some major shuffling of the paperwork for mortgages as the original lenders sell them off....

Nonetheless, people should not get off scot-free. They should be made to pay something (a negotiated settlement?) to secure ownership of the house.

Why would they have to negotiate a settlement? The ownership of the property is NOT IN QUESTION. The people in the house DO NOT OWN IT. The paperwork is merely lost through obfuscation, but with enough effort an audit trail can be accomplished. Even if not for some bizarre reason, then the LAST OWNER OF RECORD is easily found, and the property should be returned to him, and the last owner (an unknown bank) can try to get the property back from him when they materialize.

What we're dealing with here is the Cult of Home Ownership in the USA. It's distorting the topic so that people don't even address the right factors to begin with.

HomeDEBTor: "I own this house!"
Me: "If you own it, why are you making payments on it?"
HomeDEBTor: "Obama will save me and make what you're saying ILLEGAL!"

No. The META point here is for some fucking asshole to try to live in housing for nothing.

I paid CASH for my property. Should I now claim I was ripped off by the terms and sue the previous owner for relief?

No? Then why do the morons who have mortgages get that privilege?!?!

If you can't afford to live in a property that YOU BORROWED TOO MUCH MONEY to acquire, then you should leave.

That's what burns me so deeply when I hear all this BULLSHIT. There is ALREADY a valid and legal recourse for all these bad loans; it's called FORECLOSURE, and you have to leave the house, and it's NOT YOURS!

After all, what's YOURS is what you PAY for. These deadbeats didn't pay for it.

And I don't want to hear ANY whining about "oh, but they will be homeless". We have a HUGE glut of housing in the USA. YOU CAN ALWAYS RENT.

I think it's important to repeat this part:

"mortgage firms may not be able to prove they complied with truth-in-lending laws and other state and federal procedures"

There's two sides to a contract. If one side is acting illegally, there needs to be recourse. Foreclosure isn't the ONLY option

Pink Slip

Then lets get the FBI working on THIS instead of finding the army of nonexistent terrorists. Investigate and prosecute.

But you STILL don't get to keep the house. YOU DIDN'T PAY FOR IT.

More info:

http://i3.democracynow.org/2009/2/3/rep_marcy_kaptur_d_oh_urges

Maybe the local radio station should have her on to explain this to Toledoans. Or is she banned too?

Pink Slip

And, NOW, what does she do to get T.V. time??! She advocates citizens, to break the LAW !! Most rational voters would have put this dead horse out to pasture...not Toledo / Lucas county voters ! They are WAY TOO informed for that !! Little Detroit, is such a lovely town, CITIZENS and BUSINESSES are FLEEING ... ENMASSE !!!!

As bad as Marcy Kaptur is, Broka is worse.

From the interview: KATHY BROKA: The single act would be for the banks to do what they say they’ve been doing for months and years: just do what you say you’re doing

That's what the banks want the borrowers to do: just do what you promised to do. Make your payment. That's all the banks are asking.

Then Broka starts whining about 'workouts' and how, somehow or other, the workouts aren't working because it's someone else at fault. It isn't the borrower's fault. It can't be, because that would be wrong.

Look Broka (and others like her), if I borrow $150,000 at 5.5% over 25 years, my payments are $921.13 per Month or $11,053.56 per year. At the end of 25 years, I'll have given the lender $276,339, which is $126,339 more than I borrowed. That's the deal the lender offers, and that's the deal I accepted.

Now if I can't pay, the 'workout' is that I sell the house and pay the lender off. We all go our separate ways. If I can't do that, I have no business taking out the loan and the lender has no business lending me the money.

No one really wants a foreclosure. The lender wants their money - how does that make the lender a bad person?

Mad Jack
Mad Jack's Shack

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.