Social LeBron James 'Concerned' by Squatters Near His California Home

[BAM]

Not really, squatters can be pretty difficult to get rid of and it will often require going to court to do it legally.

Ideally yes but such a situation can lead to squatting. The main issue is trying to determine whether a squatter has any sort of tenant rights which involves a legal process.

you're conflating things a bit.

Tenants have tenants rights, which is just renting, not owning. If there is an expired lease, they're still tenants with a rolled over contract. So, there a separate process for ending that contractual relationship. That's eviction.

Squatters have no tenancy rights, but they can potentially argue adverse possession - ie ownership rights. And the actual owner then argues their right to possession should trump the squatters' and the court engages in a multi-factorial analysis. For the squatter to win, they need to be there years, improve the land, be known in the area and for the title holder to do sweet nothing for an extended period of time. I don't think it's all that common.

If somebody just pops into your house for a few months while you are away, they are trespassing, you issue some sort of notice of trespass that you are enforcing your rights and asking them to leave. If they don't leave, you need to go to the court and get some sort of order for ejectment (different names for this). Should take only a month or two to go through that process, or sooner (depends on the detriment to the parties). And if there is a technical loophole affecting ejectment, then the state needs to fix it.

edited - for clarity re terms

 

[Sweater of AV]

you're conflating things a bit.

Tenants have tenants rights, which is just renting, not owning. If there is an expired lease, they're still tenants. So, there a separate process for ending that relationship. That's eviction.

Squatters argue adverse possession - ie ownership rights. And the actual owner then argues their right to possession should trump the squatters' and the court engages in a multi-factorial analysis. For the squatter to win, they need to be there years, improve the land, be known in the area and for the title holder to do sweet nothing for an extended period of time. I don't think it's all that common.

If somebody just pops into your house for a few months, they are trespassing, you issue some sort of notice of trespass that you are enforcing your rights and asking them to leave. If they don't leave, you need to go to the court and get some sort of order for ejectment (different names for this). Should take only a month or two to go through that process, or sooner (depends on the detriment to the parties). And if there is a technical loophole affecting ejectment, then the state needs to fix it.

No, you're conflating things. Squatters are rarely arguing they have squatter's rights. Adverse possession and squatter's rights mean the same thing and in many states require continuous occupation for a long period of time (10 years in NY and Texas for instance) plus paying property tax etc.

The squatters you're seeing are arguing they have tenancy rights, ie they have a lease which they may have forged, paid utility bills etc. Virtually all of these cases go to court to determine whether the homeowner can prove the squatter isn't a tenant.

I've written this multiple times but no harm in writing it again:

You have to make sure you're saying the correct things. It's not because of squatter's rights. It's because of tenant rights. The issue is that the homeowner has to go through a formal eviction process in order to prove that squatters aren't tenants. There's a whole deeper issue between landlords and tenants that people are ignoring.

People keep throwing around "squatter's rights" without knowing what it means. In and of themselves, squatters don't have rights until the proper conditions have been met (for instance, 10 years in some states plus other conditions like paying property tax etc).

I'll add something that seems to be commonly happening is someone will break into an empty home, change the locks, rent the house out to people who believe they are legitimately renting the place and then keep collecting rent until the homeowner finds out. At that point, the fake landlord disappears and the people who were renting are now labeled "squatters." The courts are then needed to figure out what the hell is going on.

 

[BAM]

No, you're conflating things. Squatters are rarely arguing they have squatter's rights. Adverse possession and squatter's rights mean the same thing and in many states require continuous occupation for a long period of time (10 years in NY and Texas for instance) plus paying property tax etc.

The squatters you're seeing are arguing they have tenancy rights, ie they have a lease which they may have forged, paid utility bills etc. Virtually all of these cases go to court to determine whether the homeowner can prove the squatter isn't a tenant.

I've written this multiple times but no harm in writing it again:

I'll add something that seems to be commonly happening is someone will break into an empty home, change the locks, rent the house out to people who believe they are legitimately renting the place and then keep collecting rent until the homeowner finds out. At that point, the fake landlord disappears and the people who were renting are now labeled "squatters." The courts are then needed to figure out what the hell is going on.

I was speaking generally not about the OP. There the issue seems to be standing. The guy making applications to get rid of them doesn't have ownership yet. It's up to MDRCA to get rid of the partiers until he gets ownership. Given they are in bankruptcy and there is no risk of squatter's rights being claimed (not enough time in possession), they aren't moving on it. So the partiers are there and there's nothing Scapa can do about it, as he's just a creditor at the moment. He needs an administrator of the MDRCA to finalise that bankruptcy, as there are likely other creditors against MDRCA, which could take a while.

Jeff Scapa, a private mortgage lender, told DailyMail.com he loaned $3.8million to the current owner, a company called MDRCA Properties LLC.

Scapa said a court ruled he could foreclose on the home, but that process was frozen when MDRCA filed for bankruptcy last month.

Scapa said he discovered squatters had taken over the home in October last year, and shared videos with DailyMail.com he took of one man admitting he started moving his belongings into the house 'the first week of October'.

Generally speaking, there are no squatters' rights being claimed by anyone. Following the standing/ownership issue being eventually resolved, the question is merely are they renters, if so which kind (fixed vs periodic). Most legislation will differentiate between ending a fixed term vs a periodic. But given the bankruptcy, we aren't there yet, so they will remain.

If the 'renters' cannot prove an existing tenancy, then they are trespassers and can be ejected fairly quickly. If they are found to be lawful tenants, then depending on whether it is fixed term v periodic, then the eventual owners would need to engage in eviction proceedings, which typically requires written notice and the relevant time to elapse.

 

[Sweater of AV]

I was speaking generally not about the OP. There the issue seems to be standing. The guy making applications to get rid of them doesn't have ownership yet. It's up to MDRCA to get rid of the partiers until he gets ownership. Given they are in bankruptcy and there is no risk of adverse possession, they aren't moving on it. So the partiers are there and there's nothing Scapa can do about it, as he's just a creditor at the moment. He needs an administrator of the MDRCA to finalise that bankruptcy, as there are likely other creditors against MDRCA, which could take a while.



Generally speaking, there is no squatting involved as there is no adverse possession being claimed by anyone. Following the standing/ownership issue being eventually resolved, the question is merely are they renters, if so which kind (fixed vs periodic). Most legislation will differentiate between ending a fixed term vs a periodic. But given the bankruptcy, we aren't there yet, so they will remain.

If the 'renters' cannot prove an existing tenancy, then they are trespassers and can be ejected fairly quickly. If they are found to be lawful tenants, then depending on whether it is fixed term v periodic, then the eventual owners would need to engage in eviction proceedings, which typically requires written notice and the relevant time to elapse.

Bud no offense but you don't understand what you're trying to talk about and now you're confused about what it means to be a squatter:

"Generally speaking, there is no squatting involved as there is no adverse possession being claimed by anyone."

I encourage you to look up what constitutes being a squatter. If you're still confused then I don't know what to tell you. My previous post outlines everything clearly so if anyone reading the thread is similarly confused then I suggest looking at that.

 

[BAM]

Bud no offense but you don't understand what you're trying to talk about and now you're confused about what it means to be a squatter:

"Generally speaking, there is no squatting involved as there is no adverse possession being claimed by anyone."

I encourage you to look up what constitutes being a squatter. If you're still confused then I don't know what to tell you. My previous post outlines everything clearly so if anyone reading the thread is similarly confused then I suggest looking at that.

A squatter can potentially claim ownership of the land through adverse possession principles. It's rare. Takes years.

Trespassers are on your land without permission and no right to it - contractual or ownership. What most people call 'squatting' is just trespass.

And yeah, I do know what I'm talking about. I've evicted tenants and ejected trespassers.

edit - from another country with similar legal principles re adverse possession, the main thing to focus on is the principles, not the thing the person is called. I laid out the pathway in my above post. I will edit it to include 'rights' to avoid naming confusion.

 

[Sweater of AV]

A squatter claims possession of the land through adverse possession principles. It's rare.

Trespassers are on your land without permission and no right to it - contractual or ownership.

And yeah, I do know what I'm talking about. I've evicted tenants and ejected trespassers. People use 'squatter' to refer to 'trespass' interchangeably, but they can mean different things depending on where you live.

It's rare for adverse possession to occur but squatters themselves, and squatting in general, is not rare. And yes, there is a distinction between trespassers and squatters which is often not clear and can depend on where you live. However, it's easy to understand why almosts all of these cases are deemed squatting:

https://www.jlegal.org/blog/california-squatters-rights-everything-you-need-to-know/

Trespassing and squatting are not the same thing legally. With trespassing, someone enters the property without permission. Squatting involves taking up residence without permission. So squatting includes trespassing along with unlawfully living on the property.

What are Squatters' Rights?

Squatter’s rights allow a squatter to continue their use/occupation of a property in the event that the true owner or landlord does not take action.

andersonadvisors.com

A squatter is anyone who begins to inhabit a piece of property or land without the legal right to do so. In other words, they are not renting the property from the owner (where landlord-tenant law comes into play) and they do not have permission to use it.

What Every Landlord Needs to Know About Squatter's Rights

What if you find a squatter in your rental property? Here are some necessary steps to take while considering the squatter's rights.

www.baymgmtgroup.com

When you think of a squatter, you may think of someone breaking into your home. However, there are a few different scenarios in which you may be dealing with an unauthorized tenant. A squatter is someone who unlawfully takes occupancy of an uninhabited residence.

Some common examples of situations that lead to squatters include:

• Anyone who breaks into a vacant property and takes residence
• An authorized tenant who refuses to pay rent or vacate when the lease expires
• The victim of a scammer that posts fraudulent rental ads and collects rent payments

That said, there’s a difference between squatters and trespassers. Trespassers enter the property illegally but typically don’t take occupancy. Additionally, trespassing can result in arrest and a criminal charge. However, it becomes a civil matter when you discover squatters and requires an eviction process.

 

[BAM]

@Sweater of AV

I identified where I believe the disconnect was - in my shorthand, I deal with this stuff in Australia. The substance of the posts, being the shared common law inherited from England, is exactly the same and hasn't changed. Have a read through my posts again. The whole thing should read clearer now following edits and clarifications.

And if you are seeking further clarity on the Scapa issue, it would be to look at California legislation re ejectment vs residential tenancy laws, as the legislation can override the common law.

But, I've laid it out in a nutshell, and I identified the real issue frustrating Scapa - standing. He doesn't have it yet and can't do anything.

 

[Sweater of AV]

@Sweater of AV

I identified where I believe the disconnect was - in my shorthand, I deal with this stuff in Australia. The substance of the posts, being the shared common law inherited from England, is exactly the same and hasn't changed. Have a read through my posts again. The whole thing should read clearer now following edits and clarifications.

And if you are seeking further clarity on the Scapa issue, it would be to look at California legislation re ejectment vs residential tenancy laws, as the legislation can override the common law.

But, I've laid it out in a nutshell, and I identified the real issue frustrating Scapa - standing. He doesn't have it yet and can't do anything.

No worries bud, this has kind of turned into a mess. I think we're both fairly content with each of our perspectives on the matter relative to where we live so we can leave it at that.

 

[Ramon Antonio]

You’d think he could afford some private security.

 

[Scerpi]

Gov. DeSantis signs bill targeting residential 'squatters'

Gov. Ron DeSantis on Wednesday signed a bill aimed at quickly removing residential "squatters."

www.cbsnews.com

Florida signed a law that goes info effect July that gives the homeowners the ability to contact law enforcement to immediately remove the squatters.


The individual has unlawfully entered and remains on the property
• The individual has been directed to leave the property by the owner but has not done so; and
• The individual is not a current or former tenant in a legal dispute.

The law makes it:
• A first-degree misdemeanor for making a false statement in writing to obtain real property or for knowingly and willfully presenting a falsified document conveying property rights;
• A second-degree felony for any person who unlawfully occupies or trespasses in a residential dwelling and who intentionally causes $1,000 or more in damages; and
• A first-degree felony for knowingly advertising the sale or rent of a residential property without legal authority or ownership.

These laws can’t come too soon

 

[Ornife]

These laws can’t come too soon

You can't reason with the amagdyla-people. Their entire lives are a series of fight or flight reactions and poor decision making.

 

[Scerpi]

Who the hell is paying the electric bill? How is the power still on? What a weird story.

No way the power is on. The bill is likely a $1,000/mon or a lot more

If they’re using it for parties, maybe they just bring generators

The pools probably are dark green and nasty

 

[Scerpi]

You can't reason with the amagdyla-people. Their entire lives are a series of fight or flight reactions and poor decision making.

What kind of people? Never heard that term before

 

[method115]

I don't support squatters rights but this is kind of hilarious. I should go find an empty 5 million dollar home and just post up and rent out rooms for $300 a night like these clowns.

Apparently I've read this how some squatters got screwed. They think they are renting a home from someone but it's a scammer with a fake lease (probably a really good deal for the area I imagine) . The person pretends to lease the home to you, you move in, and then get called a squatter.

 

[SalvadorAllende]

These laws can’t come too soon

Damn. he should let that woman enter his property and beat the shit out of her. Then proceed to do the same with the two bozos that were outside.

You guys have some weird rules.

Here squatters do not get much love. My father kicked a few off last year.. they were trying to install themselves into my uncles field (in the countryside). Old man called the cops and they kicked them out in no time.

A man I know disconnected the electricity and gas into an apartment when the tenants stopped paying rent for months and stopped taking his calls. They had no choice that to leave.

 

[SalvadorAllende]

I don't support squatters rights but this is kind of hilarious. I should go find an empty 5 million dollar home and just post up and rent out rooms for $300 a night like these clowns.

The owners have zero creativity. They should just hire a few rough guys, pay them the 300 dollars to stay one night and some more to kick the squatters out next day.

 

[Rational Poster]

What is it with squatters at the moment

it's been a problem for as long as squatters rights have been a thing, yet this week every media outlet and shit head celebrity is talking about it.

It's a deliberate social media influence campaign from foreign governments amplifying these stories and the accounts that spread them.

 

[Culombo]

I'm surprised with their status and influence that they haven't been able to get rid of these people

 

[cooks1]

This whole thing about squatters absolutely fascinates me......I've been doing my research.......And I think I have found my 'post retirement' side gig calling.

Squatters have more rights than landlords. BUT legal tenants have more rights than squatters or landlords. I am going to offer my services as a 'paid legal tenant' to property owners with squatters.

For an under the table payment, I will sign a lease with a property owner with squatters. I will 'rent' their property. I will go there, kick out the squatters, take up residence, and change the locks. The squatters have recourse against the property owners. But not against me, a legal tenant. If they call the cops-fine. I can produce a rental agreement, they can not. The squatters then have to take both me and the property owner to court while they are NOT living in the property. As opposed to the property owner taking them to court while they still are in it.

It's a viable plan with precedent.

Nevada man turns the tables on squatters — by ‘squatting’ himself

A Nevada handyman turned the tables on squatters who invaded his mother’s California home, after local officials said they could offer no assistance getting them out.

nypost.com

Sounds like a blast.

 

[Corona]

Those parties sound lit