You must log in or register to comment.
This stuff always ends up being propaganda for landlords
Why even go to the authorities. Get your cousins, some baseball bats and evict them.
Because that’s a felony?
In the south? I thought this was murica!
The court’s decision in Toma’s case may have stemmed from several factors. When Sencuk applied for the protective order, he indicated Toma was a roommate — not the homeowner — so the nature of their relationship may not have been clear to the judge.
Additionally, Sencuk claimed he and Toma had an agreement that he would perform various maintenance and chores around the property in exchange for living in the garage, which may have seemed credible to the court. Toma denies this arrangement ever existed.
However, since the protective order was issued, Sencuk has moved out.
The guy never claimed “squatters rights,” he sought a protective order against the other people in the house and lied to get it, then moved out before it was even issued
The judge who signed this needs to be disbarred. JUDICIAL OVERSIGHT. Can we get some god damn.
This article is such a mess. I have to wonder if AI wrote it.
But the title will be enough for scared homeowners to validate their feelings.
Author: GChPatT
Per the article, takes 15 years of adverse possession to claim squatter’s rights in KY. Order that got homeowner kicked out was a protective order that stemmed from a physical altercation between the “squatter” and one of the homeowner’s roommates.
It takes 15 years of squatting to gain adverse possession. That is to gain ownership of the property, you have to live there for 15 years without the owner making an active effort to stop you.
In most states it’s the opposite, the owner has to attempt to stop you and you have to hold it hostility.
Nebraska for reference
The squatter’s presence and use of the property must be continuous, actual, visible, notorious, distinct, and hostile to the actual property owner’s rights.
Meaning you must openly try to prevent the owners use and they most attempt to prevent yours.
Doesn’t that only mean that you have to be hostile to their rights, not the other way around?
The owner needs to attempt repossession to have a claim and the squatter needs to rebuke every attempt to have a claim.
I don’t think that’s what that means. I believe “hostile” in this sense is closer in meaning to “contrary.” It’s hostile to the owner’s rights, not hostile to the owner.
You have to make it clear that you’re living there with regular upkeep. Mow the lawn, fix up the house, etc. You can’t hide the fact that you’re living there from the owner or neighbors.
If the owner shows up one day and discovers you’ve been living there, they can politely ask you to leave and now you’re officially trespassing and you lose your claim to adverse possession.
If you’ve made it clear that you live there, and your neighbors all know you, but the real owner has never showed up in 15 years, or just doesn’t care and never asked you for rent or asked you to leave, congrats on your new property.
Thats literally what I said… I quoted Nebraska directly.
They don’t mean you have to fight them it means you have to try to prevent their use and they must attempt to prevent yours.
So its like a team sport? Squatters versus homeowners?
in the UK you would need to live there for 10 years
Removed by mod
If you shoot someone in your home who you previously invited into your home, you’re going to prison.
If you tell someone sure. This seems like a situation where the government is almost encouraging you to deal with it on your own. Just make sure you hide any evidence
That right there kids is the reason our prisons are overfull and our schools understaffed.
You know the system is genuinely broken when people can “squat” and force you out of your own home; while you’re still living there.
That’s not what happened, but I agree with you on the thought.
Sencuk and one of Toma’s roommates got into a physical altercation, leading to Sencuk filing an emergency protective order against Toma. The judge granted the order, which forced Toma to stay 500 feet away from them — and his own home, effectively leaving him homeless.
But it was what happened. All because the courts believed Sencuk (the squatter).
That quote says nothing about squatting. it mentions a protective order being issued after a physical altercation occurred.
It’s kinda interesting situation. In a situation like this, what is the best course of action? If someone in a household is assaulting another, one party is going to end up kicked out when th law gets involved. So why should ownership be a mitigating factor?
Yeah it’s a messy situation that the media is trying to spin into some rage-bait headline. A similar scenario would be a husband beating up his stay-at-home wife, who then gets a protective order against him. The headline here could also read “squatter uses courts to get homeowner kicked out of his own property” and half of the people who see it would skip reading the details and start ranting about “the rights of homeowners!, this country is going to shit!, and blah blah blah.”
Sigh. You’re right. It’s not like the “physical altercation” didn’t occur because the guy who got assaulted was trying to claim squatter’s rights and wouldn’t leave the house that he didn’t live in.
What was I thinking? 🤦♂️
What does that even mean? Is that a roundabout way of saying that this guy deserved to be assaulted and that a homeowner can, or should be able to, physically harm anyone in their home for any reason simply because they own it?
You sure the guy who was assaulted didn’t live there? It seems they quoted the homeowner right in the headline as saying “I let my friends live in my garage for months.”
It seems like you’re Just making up your own story and your own facts at this point.
Squatting has nothing to do with your quote, or anything else.
