- Joined
- Jun 9, 2016
squatter's rights are often very poorly understood. adverse possession claims are where someone occupies or has tenancy (authorized or not) to a property for a period of time and satisfies various state required tests to formally "take over" a property from the title holder through litigation.
generally speaking, all US states require:
1. the squatter to occupy a property for several years (CA, where i worked law enforcement, has the most lenient in the country iirc and i've had to walk away from trespass complaints because of tenancy claims and i had no reasonable means to immediately determine if a crime was actually committed, so i'd write a report and tell them to bring it to court)
2. secure the property from casual public traversal and make efforts to control access (locks on doors, putting up fences, et c)
3. install improvements like electricity or water utility hook ups, the property isn't derelict and is actively being repaired or has obviously been repaired or modified in reasonable manner (so sledgehammered walls isn't "home improvement", but painting the exterior or tiling a bathroom is).
4. continuous utilization (living at the location without interruption, don't leave it vacant for any significant period of time).
5. pay taxes on a property and have evidence of paying various other fixed costs and having services tied to the property spanning a lengthy period of time (mail services, DMV has the address on file, et c)
doing the above can tender a claim to tenancy (civil court) rather than trespass (criminal court).
"living there illegally" isn't really a thing, either you are trespassing or not. trespass is a crime (in CA it's a felony in most situations). squatting is not a crime until the actual owner has advised the squatter to leave and the police are called for a trespass complaint. the squatter would then offer evidence to the responding officer that they are not trespassing, but they instead have genuine claim to the property. this then becomes adverse possession and is something for the court to determine. there's other stuff regarding lodging/loitering, or implied vs explicit consent, et c, but that's not really the topic at hand.
basically, two years isn't enough time of tenancy to claim adverse possession. CA allows five years, the least of any state so i have to assume that wherever the property is has stricter laws than CA does. as for the mortgage payments: documented payments to someone that claims ownership of a property is extremely persuasive proof that the person isn't a squatter, but a tenant - and Blair would have to go through the eviction process. skipping that process can be a criminal offense in some jurisdictions because a landlord cannot trespass in an occupied unit without notice (typically with several days of prior notice to allow for a response), nor can they interfere with the enjoyment of the property without due cause (yearly inspections, damage, emergencies like fires, et c this stuff varies a lot).
Last edited:
