Comment

Comment by Misteri on November 29, 2013 at 6:54am

Can you imagine what their light bill is Nick, ridiculous that's what!

Comment by Nick Yaya on November 28, 2013 at 9:46pm

I think any jury would agree that in this case the squatter had no claim. However in the other 11 or 12 cases of homes he claimed, who knows? Maybe he has proper claim. If that's the case I'm going to start going after the "abandoned" second-homes of the super-rich if I can manage it! 

Comment by Frances Farmer on November 28, 2013 at 9:04pm

The common law of property has always linked title to "use" and "control." Squatters could challenge title by being on the property long enough to show had the title holder had control over the property the squatter would have been forced to leave. Use in the form of improvements such as clearing overgrowth and generating taxable revenue was looked upon favorably by authority concerned with ending disputes.

Life, liberty and pursuit of happiness was a hard fought phrase in our Constitution. A few founders thought that "property" should have taken the place of pursuit of happiness as being being an inalienable right, and therefore a duty of the govt to protect. It was by far the most contentious part of drafting the Constitution, and in my opinion the true libertarian spirit won out. The govt should not be the enforcer of the claims of spoil. A legitimate claim will be born out of use and control that serves firstly the individual, a member of a society comprised of those that, like him, walk on two legs and are known by a name given at birth. What an individual can use and control will not go to waste and is not at the expense of others and none is harmed. If a man is rich and powerful enough to employ others to protect more than what he( and by tax revenue and goods society) can benefit from via use and control, he gains an exponential advantage at the expense of others and society by spoil. He becomes that mad man welcome by none of sound mind. And if a good man will wait to know his visitors ill-intentions before he shoots, a wise man knows that visitors with  ill-intentions will surely come, and it matters not whose name is invoked. The individual will seek to preserve his life and wellbeing. It is a law in nature that a full belly will not risk its own life to acquire that which makes him fat and unfit to persevere. We would do well to learn from the beasts. Let us take of this natural law, add to it humanities rationality and moral requisites and call it a covenant among men. A contract that we will to live peaceably, but before even peace, each his preservation.

So too a govt, enforcing a claim of title to waste, is nothing better than a tyrant king and noble select. Better that a govt protect the individuals right to see an opportunity to generate wealth and freedom for himself, and let himself protect what he has acquired, walking to and fro with his sickle, his ox and his arms. What little time he has to spare, let him rest in his home, with gratefulness, and think of the best use of what he has, and forgo interference with others who seek the same. Happiness. In the absence of a property owner, let the govt remain silent on what his employed servants together with his slaves and good-willed neighbors would not fight protect.

Argued something along those lines, anyway.

What we have going on now.... its all backed by the tyranny of a govt that employs the meat of fools who think they will one day be among the elite. Ha.

Bank "owned" homes, especially since '08, are statutorily protected blights. They are often exempted from the requirements on homeowners of maintenance and upkeep. Many are left unsecured and so invite criminal elements and transients. This leads to a decrease in the value of surrounding properties. Bank held homes have different civil liabilities and insurance requirements. Timely tax payments are being waived to banks until the sale of the home to be negotiated at a lower rate. If these properties are in areas that developers are interested in, they may be held indefinitely by banks until enough properties are vacant that the area can be rezoned for commercial projects that will then be financed by those same banks. There have been issues of properties with pools left with fetid water and wild animals/vermin. I did some work with/for some county councilmen and a city councilman of a mid-sized city. I can go on and on.

Comment by Misteri on November 28, 2013 at 3:42pm

Brilliant, Frances Farmer.

Comment by Frances Farmer on November 28, 2013 at 2:24pm

I heard something years ago- I don't know who it is attributed to, but around the time I was studying the social contract, and its always stuck with me:

A man looks out his window and sees another man setting up a tent on the front lawn. The first man is perturbed, and goes out to ask the second man what is going on. The second man says that he hasn't slept and is hungry, so plans to cook over a small fire then sleep in his tent. the first man says that he is the owner of the property and as such denies the second man permission to do so.

The second man tells the first man that he then challenges the first mans claim of ownership, and inquires of the first man how he came to own the property. The first man indignantly reports that it was given to him by his father. The second man laughes and asks how his father came to own it. The first man says it was given to him by his father. The second man is pleased, then asks where how his father acquired the property. The first man, with his fists tight, blurts "He fought for it!" The second man takes off his jacket with resolve, and says, "well then sir, I will fight you for it."

The context of this story is the idea that law will always serve the men that forgot it was satiated brutes who wrote it.

Comment by Robert UnitedWeStand on November 28, 2013 at 1:16pm

Btw the WAY under common law and under the STATES CONSTITUTION and BILL of RIGHTS, ONCE A HOME HAS BEEN ABANDON. You have the LEGAL ability to own it without paying for it. If you don't like your rights then sign them off to the dictator in the white house because camp FEMA is for people like yourself!

Comment by Robert UnitedWeStand on November 28, 2013 at 1:13pm

They were abandon....Stop being such Liberals...If you were stupid enough to abandon a home then you never wanted it to begin with.

Comment by Misteri on November 27, 2013 at 10:34pm

Honor this.......

Comment by Nick Yaya on November 27, 2013 at 9:40pm

Understanding how the law actually works can be of great benefit, especially in these times where banks have lain waste to the housing market. Doing what this guy did is not only legal, but necessary. However, in this case, he should cede back the rights to the family, who has original claim (other than the bank), if they want them, considering they are in default. If he was an "honorable" man he'd sell it back to them under a reorganized loan with better terms.

And for those that are unschooled in the subtleties of common law or "sovereign law", honor, is everything.

Comment by Ragnarok on November 27, 2013 at 8:09pm

Poor family

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page