WTF? Squatters Take Over $2.6MM Home In OC. Owner - And Police - Can't Get Them Out.

[stopbush]

The Real Squatters of OC
Can you really just show up at a multimillion-dollar Newport Coast home and move in without buying it or paying rent? Apparently, yes
By R. SCOTT MOXLEY Thursday, Nov 11 2010

"He doesn’t look like the kind of guy who would own, or even rent, a multimillion-dollar home in one of Orange County’s most exclusive neighborhoods. He does, however, look like the kind of guy who might pull a moving truck up to a vacant home in one of Orange County’s most exclusive neighborhoods, move in uninvited, change the locks and declare himself a permanent resident.

"Which is exactly what he and Robin did on Sept. 19, much to the chagrin of the house’s actual owner. And the neighbors. And the president of the homeowners’ association, who keeps coming by the property in the company of the Newport Beach police, asking the Duncans when they’re going to get the hell out.

"Christopher isn’t big on specifics, but he does suggest a headline for his and Robin’s tale: “Prisoners In Their Own Home: A Newport Coast Story.”

"But, I ask him, how exactly did they even come to consider someone else’s three-bedroom, three-and-a-half-bath pad their “own home”? He stares at me. Then he gives a toothless smile, shakes his head and says, “I’m not allowed to talk about that . . . but we are not squatters.”

"The term “squatting” means to find a seemingly abandoned piece of property—land, a commercial structure or a home—and move in without the knowledge or permission of the owner. You would think taking over property that doesn’t belong to you and occupying it without paying compensation would be flat-out illegal. The first crimes that come to mind (after trespassing) might be burglary or fraud.

"But in California, as in every other state, squatters can have legal rights that shield them for an extended time from police action and irate property owners. The legal concept dates back about 600 years in agrarian European culture, when it was believed it was better to have someone take over a property and make it a home than have it sit unoccupied and become an unproductive eyesore. Though controversial, the notion was handed down to our own legal system at the creation of our country, and it remains largely intact. Some locales around the nation have strengthened squatter rights by treating them as legal tenants after just 30 days."

http://www.ocweekly.com/2010-11-11/news/newport-coast-squatters-christopher-wayne-robin-ann-duncan/

[MrScorpio]

1. It's like an invasion of wealthy enclaves!

Totally subversive and UnAmerican...



Gee, how the hell can we get this to happen more often?

[shugah]

30. many plus n/t

[Kang Colby]

2. wtf?

They should be arrested for breaking and entering / felony trespassing. Low life scum bags.

[Chulanowa]

5. That's right. They should stay on the street! Fucking poor people!

If they wanted to have a roof, they should have fucking thought about that before they decided to be poor, huh?

[liberalhistorian]

8. Being poor doesn't mean you have the right to break the law

and help yourself to the property of others that does not belong to you, particularly the houses of others. And being rich does not mean crimes against you and your property that you rightfully own do not count. I've been poor, and it sure as hell didn't give me the right to move into some stranger's house and make myself at home, uninvited.

[ProudDad]

12. This type of "property" is theft... (n/t)

[liberalhistorian]

23. Really? Someone who legitimately purchases a property,

pays for it, the property taxes and homeowners insurance, that is theft? Right. Okay. Sheesh.

[ProudDad]

83. Yep.

The USAmerican "way of life" is theft from the billions living where the resources are stolen who have nothing...

These types of energy leaching, resource heavy dwellings are theft from Nature and the food chain...

And for the few to accumulate most of the wealth while the many struggle to survive is a theft of the Commons...

So one "thief" is stealing from another... Big Whoop!

[eridani]

31. Why do anarchists always drink herbal tea?

Because proper tea is theft!

[eShirl]

58. I'm stealing that one...

:hide:

[eridani]

107. Go for it--I stole it myself n/t

[Chulanowa]

16. Except they're not breaking the law

Try reading the article at hand, rather than simply punching yourself in the crotch with the fury of your righteous indignation. At worst, it's a legal grey area - there is such a thing as Squatter's Rights that protect people such as this, and doubly serve to keep abandoned and unused houses from either becoming dangerous eyesores or hideaways.

They need a home. The house needs occupants. Now I suppose you'd prefer to see them living in a culvert - where at least these people would "know their place," right? - but legally? They can step into an empty building and use it as anything from shelter to an actual home. The original owner also has rights - He can reclaim the house, if he can get in there and change the locks back. He can have them barricaded out if they both leave. if he doesn't manage to do so in five years, then the law assumes that he was not performing proper upkeep of his property and it defaults to the occupants.

[liberalhistorian]

20. I did read the full article, all five pages of it. Did you?

Obviously not, because then you'd see the true nature of what these people did and it's not as simple as them just being poor, put-upon squatters who needed a home. Not at all. They got into the property under false pretenses and had done it before. They have no right to take over another's property uninvited. It is costing the owner money, as she wants to sell the house but can't because they're there and she can't get them out. Are they paying the utilities? Are they paying the homeowner's insurance, the property taxes, the maintenance? No. Who is? The owner, while she's locked out of her own property.

[Chulanowa]

24. I did.

And the fact remains that what they are doing is not against the law.

Other things they have done and may still be doing are. However, occupying an empty home is not in that number.

I suppose the law should bend to the emotional whims of blog readers.

[Chan790]

45. The problem here for you here is...

this sentence in the middle which is utterly patently false:

"They have no right to take over another's property uninvited."

Twist and argue as you might, you're not going to be able to make night day, black white or false statements truth. Legally, they have that every right. You might say "They should have no right to take over another's property uninvited." and you'd have the kernel of an argument there...but you aren't saying that and as long as you continue to argue from a starting point that is factually unsupportable, everything that follows is fallacy.

[sabrina 1]

88. If they were the U.S. government taking over a sovereign

nation and using up its resources, without even having a loophole, we'd call them 'protecting our security'.

This is our culture, isn't it? They are merely products of the culture they live in. That is America's culture. If you see something you want and the owners won't give it to you, (Saddam and Iraq's Oil) just find a few legal loopholes, or create them if they don't exist, and move right in. Millions of Americans cheered that decision.

But it's usually the Wealthy who do this. People are upset because now a few poor people found a way to occupy someone else's property. Smart people, they belong in our Government!

[readmoreoften]

22. HA! Good catch. When the poor find loopholes in the law, it's not "really the law."

As if this OC second-home owner "works for it." :eyes: My heart is breaking. The homeless are just taking their second mansion, earned by the sweat of their brow.

[Hannah Bell]

201. this case isn't really about the poor. it's about real-estate people trying to make money.

the tenants are just the "front" for hidden interests, i.e. they're not really traditional squatters.

[Blue_Tires]

34. I'd at least have an iota of sympathy for them if they

acknowledged the real owner of the house, and offered the (mostly symbolic) gesture of "Yeah, this is way out of our price range, but we'll promise to keep the place spotless, clean ourselves up and get jobs, and pay what we can in rent until we're back on our feet -- AND we'll sign a contract agreeing to such..."

If I were the owner, that would at least make me pause for consideration...

[Chan790]

46. They lose any protection they have legally to do any of that.

They can't acknowledge the home owner, pay rent or sign a contract...and continue to occupy the residence as they currently are within the law.

[Blue_Tires]

51. ok, i understand...

So they never had any pretense of staying longterm; just until a court order forces them out...Instead of squatters they are more like loophole opportunists perpetually in search of that next high-dollar home to set-up camp...

[COLGATE4]

118. Are you an attorney?

[Chulanowa]

56. "Yeah, this is way out of our price range"

That there is the core of the issue so many people are upset about, it seems. The Duncans are "out of their league," are "reaching past their station," and are all "uppity" to boot. The poor should know their place; if they had decided to occupy a brick shithouse in Compton, we'd understand, but a big expensive house in the OC? Well, that's shocking and untenable! Beyond the pale!

It's always amusing to watch DUers fall over themselves to identify with the wrong side of the war.

[Blue_Tires]

74. All I'm saying is this:

There has to be a more ethical option other than camping out in a mansion with fake paperwork and smugly refusing to pay a penny toward it, and then repeating the process once the court throws them out...This couple -- well, at least the girlfriend -- seem to be pretty resourceful, and know the real estate market and its laws inside and out...You're telling me that the only legit way they can find shelter is by pulling this stunt??

Clearly, there is some middle ground between the extremes of sleeping in the gutter and conning their way into gated communities, so this is not about just finding a dry roof for a few days...And I seriously question the wisdom of crashing a gated community in the first place -- They HAD to have known that once the neighbors found out about them, they were going to be the focus of TONS of unpleasant attention (which is why the schemers have to sneak out in the dead of night just to buy groceries)...Say what you will about some shack in a lesser neighborhood, but at least the Duncans would have blended in and been able to stay much longer...

So hypothetically all I need is a manufactured lease, and a crook to make the paperwork 'official', and I could move into the governor's mansion when nobody is home?? Would I get the same support from you?

Stories like this only make it that much harder for the people who truly have nothing and no options other than sleeping in the park...

[nadinbrzezinski]

79. Actually stories like this one show you the actual split

look, I suspect that squatting is now more common than you believe it is. This case is just very obvious.

Now I will offer some dots for you.

The last time this happened was the Great Depression.

We used to call them Squatter CAMPS, you think that is a coincidence?

It is time to realize that no, they are not your enemy. Jesus there are days... you could find yourself in that exact position easily as well.

As to sneaking out to get the groceries... the way the law works they'd have to do that in Comptom as well...

[Blue_Tires]

89. i get your point

and realize squatting is common in a lot of places, but it never makes the news because genuine squatters (who aren't druggies) usually are smart enough to pick a place where they can blend in and keep a low profile ...Only something this ballsy would get any media attention...

[nadinbrzezinski]

91. And you know they take drugs how?

That shows more about your biases actually.

I have no idea if they do...

And you know what? I am happy they brought this whole thing to the open.

[Blue_Tires]

93. i was just talking in general...

[nadinbrzezinski]

98. As I said it speaks about biases

And I will leave it at that.

[shanti]

131. sneaking out

in the dead of night....kinda doubt they'll be doing that much longer as they admitted doing that. someone will be watching the "unguarded side entrance" from now on.

[shanti]

130. they won't acknowledge anything

because they're scammers, plain and simple. i read the entire story.

[hack89]

81. Using a fraudulent lease to gain access to the property

doesn't make it illegal in your mind?

[WolverineDG]

154. the house was not abandoned

the owner had been leasing it out & decided to sell it.

dg

[Scruffy1]

165. you are eseentially correct.

But a better course of action in most states is an unlawful detainer, which gives you legal proof. This process can be easily strung out ninety days where I live. Sound like a plan to me.

[Hannah Bell]

202. they're fronting for a silent partner, and the silent partner (& one of the fronters) is in the

industry. they're not just poor people who need a home. the couple fronting may be poor, but the woman used to work in real estate, and someone is paying them to do what they're doing.

read the article. it's not simple squatting, it's a large-scale scam, & 10 to 1 the people they're fronting for have bucks, & are the ultimate recipents of any property or pay-off money gained.

[Greyhound]

27. The whole question of legality is the issue. It was the owner's negligence

and the HOA's incompetence that allowed this situation to evolve.

Try reading the whole thing and pay attention to the spaces between the lines...

I think this is funny as hell.:rofl:

[nadinbrzezinski]

80. So do I, it is hysterical!

[Scruffy1]

164. Me too.

I'm not going to lose any sleep over some money grubbing real estate flipper who has a dream of a quick fortune. One aspect of real estate law that is little understood is that real estate must be hostiley defended. This means that if you don't take legal action to defend your property it isn't really yours in from five to seven years. I'm sure that somebody put this couple up to it to get some kind of publicity or just as a big finger to the rich, gated community, but it is possible that they managed it on their own. Either way they will get their day in Court and will be legally evicted. Since there is no lease with the owner the worst that could happen is that they get a judgment for damages, but I would guess its not worth pursuing-since they have no dough.

[nadinbrzezinski]

48. I recommend you go down to the library

and look up into both squatting and enclosure acts... in the home country starting on oh about the 14th century.

This is actually hilarious, and technically they are not YET breaking the law. This will have to go into a long drawn legal case. And they get interesting.

[haifa lootin]

122. One of America's most amusing ironies: folks who hate rich people and buy a fistful of

lottery tickets every week.

:D

[CanonRay]

159. The poor are the only ones who CAN break the law.

George Bush broke lots of laws. The wall street banksters broke tons of laws. Eric Cantor broke the law yesterday. Where's the justice there?

[Kang Colby]

9. ugh huh.

That's exactly what I meant.:sarcasm: If you came home from a hard day's work to find a stranger camped out in your house or parent's basement what would you do?

I've spent a lifetime working with the poor and it's quite easy to delineate the truly impoverished from these scumbag common criminals.

[Chulanowa]

19. Wow. Read the fucking article before you open your mouth

"If you came home from a hard day's work to find a stranger camped out in your house or parent's basement what would you do?"

That is not at all what happened in this story. It's an empty house. The owner was holding it as an investment; he had no rentors, no prospective buyers.

"I've spent a lifetime working with the poor and it's quite easy to delineate the truly impoverished from these scumbag common criminals."

And your profile says "I am a life long poverty and homeless rights activist"

And you have never once heard of squatter's rights.

Either your life has been very short, or you're talking out your ass.

[Kang Colby]

25. Sure.

This couple is absolute trash. Societies lowest common denominator.

Yup, keep pretending that what they are doing is ok, because of some warped sense of social justice you have. These low lifes have a history of abusing our legal system. The one investor bought this property back during the real estate boom at what was likely an over valued price.


It's her property. End of story. These slimeballs will eventually be kicked out, but not before they have wrecked the house I'm sure.

[Chulanowa]

28. Yes, it is her property

And the law does say that if they live there for five years and manage its upkeep, it becomes theirs. It's not a "Warped sense of social justice" - it's an understanding of what the law allows for, Kang.

I suppose your "lifetime advocacy" has found a new and surprising brick wall in this newfangled concept of squatter's rights, huh? Ever considered entering the fast-paced and rewarding world of pet grooming? You'd probably be better at it.

[Kang Colby]

35. Yeah.

How dare you knock my contribution to poverty rights / advocacy? I'm out there everyday helping - providing food, shelter, prayers, counseling, and education to some of the South's most at risk and impoverished communities. I support the homeless, but not criminals.

If you read the law, you will see that it is says they have to live in the property for 5 years. Well, they broke in less than 2 months ago. So they are in no way, the legal owners of that property. Wow, 2 months is greater than 5 years...who knew?

[Binka]

43. LOL What A Load Of Pants

What no Volvo or latte in your profile? Pfftt.

[Catherina]

52. But lots of prayers!

:hi:

[Binka]

71. Hey There!

:hi:

[Chulanowa]

55. I knock it because you evidently don't have a good grasp of the issues

You keep calling these two criminals - among much more vehement invective. However, according to california law they are not criminals. Your opinion is poorly-informed and utterly without value in this situation. I mock your "advocacy" because how can you be an advocate when you are right here attacking one of the more crucial sets of lawss protecting hte people you claim to advocate for? If you're passing out blankets and talking nice, good for you - this does not qualify you as an "advocate" and you certainly aren't contributing to poverty rights by attacking them!

I get the notion that your "issue" here is not legality - since you're obviously ignoring the plain fact that this IS legal, and since your argument is based wholly off personal invective - but is due to the fact of where these two have decided to park their butts. I'm guessing you feel that they are "too big for their britches" and should confine their squatting to somewhere more befitting their "station." However California law applies just the same to all Californians, and all buildings in California, too.

And as an aside, you support the homeless, but not criminals. Ever been homeless, Kang? It's not like the old movies you may have watched, where a bunch of bedraggled-but-morally-upstanding plain good folks all have each others' backs and hearts of gold. It's fucking cutthroat. People die, and other people don't care. You do what you can to get off the street, and survive while you're accomplishing that. In some locales, simply being homeless is a criminal act - you think loitering laws are in place to keep tourists from gawking? Not all homeless are criminals, of course - but a good many have, at one time or another, violated the law.

Unless they happen to be Californians who have decided to squat. That's legal, and no amount of name-calling from you is going to change it.

[nadinbrzezinski]

82. Again do drag yourself over to the LIBRARY, and crack open a book

and read on SQUATTER law...

You are into a surprise.

By the way the last time we had this happen en mass was the GREAT DEPRESSION... I personally hope we are not moving in that direction.

To me, this is a HILARIOUS story and shows very well how MOST Americans do not know some ahem arcane sections of US Law. Or in this case, California Law...

Chump it's been happening in the US well before there was a country by the way. If this happened in South East LA you'd not hear of it (I am it has).

By the way if you came home and somebody was in YOUR OCCUPIED HOUSE, that is called breaking and entering, and you call 9.11

Can you understand the slight difference?

[Codeine]

200. Weren't you the one waxing poetic about our need to disagree civilly?

And then you post sarcastic and nasty crap like this?

[shanti]

132. that's wrong

check the address out on zillow. the house has been bought in a short sale now.

[Jamastiene]

37. I don't think it is that simple.

In order to invoke squatter's rights, they have to do more than that, if I am reading this correctly:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adverse_possession

I think from what I read there, there is a certain "you snooze, you lose" concept going on there. In other words, they have to be there a while and maintain the place as if it is their own, plus a few other odds and ends.

[Donnachaidh]

68. you work with the poor with THAT attitude?

Let me guess -- faith based company, yes?

:eyes:

[TK421]

108. No, he just pays them a quarter as long as they are not seen in public with him

[Taitertots]

21. False Dilemma

It is not a choice between stealing a McMansion and living on the street.

[Chulanowa]

26. So if it were a two-room, half-bath in Santa Ana, it would be a non-issue?

[Taitertots]

32. At least then it wouldn't be obviously motivated by unbridled greed

This is nothing more than a greedy grifter trying to pull one over on someone.

Stealing a loaf of bread because you are starving, Ok.
Stealing some Lobster because he skipped lunch, what they are doing.

[Chulanowa]

59. The person stealing bread could lift a rock and have some nutritious beetles.

Clearly by taking the bread, he is just being greedy. Why, he could suck cocks, a nickel apiece, and save up for a whole white castle hamburger! That's work ethic, pulling himself up by the ol' bootstraps. Stealing bread just makes him a common thief, and he'll get no sympathy from me!

A starving man stealing a loaf of bread is fine in your book. Okay. But what if he makes off with a butterball turkey and two cans of cranberry sauce and has himself thanksgiving under a bridge? Too much? Shame on him? Obviously since lobster is more expensice, it is reserved solely for people of hte "proper" class and means, but where do other foods fall on what the hungry are allowed? Chicken is okay, but duck is out? Does he have to content himself with white bread, or can he run off with one of those eight-dollar artisan loaves? if it's passover, does he get to be picky about whether he's nabbing leavened or unleavened? What if he's just a really hungry guy, does he still get bread? or do you restrict him to a half-pack of saltines?

Your argument is based on the assumption that you get to set the boundaries. Becuase you are not poor, because you are not starving, you get to set the limits for those people who are.

You're one of those people who start bitching when the person ahead of you at the checkout uses their food stamps to buy beef, instead of sticking to their "proper" diet of tinned sardines and velveeta, aren't you?

[Taitertots]

60. What a pathetic non-argument

Based on nothing but straw men and personal attacks.

These assholes are stealing a McMansion because they are greedy. No matter how hard you try to spin it, that is all it is ever going to be.

I see that your whole point is based on the idea that poor people should steal any luxury items they want. After they are not stealing it from you, so it doesn't matter. Maybe I should steal all your food and have a feast, I'm sure you would be just fine with that.

[Chulanowa]

61. Your post is caked in unintentional irony

The non-argument here is yours. It's inherently irrational, based on nothing other than your own momentary whim. You believe that there is a set of standards - standards which you have arbitrarily set - that state that a starving man nabbing a loaf of bread is "okay" but a man who's feeling a mite peckish making off with a lobster isn't. There's really no rational basis to this argument.

For starters, this same argument can be used to support both what I opened my post with - the poor should subsist on grubs and bark, or bootstrap with blowjobs before stealing, because MY standards are set in such a way - and the position you end up accusing me of, that they should be able to abscond with whatever they please. This is a clear sign that the argument itself is purely whimsical and has no grounding in any fact or logic. It's just "gut feeling," which has never been, and never will be the basis of a reasoned position. In fact my opening mock-argument is more rational than your own; it is based off the notion that theft is theft, regardlesss of if it's a starving man with a loaf of bread or a well-fed one snatching a rack of lamb.

Next, I wanted you to expand on your philosophy; If a starving man happens upon a turkey before a loaf of bread, is it cool if he decides to snatch the turkey instead, or should he hold out for a loaf of bread? Does your philosophy limit him to the stale bread at the bottom of the shelf, does it prohibit him from the pricier breads, or is it grab-as-you-can? Since he knows he'll be hungry tomorrow as well, can he make off with two loaves? Are there further limits in your standards? If the loaf he grabs is pumpernickel instead of wonderbread, has he "gone too far"? If the turkey is too much, how about a chicken? A drumstick? What if it's a duck, or a five-pack of ribeyes?

You clearly don't have answers for these refining questions. This tells me that your argument, in addition to being irrational, is just plain poorly-constructed. You expected to spit it out there and have it blindly accepted.

Then of course, I point out what your attempt at making this argument obviously says about you - that you clearly feel that there are class-based limits to what should be attainable to those in need; Bread for the starving is okay, but cake for the starving is right out, a shithole for the homeless is fine, a nice place for the homeless is untenable. These are your actual stated positions, that a man who walks off with a lobster is "asking too much" for his station. This is the same philosophy held by people who think they have a right to dictate what people on government assistance should and should not be able to buy

You call this a personal attack, even though it's your own clearly-stated position. And immediately after calling it a personal attack, you call someone else a greedy asshole. My word.

My point has nothing to do with what I think people can and cannot steal - that is actually your point, with you arbitrarily declaring what you feel is and is not okay for this or that person to abscond with. MY point is simply that your argument is shit.

Also? California law says the Duncans aren't thieves. Now I'm going to trust what California law says over what some dude making shitty arguments on the internet thinks the law SHOULD say, when it comes determining to what is and is not legal in California.

[Taitertots]

66. You just can't get over your irrelevant straw man arguments

If you can't understand the difference between stealing to avoid death and stealing luxury items because of greed, than it is no wonder you can't understand why stealing a mansion is wrong. All you can do is pump out straw man questions like it matters if the loaf is pumpernickel or rye, those people are stealing the whole store. Under any fictitious story based on starving people, those people would be making someone else starve by taking more than they could even eat.
"arbitrarily declaring what you feel is and is not okay for this or that person to abscond with"
What is arbitrary about taking as little as is necessary to avoid death? There is nothing arbitrary about STEALing as little as possible to avoid death. Now from this you hallucinated that I support restrictions on spending government assistance.

California Law =/= Morally right
I don't think we even need to begin to list the injustices that California law has allowed to take place. If you don't have the ethics to understand that taking things that other people paid for is wrong unless it is a dire situation, than I guess we have reached an impasse.

[Doremus]

106. Taitertot's logic = loaf of bread ... Chulanowa's logic = lobster :-)

:hi:

[tinrobot]

113. If someone moved into your garage, would than be OK?

Just because someone has an empty house doesn't mean it's yours for the taking, regardless of square footage or how much it's worth.

These people do not own the properties, they are not paying rent, and most importantly - they are preventing the rightful owners of these properties from renting them or selling them.

[stopbush]

78. Er, the point is that there are many options for homeless people to turn to in this country

that are not only legal but supported by tax dollars, options that don't involved property owners being put into a position where they have no control over a property they own, and where even the police are powerless to help.

These people are grifters who know how to play the loopholes in the system. You don't see them availing themselves of social services, do you? No, they're playing the gray area in the law.

The real homeowner is blameless in this. Anybody who rails about their purchasing an investment home must also be ready to rail against anybody owning even a primary residence, because people at different levels of income own different kinds of homes. This home owner no doubt believed that by purchasing a home in a gated community and paying her HOA dues that she would have some level of protection against squatters taking over her property. If I was her, I'd be suing the HOA and the housing development for not delivering on the security they most likely promised.

People have their identities stolen every day of the week. We don't hold them responsible or culpable for having their identity stolen. Yet this homeowner is being held responsible for the sole reason that she was well off enough to buy and investment home, as if that meant that she's supposed to somehow keep track of what's going on in her gated community 24/7. Well, she's paying fees for others to do that for her. She is being responsible, AFAIC.

I really don't understand the sympathy some on DU have for anarchy.

BTW - I've been in a rental property for 2.5 years now, diligently paying $2000+ per month in rent, with a $4000 security deposit to boot. It happens to be an investment property for my landlord who owns 3 other properties. Yet were I to suddenly stop paying rent and start squatting in this house, my landlord could have me evicted a lot faster than these squatters in Newport can apparently be evicted. I would be served with a 3-day notice and given about a month to get out before the Marshall showed up to put my belongings to the curb. And that's with me having paid over $65,000 in rent on this property over the past 2.5 years. I don't understand how these squatters continue to live in this home without a legal lease, without paying a cent in rent and with the owner desperately wanting them out.

[COLGATE4]

You've got to be shitting me!!! You really think that these people

have the right to occupy someone else's home just because they felt like it? Absolutely incredible.

[stopbush]

139. Who says they're poor? The male squatter in question insists that he has a lot of money.

Did you even read the article?

[WolverineDG]

153. Being poor doesn't mean you have the right to take something that's not yours

although on DU, apparently it's ok if it's a favored group taking from an unfavored one.

dg

[Scruffy1]

162. That the problem with the poor.

They are hard to hide and kind of embarrassing. That's why we have nice gated communities for the real criminal class. It keeps the poor out of sight and out of mind. We don't want guilt to enter into the picture. It might interfere with your golf swing.

[Webster Green]

7. You didn't read the article did you?

This sounds great! I'm going to start looking for vacant places to occupy.

[liberalhistorian]

15. If you actually read the full article, you'd see that

they are there under fraudulent conditions and know it, that they've pulled this before on another homeowner and it took him months to get them out and he had to agree to their outlandish demands (that he'd clean up their trash and mess, that they'd choose the departure date, etc.) to make it happen even thn, that they told a private investigator that this is what they deliberately scheme to do, and that they're fraudulent, scheming, loser scum. People have NO right to occupy the homes of others, vacant or not, uninvited. NONE.

[gateley]

10. Did you forget the sarcasm thingy? nt

[Greyhound]

49. Interesting comment from a lifelong poverty and homelessness advocate. n/t

[Donnachaidh]

67. actually, I hope this trend spreads

The low life scumbags are the ones who bought into a gated community and then couldn't afford to pay the mortgage. Lots of wannabee millionaires got pwned in this economy.

[tinrobot]

116. Actually, I hope your house is next...

Seriously, I wouldn't wish this on anyone - including you.

If these people can squat in a gated community, they can squat in anyone's home.

[AlabamaLibrul]

90. "it was better to have someone take over a property and make it a home than have it sit unoccupied"

But, yeah, fuck poor people!

Fucking scum! Where's their wealth? Only fucking scum aren't independently wealthy.

[Hawkeye-X]

94. Have a nice stay in DU

Nice interests.. and you don't support that?

Well, pizza's on the way.

[Blue_Tires]

3. they better live it up while they can

because it won't last much longer....

[Jamastiene]

4. There was a movie about that years ago.

I think Michael Keaton was in it. It was called Pacific Heights.

Apparently, it is true, although I do not know what technicality they use to "squat" without being in violation of breaking and entering and trespassing laws.

[ProudDad]

14. "Pacific Heights" was not REMOTELY about this...

PH was about a sociopath who moved into a nice yuppy couple's duplex...

This is about social justice... :)

[liberalhistorian]

17. Bullshit. Read the full article and you'll see

what scheming, fraudulent loser scum this couple is. And exactly what "social justice" gives you the right to take over the legitimately owned propery of another person, uninvited, that they have paid for? This is nothing more than theft, period.

[ProudDad]

84. So it's one set of "thieves" robbing from another...

:nopity:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=9549308&mesg_id=9551662

[ProudDad]

85. PS: Bullshit right back at ya' -- watch the movie... (n/t)

[marybourg]

6. I'm skeptical of the 30 days . The states I'm familiar with require

7 years of "open, notorious, possession", without the owner's permission. The theory being as stated in the OP and - if someone hasn't been to his property in 7 years to see you living openly and notoriously in in, then it may be be better for society that a new person take it over. Of course that was back in the day when we still had a "society". I have a had time believing in the 30 day story.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

36. 30 days pertains to tenant rights or the requirement to be evicted through the courts..

....versus dragged out by their ears via the police. In other words, if they were only squatting for 28 days it would have been handled at the business end of a baton - not housing court.

Actual adverse possession takes much longer - as you pointed out.

[marybourg]

144. But if they're squatters, they're not tenants. Being a "tenant" is a

status that grows out of a certain set of circumstances. Squatting is not one of them.

[Xithras]

150. Legally, you're wrong in most states.

If the squatter stays on the property, in an "open and notorious" way, for more than 30 days, then they DO become a tenant in most states. They don't have a legal right to actually STAY in the home, but you do have to evict them and can't just drive them out at gunpoint.

[marybourg]

156. I don't think I ever mentioned "gunpoint". nt.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

167. Some people in this thread have mentioned everything from...

.. hired goons to cutting off utilities to even tearing the roof off. All actions which could land the owner/landlord in serious trouble. Maybe even jail.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

166. Being a resident of that house for 30 days gives them some tenancy rights.

In this case, squatting is in fact the circumstance that grew their tenancy status. Well, maybe not squatting in the purely legal definition of squatting (if that's how it's defined in California law) - in this case they are using what appears to be a bogus rental agreement to make this situation, that otherwise might be a purely criminal matter handled by the police, in to a civil matter requiring hearing(s) in housing court.

Fraud charges for the bogus rental agreement can always be brought later. I suppose fraud will be hard to prove. That said, the D.A. may take a stab at pressing charges due to this case's notoriety.


Even the scammers themselves seem to be conflating the issues of squatting and bogus rental agreements. In one breath, he mentions the rental agreement. In the other breath he mentions his "cleaning up the place" which fulfills some of his squatter's requirements. I suppose the rental agreement is meant as a short term strategy of keeping him out of jail on a trespassing charge and the "fixing up the place" is meant to fulfill their apparent delusions of actually taking title to the property through adverse possession.

[Catherina]

171. +1 n/t

[NashVegas]

179. Read The Article. They Claim to Have a Lease

This is a really GOOD scam.

[underseasurveyor]

11. Why doesnt the owner 'move back in'

Then kick them out?

[Blue_Tires]

39. she's been locked out, and the couple claim residency through a

shady, manufactured lease...

She will definitely get them kicked out eventually, but now it has to move through the courts which buys the hustlers a few months -- Time which they will spend researching the real estate pages and scouting out the next vacant home to crash in...

It was interesting to see that the squatter's girlfriend is a former real estate agent, so they obviously know the angles...

[Catherina]

53. Thw owner doesn't live there. She rented it out to bad tenants

who drove the neighbors nuts. Now that people can't afford exhorbitant rents, the property became vacant.

I agree it's shady and crooked. The fact that the girlfriend is a real estate agent speaks volumes.
I don't have any use for them or the predatory mcmansion homeowner.

[icnorth]

191. Good thing the girlfriend is

only a real estate agent... if she was a banker, by now they'd own the whole damn kit and kaboodle while making non-disclosure claims against the owner.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

13. Fascinating! They have an apparently fraudulent lease. And if they hold out for 5 yrs,

California law apparently grants them substantial rights. That's what venturing onto pages 2 and 3 of the link in the OP told me.

Had they chosen a more modest foreclosed property early in the housing bubble burst (say, in 2007), they'd be well on their way to a sustainable, absolutely free, housing situation.

I wonder which jurisdictions grant legal tenancy "after just 30 days".

[Xithras]

147. Actually, in California the "5 year Rule" is very easy for the landowner to subvert.

The property owner merely needs to prove that they had taken action to maintain or use the land during the 5 year period. If the property owner pays taxes, or signs a lease with another tenant, during that 5 year period, the squatters claim to the land is instantly undermined. The 5 year rule requires that the land owner show no financial interest in the property, and that the owner makes no moves to maintain or use the land.

In the Sierra foothills, it's common for small landowners with vacation or retirement properties to make "$1 leases" for just this reason. The landowner leases the use of their land to a nearby rancher or neighbor for $1 a year. The land, then, is legally used by a "tenant", preventing any attempts at usurping ownership like this. When the occasional squatter does try to take over those properties, they can be immediately arrested and removed from the property.

[jancantor]

18. It's a quirk of the law

Tenancy, Tenancy, Tenancy.

I have told people before, even if you let a houseguest overstay ... he can get tenancy rights and then you can't simply make him leave. Got to evict him. Doesn't matter if rent is paid, if there is a lease, etc. What matters is - tenancy.

[laughingliberal]

41. Correct. I have a sister-in-law who went through that with her daughter and son-in-law.

She had let them stay in a small guest house behind her house. She had told them they could stay a few weeks. After a while, they began drinking too much, using drugs. She told them they had to leave. They refused. She went to the Sherrif's office to get someone to go with her to make them leave. When they learned her the couple had been there over 30 days, she was told she would have to file to have them evicted.

[jancantor]

42. it falls under the

"sometimes you try to be nice to be somebody and it bites you in the ass" principle.

[laughingliberal]

50. AKA: No good deed goes unpunished. nt

[Blue_Tires]

29. on a side note, this story also beautifully illustrated the ABSOLUTE fucking uselessness

of HOAs

Multi-million dollar gated community with 24 hour watch, five-figure annual dues, and they let the grifters creep on in...

If the Duncans put as much effort into doing something legit as opposed to scamming 24/7/365 they might actually get somewhere...

[Chulanowa]

33. Scamming doesn't take a lot of effort

Most people are very easily fooled. "Candid Camera" lasted as long as it did because of this principle. Vegas is completely built on the concept. Basically if you tell people something, they will usually believe you, simply because distrust is more effort.

Also... Legit as opposed to scamming as in how? There's a note of irony to that statement, considering that the "proper" owner of the house in question is also running a scam. Flipping real estate requires exploiting the dim people with money that blunder through the world around them. Really, the big difference between Le and the Duncans in this story is that Le has scammed successfully enough to be able to run the scam from an office.

[muriel_volestrangler]

62. In what way is what Le is doing a 'scam'?

She and her sister bought the property, rented it out for a bit, and now want to sell it - 4 years after buying it. I'd guess house prices have fallen in that time in the area. That's not trying to make a quick buck in a rapidly rising market - which is what flipping is - it's buying a house, getting some rent, and selling it on. It's normal property ownership.

Now, I see some DUers actually do hold to the maxim "all property is theft". If you believe that, then, fine, it's a scam. But so, then, is anyone owning a house. Most the American public are running a scam, in that case.

[Tx4obama]

38. The property owner should send out a roofing crew to take the roof off. n/t

[Hassin Bin Sober]

40. And that would get him in a shit-load of trouble.

Like it or not, these people are now his "tenants" and are protected by tenant-landlord laws.

Eviction is the only way.

Plenty of landlord has tried similar to what you suggested and ended up in hot water with the housing court.

How's THIS for a slap in the face: Say the landlord tears off the roof as you suggest. The judge may compel him to pay for suitable dwelling (hotel etc.) while the case moves through court.

[muriel_volestrangler]

63. 'His' (NB - I think you mean 'her') tenants? No, he signed a lease with someone else

He signed a lease with a dodgy-sounding company that has no apparent connection with the property. Probably knowingly, given the couple's history of similar squatting, legal battles, and her real estate past.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

97. Regardless of what, if any, written lease exists, it MUST be handled through the courts.

When I say SHE has a tennant, I mean the person in her house as tenancy rights by virtue of occupying the property for 30 days or more.

[muriel_volestrangler]

136. The article says in California you only get the rights after squatting for 5 years

The 30 days applies somewhere else.

But in California, as in every other state, squatters can have legal rights that shield them for an extended time from police action and irate property owners. The legal concept dates back about 600 years in agrarian European culture, when it was believed it was better to have someone take over a property and make it a home than have it sit unoccupied and become an unproductive eyesore. Though controversial, the notion was handed down to our own legal system at the creation of our country, and it remains largely intact. Some locales around the nation have strengthened squatter rights by treating them as legal tenants after just 30 days.

In California, squatters can grab legal possession of someone else’s property in what’s called an “adverse possession” if they take certain steps, such as moving in with furniture, paying outstanding property taxes, putting utilities in their names, and cleaning up the property from overrun grass and weeds. There’s a catch: They have to get away with the scheme for five years to hit the homeowner jackpot.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

140. The article is a bit confusing in that paragraph.

It seems to conflate this story, which is about tenancy rights, and adverse possession by squatters which would result in actual ownership by the squatters if certain criteria were met - i.e the "homeowner jackpot" referenced in the article.

Yes, they are squatters in the general sense, but they are currently protected under California housing law that says 30 days of residence gets them a hearing in housing court. Whether the California law is 10 days, 2 eeks or 30 days, it's clear the police are recognizing their tenancy rights and leaving it to the courts.

[pitohui]

111. yeah people love to comment w.out reading, the owner is a woman

as a woman myself i think it's pretty damn frightening that you can be taken advantage of like that

this couple doesn't, didn't have a lease, they have a piece of paper that looks all fancy and official like a lease that was 'signed" with someone who may, or more likely may not, even exist

they concocted the scam from start to finish and because the owner was an unpopular asian lady who didn't keep the grass cut for her previous tenants, the HOA fucked up and no one complained/acted in time to get these scammers out of the house and in prison where they belong

fraud is a criminal offense, the couple should be housed in prison

as for the HOA, they should be sued for every penny the owner can get out of them, if i spent big bucks to buy property in a gated community i would not expect my HOA to let anybody w. a fancy looking scrap of paper move into my fucking house w.out my permission or my knowledge -- there almost HAS to be more to this story -- it should be easy to arrest the scammers for trespassing, fraud, etc -- when you see something like this, where there's an outrageous and inexplicable injustice, it's almost always because the victim is unpopular in some way (hinted at in the article)

i don't know if the police, HOA etc. refused to help and foot-dragged on helping the owner because she's a woman, because she's Asian, because she's "Shrill" and i don't care the reason -- they would not have treated most people this way and i hope the lady, even if she's the bitchy won't-cut-the-grass dragonlady of all time, wins a fortune in court

this is just outrageous, if i own a home and pay big bucks to have it behind a guarded gate, the guards etc. better fucking NOT let grifters move into my place

as for police pretending they can't arrest the couple for fraud, that's so transparently bogus you just know there's a history and there's some reason they're prejudiced against the owner, i guess an alternative theory is someone was taking kickbacks to let this happen, either way, they could totally arrest these folks, they just choose not to do -- but we'll prob. never know the whole story

[Hassin Bin Sober]

133. Apparently you can't grasp the concept of civil court versus criminal.

The squatters say they have a lease. The owner says they don't.

We all believe the owner. But it still has to go to court. And the fact the squatters sat un-noticed for thirty days doesn't help the situation - it gives them the benefit of at least a hearing(s) in HOUSING court.

The part I find funny is the squatters are better neighbors then the assholes the owner placed in the property. LOL

[Blue_Tires]

134. that's my question as well

gated communities with security guards and HOAs wouldn't just let strangers with a piece of paper waltz right in -- unless of course the Duncans are really good at acting like respectable professionals or burnt out rockstars when they want to...

when this is all over, the HOA needs to be the first people sued...

[Hassin Bin Sober]

138. I too would be interested to see what liability to the owner exists for the HOA.

That said, I would ALSO be interested to see what liability for damages to the so called "tenants" exist. In other words, does the HOA open itself to liability by sticking its nose in (by denying entry) a matter currently pending before a housing court?

It may sound far fetched but, like it or not, these scammers have set themselves up in a position of being protected by California housing law - at least until the owner gets a hearing and the sheriff evicts them.

I'm by no means an attorney but I do know a little bit about landlord tenant law. What I DO know is you can't, as others suggest in this thread, hire goons to remove them, cut off utilities, change the locks, and/or make the property uninhabitable by removing the roof - not at least while the scammers are protected by California housing laws.

That said, does the HOA's refusal to permit entry to the home result in a constructive denial of entry to the home? I.E. "changing the locks"?

Stranger things have happened. I wonder if this is the "damages" hinted at by the scammer's atty?

Some of the more righteously indignant in this thread will scream bloody murder at my suggestion. And CERTAINLY the HOA's lawyers will have an argument - I suppose it would be that their only duty is to the owner and whomever the owner designates as "authorized" to enter...

But there are several reasons the police don't want to touch this matter - the main one being liability.

Perhaps the HOA should leave it to the court as well and wait for eviction????

[AngryAmish]

99. That is why I would hire some thugs to get them out

The law frowns upon this, but I wouldn't put up with this shit.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

143. And what happens when one of your thugs injures or kills someone ..

...and turns states evidence against you. Thugs are known to squeal at the drop of a hat. If they had any brains they wouldn't be thugs, no would they. Not even the Mafia can rely on Omerta anymore.

[AngryAmish]

158. That is why you have people

Cutouts, deniability.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

170. Let's not get delusional here. Who do you think you are? Barbara Bush?

:)

[AngryAmish]

173. Yes. Yes I do.

Wann see my baby-inna-jar?

[Travis_0004]

44. Simple solution: Cut off the power and water.

If somebody legally owns the house, I would imagine you could have the power and water turned off. I would even hire security to guard the place, and don't let anybody bring in food. What I don't get, it somebody leaves, why is it not possible to keep them from coming back in?

[stopbush]

76. If the squatters have put the utilities in their name, that'snot such an easy thing to do.

[-..__...]

101. Starve'em out.

Security should deny entry to anyone delivering food to the premises.

See how long they remain then (of course they could always consume the cats if it came down to it).

[jeff47]

109. Doesn't work that way

Denying them access to food would result in the security and owner facing felony charges.

The lesson here is if you happen to own unoccupied property, check on it every so often.

[COLGATE4]

120. I don't believe that. What part of the law says that this would

incur felony charges?

[jeff47]

124. The time the squatters were allowed to use the property

Since the squatters occupied the property for >30 days, they're now tenants. You can not do anything to them you could not do to a tenant with a valid lease. So attempting to starve them out could result in a host of felonies, just as if you tried to starve out a paying tenant.

The solution to this particular problem is to go to court and evict them. Then the local sheriff will remove them.

The way to avoid getting into this situation is to properly maintain your property, which means stopping by it every so often, or having someone check on it for you.

[Travis_0004]

176. I agree with what you are saying, but the law needs to be changed.

[jeff47]

199. What I stated is the law. What needs to be changed? (nt)

[pitohui]

112. that's why they can't leave

it's called reading the article before you comment

they know they can't leave, the fucking reporter even brought these criminals food to get them to talk

once they leave, they will not be allowed to re enter, hence, they ain't going nowheres

[Hassin Bin Sober]

190. Apparently YOU didn't read the article.

The article says he leaves at night through an un-guarded entrance to go to a convenience store.

Practice what you preach.

[nadinbrzezinski]

47. Well that is a whole new side of US Law I thought we forgot

Sorry if I laugh. To the owners it is not funny, but this goes back to the Enclosure Acts in England, and in Mexico, well it goes to Spain... all kinds of fun. I just didn't realize it was still part of US Law, most likely common law.

[dipsydoodle]

54. I'd often wondered

the degree to which the US adopted our common law as opposed to Scotland's use of Roman law and I guess you've answered the question.

In actual fact use of those laws here in the UK these days generally refers to land claims whereby for example a householder adopts a piece of adjacant land , an untended railway embankment whatever , tends it for a period of time and then claims title.

In the case of squatters there is a distinct difference between occupied and unoccupied properties. As such it is rare for squatters to enter occupied property and in the case of unoccupied properties protracted court case normally ensue with frequent involvement of criminal damage claims.

General note here : http://www.squatter.org.uk/index.php?Itemid=2&id=149&option=com_content&task=view

[nadinbrzezinski]

77. Sometimes it is just cheaper to let go

indeed.

I am just laughing because this is not common here. I guess times are tough enough though... last time this happened en mass was the Great Depression... they were called squatter camps for a reason.

[pitohui]

115. no this isn't USA law actually, read more cautiously

real estate law is state by state and county by county but per this article the o.c. law is that the property is theirs IF they had lived there 5 years making improvements

there is no law you can just move in with a phony lease and declare yourself a tenant, who would pay rent anywhere when printers are so widely available everywhere if this be the case?

the police could easily arrest these people, for trespassing, etc.

the fact that they don't suggests that the owner is unpopular (hinted at in the article, she's asian, and a woman, possibly a korean, not the best liked minority among some bigots, and apparently there was some friction stirred up by her renting to unpopular tenants plus not cutting the grass) and it's always possible that someone or more likely more than one someones got some kickback/bribes to allow this to go on

the HOA knew this was illegal, the police know this is illegal...they let this woman be victimized and basically are costing her a lot of money because, quite simply, it appears that they just don't fucking like her

this is not what america should be

[nadinbrzezinski]

128. I made a very general statement

that said US Law is based on British Common Law with a few exceptions.

And that is a fact jack. These laws, and protection of squatters do go back a long time. The details vary as time moves on... but in the case of Squatters, they do go back to the 14th century.

And yes, when faced with one of these the cops can't do much, and she needs to sue in court to get it back. This is not the US... this is squatters pretty much in North America. (Yes even Mexico, which is far closer to the Napoleonic Code, has this problem with squatters, and protection of them)

It is one of those that people should be aware off, and they usually become an issue during hard times.

[shanti]

135. the legal owner is vietnamese

n/t

[WinkyDink]

57. This has been happening in Britain, as well.

[-..__...]

100. An example of an unacceptable situation...

Note: the squatters vermin in this article aren't homeless or in dire straits.... they're not even British citizens and the law allows them to getaway with this injustice...

Hotelier leaves home for a week so it can be decorated . . . then 15 jobless Italian squatters move in

In the middle of completely refurbishing his five-bedroom house, Connan Gupta felt he deserved a week off.

It is a decision he is now regretting because 15 squatters took advantage of his short absence to occupy the £700,000 property.

The jobless Italians changed the locks and have taken up residence along with their three dogs and two cats.

The squatters claim the front door was open when they arrived at the house two weeks ago.

One, Valentina, 26, said: ‘None of us have any money or jobs. I don’t feel guilty about being here because no one else had been here for at least two years, the neighbours told us.

‘There’s no sink, no running water, no electricity, no carpets and the place was filthy. All of the owner’s stuff was packed away and stored.

‘I’ve never squatted before but when three of us found it we called our friends who are having difficulties of their own and told them about it.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1322246/Man-leaves-home-week-decorated-15-squatters-in.html

[Blue_Tires]

129. a little searching shows me it's a growing issue, and they are surprisingly organized

* Eight Romanian squatters took over a family home in Tottenham in May, throwing parties and installing their own satellite dish. They demanded £3,000 from the owner to go but left when threatened with arrest for breach of peace.

* Residents in a suburban street in Herne Hill in south London launched a petition to let squatters stay in May after they spent a year renovating an empty building and set up a weekly free cinema club.

* Riot police were pelted with bricks and bottles as they evicted more than 2,000 teenagers from an illegal Facebook party when squatters took over an empty £30 million property in Park Lane in February.

* Julian and Samantha Mosedale reclaimed their home in Tottenham after a three-week battle to evict a group of Romanian travellers who moved in last Christmas during building work.

* An art collective known for squatting in mansions and embassies took over a £100 million building in Mayfair last December.



http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2010/1104/1224282634586.html
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Nl1/Newsroom/DG_192426
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23891165-london-businessman-squatters-have-violated-my-life-law-must-protect-homeowners.do


and they don't even need to stay the 30 days...methinks this law is going to be tweaked in the near future...

The guy in that story did get the Italian kids kicked out, but they trashed his place, and there were no arrests...Were they at least deported??

[blindpig]

64. Good, we need more of that.

Here we see the primacy of use value over exchange value.

If I prayed I would pray for exchange value to be consigned to the dustbin of history.

[Catherina]

72. Except that the these squatters are predatory leeches from a shady business

If it were homeless people squatting, I'd support it but these come across as professionals with a made up contract who are trying to acquire possession to turn around and profit themselves.

The same scumbags who are reselling foreclosed properties they buy for cheap, at a huge profit, are financing this type of squatting. Cheap is great for them but free is even better.

Take the scum's profit out of the equation and I'll be right there with you.

The man who signed the fraudulent lease for this squatter, who just happens to be another real estate agent, is

Loan Originator

VICTOR L. LUCCHESI: Not Licensed

Status: UNLICENSED
Location: RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA OUT OF STATE
Original Registration: 12/05/2005
Employers: From 12/09/2005 To 10/04/2006 Mortgage Lender, POPE MORTGAGE & ASSOCIATES

http://www4.cbs.state.or.us/ex/dfcs/LOReg/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.person_detail&np_tk=172134810208061205



According to Linked In, his new business is (are you ready for this) Loan Relief Group...Saving America one home at a time

Based on BBB files, this business has a BBB Rating of B- on a scale from A+ to F.
Reasons for this rating include:
•Length of time business has been operating.
•6 complaints filed against business

...

These complaints concerned :
+ 1 regarding Advertising Issues

+ 1 regarding Contract Issues

+ 1 regarding Refund or Exchange Issues

+ 2 regarding Sales Practice Issues

+ 1 regarding Service Issues

These complaints were closed as:
+ 6 Unpursuable. Company cannot be located.

http://www.bbb.org/south-east-florida/business-reviews/mortgage-services/loan-relief-group-in-lighthouse-point-fl-92010293

Loan modifaction thieves in other words. These guys keep changing the CEO name, tweaking the website name and then changing it from ORG to NET to COM. Shady, shady.

[blindpig]

73. If that is the case I agree with you.

In that case it looks like fraud.

[Catherina]

75. Thanks and I agree with your principle.

:hi:

[Blue_Tires]

92. LOL...If I contact him, maybe they can write me up a lease for the Taj Mahal

[Lance_Boyle]

65. The owner should gather some muscle, break in, and physically remove them.

Thieving fucking squatter scum.

[Kang Colby]

69. Easy solution......

have the utilities turned off. My concern is that this couple is going to ruin the home. Judging by their request for cat food they sound ill.


I honestly can't believe that there is a contingent of DUers with the "all property is theft" mindset. It's certainly comical to a degree, but I bet their parents won't feel the same way if their coup to "take over the upstairs someday" fails.

[NotThisTime]

70. I agree with you... who can defend the actions of criminals, this isn't Robin Hood

[ProudDad]

86. That would be a felony...

:rofl:

[-..__...]

103. So is threatening to...

"kick the shit out of anyone I find "packing a gun"...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2817870#2818239

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[jeff47]

126. So, as long as it's two felonies, they cancel each other out? (nt)

[-..__...]

102. A few outlaw bikers wielding baseball bats...

can be a great motivator.

[earth mom]

87. I think I would support this couple if they weren't con artists already.

But they are scammers and squatters, no doubt about it.

Now if this was a homeless family with no where to go and were squatting in a foreclosed house, I would totally cheer them on.

The question for me is, why are some people on this planet entitled to living dream lives in gorgeous homes with gorgeous views while others are forced to live in misery in boxes underneath the overpass? I have a real problem with the inequities on our planet, and this is a hard one for me to be on either side about because I think we are ALL EQUAL no matter what. But at the same time, I despise scammers and criminals who screw over other people. :dilemma:

[CanSocDem]

95. The Simpson's had a show on this.

I forget what it was but Homer had to trick the 'grifters' into coming outside....then they all ran in and re-claimed their house.

The Simpson's isn't just entertainment, y'know.

.

[Nye Bevan]

96. Time to abolish "squatters' rights". This should be treated as criminal trespass.

I work hard to pay my mortgage. These deadbeats should focus more on earning a legitimate living like the rest of us than gaming the legal system.

[Hannah Bell]

104. no, it's not.

[Nye Bevan]

105. Ok, fair enough, you've convinced me.

Go squatters! :yourock:

[haifa lootin]

123. HAHAHAHA

good one
:D

[jeff47]

110. No, just a reminder that one should actually use their property

instead of ignoring it.

[Nye Bevan]

114. So if one temporarily moves out of state to care for a sick parent

leaving their residence unoccupied, how long should it be before deadbeat squatters would be legally allowed to move in? A month? Three months?

[jeff47]

119. Squatters can show up anytime

It's up to you to have the local police remove them quickly. It's a basic part of maintaining your property.

If you let those squatters stay for >30 days in CA, they become tenants and have to be evicted by a court. Meaning you don't lose the property, your failure to maintain it has bestowed rights upon the squatters (like in this case). If the owner was properly maintaining the property, this would have been quickly resolved by the O.C. Sheriff throwing the people out of the property.

You have to be extremely negligent (as in many years of squatting) to actually lose the property. And after that level of negligence, you should lose it.

[WolverineDG]

175. It's amazing the number of people who think it's okay for someone to take your property

of course, they're the same one who think that lower & middle class DUers who own their own homes & want to keep the mortgage interest deduction are money-grubbing leeches. :eyes:

Does make you wonder how those supporting this out-right theft of property would feel if someone moved into their homes while they were at work, doesn't it?

dg

[msanthrope]

206. They tend to be the same posters who think that when the

revolution comes, they are going to be ones sitting around Party headquarters with clipboards....

Some trust-fund Marxists....

[pitohui]

117. the property wasn't ignored, it was in a gated community under lock and key

why don't people read before they comment?

i don't know what more a person can do, if you go out of town for job or even a vacation, you deserve to lose your home?

if your tenant moves out and it takes you a few weeks to find another tenant (the case here) you deserve to lose your entire investment?

that's just stupid

there is no "squatter's rights" here, these folks didn't "SQUAT" they showed up with a faked lease and because they were white, a change from previous tenants (we gather from what's said between the lines about loud and unacceptable tenants) the HOA accepted it even though the lease WASN'T from the owner -- this is fucking racism by the HOA and fucking grifting/stealing by the scumbag couple

there is no "squatting," to squat, there has to be an abandoned property that someone then moves in and legitimately tries to fix up, see??? THIS property was never abandoned, it was supposedly safely behind a guard shack

sheesh, and you pay a lot of money for those gates and guards, all the good it does you if you're the wrong color or if someone takes a dislike to you i guess...

[jeff47]

121. If your statement was true, this wouldn't be a story

Because the squatters would not have been in the property for >30 days, thus earning tenant rights. If it's less than 30 days, the local police will throw them out for you.

Meaning the owner of the property did not stop by the property for >30 days, nor did they send anyone else to check on the property. They failed to properly maintain it. One would think they'd have to send someone by to at least mow the lawn and keep the weeds from overwhelming the house (and in S. CA, creating a fire hazard).

if your tenant moves out and it takes you a few weeks to find another tenant (the case here) you deserve to lose your entire investment?

No, if you fail to property maintain your vacant property, then a squatter can turn themselves into a tenant. However, you can still evict them. You have to go to court now to do so. To actually lose the property, you'd have to let the squatters live there for many years. And after that level of negligence, you should lose the property.

there is no "squatting," to squat, there has to be an abandoned property that someone then moves in and legitimately tries to fix up, see??? THIS property was never abandoned, it was supposedly safely behind a guard shack

A guard shack that isn't on the property doesn't make the property occupied. Nor does a fence or gate around the property. And since the owner couldn't be bothered to stop by, or have someone else check on the property including the HOA busybodies who'd be happy to do it for free, the threshold for 'improve' the property is going to be pretty damn low. Pull one weed. You've improved it.

[Xithras]

149. Actually, if you read the story, this one actually did qualify

As the neighbor pointed out, the home had tall grass out front and the property was unmaintained. If the owner had even done something as simple as hiring a landscaper to maintain the yard, the squatters point would be moot. The owner could have shown an ongoing financial investment, which would have instantly eliminated any abandonment claim.

The owner didn't do that. The house was empty, the yards were unmaintained, and the property taxes are a year overdue. The house met all of the qualifiers as "abandoned".

The trick for the squatters, however, is that the owner has to maintain this "abandonment" for five years in order for them to gain legal ownership. If the owner pays the property taxes, signs a lease renting it to someone else, or performs any of a dozen other actions to show a financial or maintenance interest in the property, they will NOT be able to prove abandonment, and become an evictable tenant.

[Odin2005]

146. Free Republic is over that way, you'll be more welcome there.

[Nye Bevan]

177. Thanks, but I reviewed the DU rules

and you don't actually have to believe that all private property is theft to be a member here.

[COLGATE4]

125. Unless and until these assholes pay property taxes, they have

no right to claim adverse possession of the property:

California Civil Procedure

§ 324. Premises actually occupied under claim of title deemed to be held
adversely
Where it appears that there has been an actual continued occupation of land, under a
claim of title, exclusive of any other right, but not founded upon a written instrument,
judgment, or decree, the land so actually occupied, and no other, is deemed to have
been held adversely.
§ 325. What constitutes adverse possession under claim of title not written
For the purpose of constituting an adverse possession by a person claiming title, not
founded upon a written instrument, judgment, or decree, land is deemed to have been
possessed and occupied in the following cases only:
1. Where it has been protected by a substantial inclosure.
2. Where it has been usually cultivated or improved.
Provided, however, that in no case shall adverse possession be considered established
under the provisions of any section or sections of this code, unless it shall be shown
that the land has been occupied and claimed for the period of five years continuously,
and the party or persons, their predecessors and grantors, have paid all the taxes,
state, county, or municipal, which have been levied and assessed upon such land.


Unfortunately for the owner, she will still be fending them off for months until they finally leave and go take advantage of another propery owner. Grifters, nothing more.

[jeff47]

127. Um...no, the 5 years of occupancy is the large hurdle.

And if the owner is that negligent, then they should lose the property.

[alphafemale]

137. The obvious non-violent reaction to these worthless squatters is...

Fat naked square dance parties!!!

[mainer]

141. So if you go out of town for four weeks...

and you come back to find a burglar sleeping in your bed, he has a right to stay until the courts can figure it out? All he has to say is that the property "looked abandoned?"

Note to all burglars: save this article. It's a get-out-of jail-free card.

[Xithras]

151. This is why it's generally a good idea to have someone checking on your house

When I go on a trip for longer than a week or two, I generally have the neighbors check in from time to time to water the houseplants, feed the fish, and call the police on any uninvited guests who might have decided to take up residence.

Vagrants aside, it's incredibly dumb to leave your home unoccupied and unchecked for more than a MONTH. What if a water pipe broke? What if a burglar knocked out your back window? Would ANYONE actually leave their house unmonitored for that long?

[WolverineDG]

142. You don't gain title by adverse possession in only a few months

more like years.

dg

[Odin2005]

145. Go squatters! The rich fucks can go pound sand.

Absentee landlordism is immoral, fuck the "owners".

[Nye Bevan]

152. Go rich fucks! Throw out the lazy fucking deadbeats!

Let them get their own fucking mortgage and let them get a fucking job and get up every fucking morning to go to work to pay their fucking mortgage, just like I do!

[Hassin Bin Sober]

169. "just like I do"? I don't know why you want to champion the deadbeat owner of this property...

... and her $22,000 overdue tax bill. Are your real-estate taxes up to date?

[WolverineDG]

184. Because the taxes will be paid with the proceeds of the sale

which is being held up by the criminals you so admire.

dg

[Hassin Bin Sober]

189. Where, in your brain, do you get the idea I admire the scammers?

If you look at my posts in this thread you will see I refer to them as just that - scammers.

I don't admire the people scamming a rent free house. Nor do I admire scum-bag absentee landlords who fail to maintain their properties and/or pay their real-estate taxes. If anything, I am happy the scammers and the scummy landlord happened to make each other's acquaintance.

What I DO admire is our laws. In this case tenancy laws. Laws that, in the vast majority of cases, protect tenants from unscrupulous landlords and afford people at least a hearing in court prior to eviction. Laws that prevent landlords from tossing people out on a whim - or using "hired goons" or "starving them out" or otherwise making the tenant's home un-inhabitable through illegal means.

[WolverineDG]

195. You repeatedly post supporting what these particular thugs are doing

silly me.

dg

[Xithras]

148. There is an incredibly simple way for the owner to head off adverse possession.

A quick check of the OC public records shows that the home currently has about $22,000 in overdue property taxes. Under California law, if the property owner pays those taxes, she shows a fiscal interest in the property and any abandonment claims are set aside. Adverse possession ONLY works in California if the squatter can show that the original owner had failed to maintain or pay for the property in any way. Paying the taxes nullifies that claim.

If the owner wants them out, she just needs to pay her damned tax bill and file an eviction notice.

[Catherina]

181. And just shit $22,000 out of her ass? Possibly easy for you but not for many of us n/t

[Xithras]

188. She's a millionaire.

She owns a multi-million dollar property in one of the most exclusive parts of Southern California and uses it as a rental. That suggests something about her financial means.

If she can't find $22,000, she has bigger problems than squatters. The property taxes are a year overdue, so shes looking at an imminent tax lien filing anyway. If the property has a mortgage, that will probably trigger a foreclosure. If the property doesn't have a mortgage, then she doesn't have any excuse for not paying her taxes.

[Catherina]

193. I doubt tthat since she had to pool the money together with her sister

to buy the property as investment income 4 years ago. When the economy turned, they had no renters.

She bought the property four years ago with her sister as an investment and leased it to tenants. The housing crash hit her hard, and she wants to sell the place. Unfortunately for her, the house has the Duncans in it.

I think she's a young denstist but can't be sure. She's trying to get rid of this rock around her neck and sell it before it's foreclosed upon but these scam artists won't let her or anyone in. This is so wrong.

As someone who had to rent out my home when I moved out of state for a job, I can tell you it's no fun when the rental income isn't coming in because the bills still are.

[Orsino]

155. You know it's a crisis, and therefore newsworthy, when it happens in a rich neighborhood.

It's bad enough that these poor people steal from each other, but when they start pretending to wealth, well that's just unacceptable.

[Taverner]

157. John Locke would side with the squatter

He thought land that is not used, should be taken and put to use

[lunatica]

160. I don't get why this thread stays at the top of the list for days. Who fucking cares

that one mansion is taken over by squatters? Really!

The things that will get people into a high dudgeon is amazing.

[Nye Bevan]

163. You would care if it was your house (nt)

[lunatica]

168. But it isn't is it? So why do you care? Is it your house?

See that's my point. It's one damn mansion and one group of people. It isn't a takeover of your house or neighborhood by trailer trash is it?

[Nye Bevan]

172. First they came for the rich fuckers' houses and I stayed silent.... (nt)

[mainer]

183. It could be anyone's house. Look at the squatting cases.

Many are elderly homeowners who temporarily had to vacate.

[Scruffy1]

161. I just love the way liberals get outraged when poor

people use the laws to their advantage. Not so much outrage over Capitalist screwing the whole world, because I think politeness to those who screw you is a basic liberal value.

[WolverineDG]

174. These aren't poor people who are taking advantage of the laws

these are thieves who are hiding behind a fraudulent lease to steal property from its rightful owner.

Might want to try reading the article before jumping to conclusions next time.

dg

[Catherina]

178. READ THIS NOW. PLEASE DO NOT SUPPORT THESE CON ARTISTS

First, please read my post #72. These people are thieves and frauds.

Please do not cheer them on. They are making a mockery, a criminal enterprise of the squatting laws that will hurt decent people down the road, especially decent people like homeowners who are currently squatting in their own homes due to the foreclosure mess.

Robin Duncan is a former real estate agent out to con the system no matter who they hurt. Their fake lease was signed by a con man who runs a Mortgage "Rescue" business that has already defrauded underwater homeowners seeking help.

Throw these bums in jail. They're scum who've tried to do this before.

California House Thieves Arrested

Jesus Duran Aguayo, 52, real estate broker, and Sofia Aguayo, 52, real estate agent, husband and wife, both of Monterey Park, California were booked in the Los Angeles County Jail on $1.4 million bail in connection with a ‘squatter’ scam in which the defendants victimized elderly and other homeowners by unlawfully taking possession of roughly 100 houses, and subsequently renting out the property and keeping the income for themselves. Each will be charged with one count of grand theft, two counts of residential burglary, two counts of forgery, two counts of vandalism, four counts of trespassing, seven counts of filing false documents, two counts of elder abuse and one count of conspiracy. If convicted on all counts, each defendant could face roughly 20 years in state prison.

A year-long investigation by Attorney General Bill Lockyer’s office revealed that since at least April 2005 the Aguayos had perpetrated a complex variation of the illegal squatter scheme. According to court documents filed by Lockyer’s office in support of the search and arrest warrants, the basic scam worked like this:

First, the Aguayos would troll Los Angeles County, California looking for homes for which back taxes were owed. They then conducted surveillance on such homes to find out if they were occupied. If they determined the homes were unoccupied, they paid the delinquent taxes. They then filed fraudulent quit claim deeds that purported to transfer the property between themselves - without the legal owner’s knowledge or consent.

Having used fraud to lay a phony legal claim to the property, the Aguayos put fences around the home, made repairs, then rented the house and kept the money. When confronted by the rightful owners or their family members, the Aguayos in some cases lied or forged documents in an attempt to keep possession of the homes, the court papers allege. The investigation uncovered about 100 instances in which the Aguayos attempted to perpetrate some form of this fraud.

In the process of unjustly enriching themselves, the defendants inflicted severe financial damage on their victims, said Lockyer. He cited court documents filed by his office that allege the defendants’ use of a ’sophisticated and organized criminal technique‘ defrauded victims of real and personal property valued at more than $5 million.

A CBI agent’s court declaration, submitted in support of the search warrants, details seven cases in which the Aguayos perpetrated the alleged crimes. One especially egregious case involves a 78-year-old Los Angeles homeowner named Richard Dee. He told investigators that when he was living temporarily in a nursing home, he forgot to pay property taxes on the home he inherited from his mother.

In Dee’s absence, the Aguayos perpetrated their fraudulent scheme to take possession of his home without his knowledge. Dee’s neighbors believed he had died and that the house had been sold. Neighbors told investigators that all of Dee’s ‘furniture and personal belongings, including old family photos and his mother’s paintings,’ had been tossed into a garbage bin in front of the home. Dee’s 1967 red Ford Mustang also disappeared, neighbors told investigators, and a chain link fence was placed around the house.

With help from a legal aid attorney, Dee eventually got his home back from the Aguayos. But he can’t live in the house because the Aguayos failed to finish the work they started on the roof. As a result, Dee has been forced to continue living in a nursing home.

‘These defendants have lied, cheated, stolen and unjustly enriched themselves through criminal conduct,’ said Lockyer. ’They have taken people’s homes out from under them, committed fraud to keep possession of those houses, and in some cases trashed victims’ family pictures and other cherished belongings. They have victimized vulnerable folks, including the elderly and people suffering from dementia and other mental illnesses. My office will work hard to bring justice to them and their victims.‘

Consumers who feel they have been victimized by a similar real estate scam should file a complaint online at the Attorney General’s web site, http://ag.ca.gov/contact/complaint_form.php?cmplt=CL, or by regular mail addressed to Public Inquiry Unit, Office of the Attorney General, P.O. Box 944255, Sacramento, CA 94244-2550.

http://www.mortgagefraudblog.com/index.php/weblog/permalink/california_house_thieves_arrested/

Woman Indicted for Mortgage Rescue Scheme
Karen Tappert, a Nevada resident, was indicted for a mortgage rescue scheme involving 5 properties in Nevada, New Mexico and California.

According to the indictment, from late 2007, to November 2009, Tappert offered mortgage rescue services, rescuing mortgages by recording fraudulent deeds that purported to convey the property from the true owner to a business entity that she controlled.

The indictment also alleges that Tappert engaged in a "squatter's scheme.'' The squatter scheme entailed squatting on foreclosed properties that were abandoned. From December 2009, to approximately February 2010, Tappert located foreclosed properties and filed fraudulent deeds that she notarized purportedly conveying the property title to a business entity that she controlled. Tappert then used the properties for own use, either renting them out, or selling them.

The properties involved in the scam include:

...

http://www.mortgagefraudblog.com/index.php/weblog/permalink/woman_indicted_for_mortgage_rescue_scheme/

Two Indicted in Shaker Heights, Ohio House Theft
Lenard and Williams Face Multiple Counts

Detectives issued an arrest warrant for Richard “Rico” Lenard, 26, Richmond Heights, Ohio after a Cuyahoga County, Ohio grand jury indicted him on charges of receiving stolen property, forgery, tampering with records, telecommunications fraud, uttering, money laundering, falsification, aggravated theft and insurance fraud in connection with his alleged theft of a home in Shaker Heights, Ohio.

Tara Vaden Williams, 35, who lived in the property and whose name was listed on the deed, was indicted on three counts of tampering with records.

According to investigators, Lenard obtained title to the home by the used of forged documents shortly after its owners moved to a nursing home. Lenard received $160,000 from a $240,000 mortgage he obtained on the property, based, in part, on forged rent checks from Williams to Lenard. The son of the owners discovered squatters living in the home after his parents died. Title to the home was previously returned to the son through the civil court system.

http://www.mortgagefraudblog.com/index.php/weblog/permalink/two_indicted_in_shaker_heights_ohio_house_theft/

Grand Theft House
Squatters: The latest real-estate menace

Vacant properties across the country are being seized by a new breed of squatters. They're organized and often armed with fake paperwork, and it can take months to get them out.


When he moved in, David Dobbs did the same things most people would do when they set up in a new house. He unpacked his belongings, hooked up cable, transferred utilities, filled the swimming pool and watered the lawn, which was withering under the hot California sunshine.

"It was like he had just moved in and was a proud new owner," says Prudential California real-estate agent Tom Tennant, who listed the Corona, Calif., property.

The problem was, Dobbs had no right to move into the house: He was a squatter. The vacant house he occupied on affluent Star Canyon Drive was a foreclosed property owned by a bank, and it was in escrow to a new owner.

Dobbs is part of a troubling new breed of trespassers and con artists moving into vacant foreclosures across the country. Unlike most squatters, these people aren't derelict and living on the streets, and they don't move on once discovered by police or sheriff's officers. It can take months to get them out, agents and attorneys say.

"Possession is nine-tenths of the law," says Michigan real-estate broker Ralph Roberts, author of "Protect Yourself from Real Estate and Mortgage Fraud." "You can call the police, but the police aren't necessarily going to move them out."

That's because some squatters successfully confuse police by claiming they have a right to be there, often showing bogus leases, as Dobbs did, to put off being evicted.

...

The woman accused of providing Dobbs with the bogus paperwork, Gwendolyn Johnson, is reported to have filed about a dozen deed transfers at the county recorder's office for houses where she planned to move squatters. She told the local newspaper that she seizes possession of these properties and leases them out to tenants for a one-time fee of several hundred dollars. (Johnson was recently arrested on a felony charge of falsifying documents and is out on bail awaiting her court date.)

...

http://www.trashoutpro.com/news-grand_theft_house.html

Now I'm tired. I hope you'll at least consider the possibilty that these so-called sqautters are con artists part of a growing greed scam who don't deserve our support.

[WolverineDG]

186. Oh, there you go, injecting facts & logic into a poutrage party

what's the matter? why do you hate poor people? :sarcasm:

I could understand the poutrage if the people were in the home via a program that housed the homeless in vacant, foreclosed homes & the neighbors were in a tizzy. But these 2 folks are nothing more than thieves out to take something they are not entitled to & get everyone to jump through their hoops.

dg

[Hassin Bin Sober]

192. I do consider it very likely these people are indeed part of a scam.

However, it is also a possibility that the occupants are the VICTIMS of a scam (when I say possibility I mean slim to none).

On the flip side of many of these "house seizing scams" are people who thought they were legitimately renting a home. That's why these cases need to go to court to be worked out.

[Catherina]

197. I considered that too except that they've done this before

If they were legitimate, albeit duped, renters, they'd at least have a kitchen table in the house.

The kitchen has no table. There are no plants, paintings, rugs, bookshelves, floor lamps, chairs, desks or knickknacks that normally indicate a house is occupied.

This couple can't even afford dental care or cat food but the first thing they do when they move in is change the locks. Not only does the standard rental contracts prohibit tenants from changing the locks, but that seems like a strange priority for expenses when you have no money and practically no possessions in the house to keep safe.

But, I ask him, how exactly did they even come to consider someone else’s three-bedroom, three-and-a-half-bath pad their “own home”? He stares at me. Then he gives a toothless smile, shakes his head and says, “I’m not allowed to talk about that . . .

Not allowed? By whom? The fraudulent (Victor L. Lucchesi) and his scam business http://www.loanreliefgroup.net that's been in trouble with the BBB for defrauding people?

And this isn't the first time they've done this

This isn’t the first time the Duncans have lived with this kind of stress. Last year, they slipped into a vacant $330,000 Ladera Ranch condo. After hiring lawyers, the owner served the couple notice to leave in May and didn’t get his place back until mid-October, according to court records. Superior Court Judge Corey S. Cramin allowed part of the delay after Robin Duncan, who claimed ignorance of real-estate law, declared it would cause the couple “substantial hardship” to vacate the property any earlier.

Robin Duncan is very funny. She's a former Orange County Real Estate agent claiming "ignorance of real-estate law". Huh?

But there was also this: The Duncans might have occupied the condo longer if the owner hadn’t agreed to the couple’s handwritten list of demands. How bold were they? They chose the departure date they wanted and required their credit histories not reflect the mess. They also told the owner that if they left any trash behind, he could dispose of it himself.

And if things don’t work out for the Duncans in Newport Coast, one acquaintance’s account suggests they’re always on the lookout for new . . . opportunities.

“One day earlier this year, I’m serving a legal notice at a property in Quail Hill in Irvine,” says a private investigator who spoke to the Weekly on condition of anonymity. “This guy drives up in a Mercedes, rolls down his window and asks, ‘Did you just leave that house?’

“I said, ‘Yes,’ and this guy says, ‘What were you doing?’ I said, ‘What’s it to you?’ and he said, ‘My name is Chris, and I buy properties all over the place.’ Then his wife, Robin, steps out of the car, introduces herself and shakes my hand. It was weird. She is very good-looking, and he is, well, he’s odd—very hyperactive. I remember thinking, ‘What is she doing with this guy?’ Anyway, he asked for my business card and told me that he might share an opportunity to make lots of money.”

...
he basically tells me that he seizes houses under adverse conditions. He quoted some law I don’t remember and said, ‘It’s totally legal.’ So, he gave me a big list of homes and asked me to go see if they were vacant.”

The PI says he checked “a couple of homes in Ladera Ranch” for him but grew leery. “Chris promised a big pay-off

Hassin, their accomplice Victor Lucchesi, started a company called Shelter Us in San Jose to facilitate this real estate fraud. He may be a very busy man because the exact same thing happened in Seattle recently except that this time, the crooks incorporated a company

"Priority Rose Children's Outreach" in Bothell.

That's a charity that was incorporated only two weeks ago, according to the state Secretary of State's Office. Its purpose is listed as "spiritual training for adults and children in a religious safe environment for the development of all mankind."

That sounds nice. But the phone number for the charity is also the number for a Bothell company called NW Note Elimination that specializes in "eliminating mortgages." It does this by finding flaws with loans or titles and exploiting them to stake outright claims to property.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/dannywestneat/2012101648_danny13.html

Like you said, this is a matter for the courts.

This makes me mad because they're setting up fraudulent charities and not caring who they hurt. Their scummy accomplice Victor Lucchesi needs to be found and put behind bars.

His now removed LinkedIn profile says he currently works for Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, a fact not supported in his resume.

[TheKentuckian]

180. While we openly maintain two sets of laws and two economies, I could give a shit

I'm a strong believer in the gated communities and the wealthy sharing in the mess they made.

If you feel the need to riot, get out of your hood. If you feel the need to steal, do not prey on your neighbors but cut from those with the fat, if you got garbage you feel the need to dump take it to wealthy suburbs, if you need a place to stay then occupy a McMansion.

It takes a little gall to wax pious on squatters in a nation founded on genocide of the native population and hundreds of years of slavery. I don't share that gall, so I'm somewhere between indifferent and amused.

I'm worried about having a roof over my head not this bullshit over a secondary and unmaintained residence.

There is never a shortage of leniency, understanding, forgiveness, and respect for the well off but those of little means get the dogs turned on them.

[mainer]

182. And old people who must temporarily move to nursing homes?

They should lose their houses to criminals like these? A search of squatting cases shows that many of the owner/victims are elderly people who temporarily had to move into convalescent situations, and then lost their homes to squatters who moved in.

My reaction to that situation is neither indifferent nor amused.

[TheKentuckian]

203. Not the case here and as long as they have loot as evidenced by McMansions in the burbs

and gated communities then I could give a shit.

[WolverineDG]

185. Don't complain when they move in to your place while you're at work, then nt

[TheKentuckian]

204. I won't. I'm not going to leave my home for long enough for them to become residents

without it being checked. Your argument has no impact on this situation.

[mainer]

187. It actually makes gated communities almost necessary

If anyone could move into your house while you're away, then people will feel the need to be protected in an enclave. Lawlessness leads to fear leads to barricades.

[B Calm]

194. I hate seeing people homeless, but this not right! I'd be afraid to take a vacation

for fear someone could move into my home and steal it out from under me.

[Catherina]

198. They've done this to elderly people who were hospitalized or temporarily

in nursing homes.

These people aren't squatters looking for a place to lay their head. They're con artists who drive around in their MERCEDES (read the article), hiring investigators to go through court records, looking for vacant properties to steal.

String 'em up.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

196. This is why I moved my brother into my house when I left to work in Canada

I was terrified of squatters or more likely teenagers trashing it throwing a party.

[mainer]

205. Here's a case of squatting in Seattle, too:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/dannywestneat/2012101648_danny13.html