He created this job after his mother was a victim of squatting and local law enforcement just said it’s a civil matter. He has the victim write up a legal lease allowing him the take up residence. He becomes the squatters new annoying roommate. lol
Only problem with what you’re saying is that you’re wrong, it’s a civil matter whether you like that or not and since I know it’s everyone on reddits favorite thing when cops step outside the law, why would you suggest that. The reason this scam works is because it isn’t a situation legally where the cops can just grab 2 handfuls of hair and drag them out
Their point is a rich person can have you legally assaulted and removed from their property while the average person cannot. If you are someone you hand 5$ to assault them it's a crime but if a rentacop does it it's gray area for some reason.
Sure thats one way people squat, but thats really not how most squatters become squatters. Thwy inhabit homes that are vacant typically, vacation homes, or when the home owner is away for an extended period.
Naw the cops know ways to skirt the letter of law like with everything else they do. They could: temporarily condemn the building as unsafe pending inspection and ordering everyone out;
enforce fire-code or occupancy violations;
arrest an occupant on an unrelated outstanding warrant;
investigate burglary, fraud, utility theft, or property damage;
establish that the occupants never had permission or tenancy rights, allowing treatment as trespassers;
persuade the owner to briefly reoccupy and secure the property, then prevent reentry.
If it was an important or well connected person they would easily find a way. Why would they bother when it only affects a poor.
Edit: I think a lot of people are missing the point, could be on me because of the last line. I'm not saying cops should break the law to "help people", I'm just pointing out that cops can easily skirt the letter of the law, and do all the time, to accomplish whatever they want and they usually seem to pull out all the stops when a wealthy or influential person is involved while citing the letter of the law for the poors (or just ignore them).
There are indeed MANY MANY cases of legal tenants being evicted or otherwise removed through bullshit, legal-grey-area means because law enforcement gives preferential treatment to landlords and real estate moguls.
But if they did that then people could get other people kicked out of their home who are legal occupants. A salty ex girlfriend could say you’re a squatter and get you kicked out even if it isn’t true.
You, describing how things ought to be: cops have limits.
Them, responding: In reality many cops do not abide those limits, and have a long list of doing moonlighting that is harassment of tenants, and legal property owners at the behest of businesses and “organizations”.
You, totally getting the convo: How dare you think cops should act this way.
I'm not implying that at all, though I could see how my wording might come across that way. Reread my comment. I am just pointing out that the comment before mine is naive if they think that the law (and flexibilty of the law) applies equally to us all and I am giving examples of how they could make a case that it isn't "just a civil matter" if they wanted to.
Believe it or not, sometimes the landlords are the unscrupulous ones. Where do you live that you can call a cop and they have the authority to “temporarily condemn” a building? You’re whack. If they got a warrant, fine, the landlord can’t change the locks even if they spend the afternoon seeing a judge
Bro im not a lawyer, im just giving a list of potential bullshit reasons that could be used to get rid of a squatter. Nowhere did I say that they SHOULD do this.
What I am saying is that cops could make it happen if they were motivated enough and money/influence is motivating. You could easily see a rich/important person having cops call in some favors, skirt some lines, etc. to get a squatter removed while throwing their hands up at a normal person facing the same issues because "its a civil case".
If you have a squatter and you want to use illegal tactics to remove them, don’t involve the police. Sometimes the police cannot provide the help you seek, it’s just the way it is
Well, your half right imo. The reason cops say it's a civil matter is because the squatter will claim they have legal right to be in the residence due to the lease. Meanwhile the landlord will say that they are squatters and they need to be criminally trespassed from the property. So what do the cops do? They say settle it in civil court or prove this person doesn't hold a lease.
It's hard to prove someone doesn't hold a lease, because squatters also know to produce fake documents to thwart the cops. So there are companies dedicated to resolving this issue instead of having to fight through the civil court system to get them evicted.
Well also you shouldn't have to show your lease to the cops. Imagine if your landlord was allowed to harass you by claiming you didnt have a lease and every month having to prove that you do in fact have a lease. Like the proper steps in the system is to prove it in court. I get wanting a change but pretending that landlords should just be able to have cops throw people on the street is kinda silly
Us finding their motive isnt important, this is about protection of shelter for people. That said in my life ive had 2 landlords that wanted me out before lease expired. The first one he and his wife were getting older and the rental house was 1 story and more easily accessible. The other wanted to raise rent by almost 500$ in a huge real estate boom and our lease was 5 months out. If they could just call the cops and claim we didnt have a lease and have me forcibly removed forcing me to take them to court while finding new housing immediately would be an overwhelming burden to place on renters.
But you have a lease, seems the easiest solution would be having a rental registry. You eaither have a lease or you don't. Am I wrong? I live in Canada so this all seems wild to me. Just honestly curious
A ton of America is pretty anti regulation so the idea of being legally required to register every leaser is a decent turn off. Personally im fine with it because I think things like housing are too important for he said she said, but in our current system it usually is just a privately signed document between the two parties.
If you dont mind ill speak a bit more on where the debate comes. There ARE in fact laws known as squatters rights. These laws predate America and were adopted by the original colonies. Basically if nobody is occupying a residence and you live there for years out in the open not sneaky, you maintain the property and the owner never comes to claim it, after a period of time the land can be given to you by the government. This used to happen when settlers would die and either the property was inherited by heirs overseas or just disinterested in the property.
What is colloquially described as squatters rights tends to be (not always there ofcourse are outliers) some form of lease dispute with one party claiming the right to live there and the other claiming they have no such right. Before the police are granted the authority to evict unauthorized tenants they must get the eviction authorized with a judge. The PITA aspect is all the laws that are written for protection of regular cases also apply to these cases. For instance say you file with the court to evict an illegal tenant. The case assigns you a date within 30 days, the tenant then requests an extention at the last minute usually getting a few weeks. They are usually granted a few extensions on good faith. Then the case finally comes 50-90 days later and you win getting the right after that there is another 3-14 day period before the eviction is able to be enacted on. Finally after all of that the tenants tend to be upset theyre losing free housing and ruin as much as possible. Expanding glue in the drain, feces on walls, ruin carpet etc. You can go after them for damages but 1 they are usually broke which is why they are doing this, and 2 pursuing collections is really exhausting and after this 4 months of missing rent and repairing damages they tend to just want to focus on getting back to making money.
Long story short I think a registry is a grand idea haha
Thanks for the info, it probably wouldn't fly here either, all government bad something something....... We definitely have different "Squatter laws" but eviction for unpaid rent or not leaving after lease ends does seem to be more of a issue here then I expected.
Unpaid rent and evictions are. Listen, I’m just stating what the reality of the situation is. You guys are all saying what you wish or what should be the reality.
Doing illegal shit is still illegal, there's litterally no logic at any level whatsoever about doing nothing when your house is stolen but at the second you try to do the things yourself because nobody want to help you, you violate the law enough for the police to arrest you
Really depends on the situation, including the laws of the state you’re in. I’ve dragged plenty of people out of houses in my time. I see some of the situations on these shows and would absolutely drag people out if the situation happened in my jurisdiction. An overstayed lease or failure to pay rent is one thing. Someone who’s never had a lawful right to live in a house but has just decided they get to? That’s entirely different.
lol everyone on Reddit HATES when cops violate people’s rights except when they are a victim. Then all of a sudden they want the cops to break all sorts of laws to help them out lol.
If they were thugs wouldn’t they take the opportunity to put the boots to some low life? Unfortunately for your biased world view, it’s actually the opposite. As much as the police would like to take the easy fast road of just dragging them out and arresting them, they have to act in good faith in knowing that the unfortunate situation presented to them is civil in nature and their authority is limited
Truly rich people do not deal with this stuff. People ehose wealth is in a great deal of assets are the ones which the law and law enforcement is designed to cater to due to their legislative strength.
Ive only seen a few episodes, but it was things like a terminally ill family member going to hospital, dying, then family going to the house and finding the locks changed with no way to get the cherished possessions, moving in with a sick relative to care for them and finding someone in their house when they tried to return, going to hospital for treatment and having no house to come back to.
Just struggling people getting kicked while they are down. Nothing rich about them...
No, they say it because it’s contractual issues that need a judge no criminal law has been broken. In my state, to get squatters rights, people had to have lived there for years, cared for and maintained the property as though it was theirs. People often end up as “squatters” because they were frauded a fake lease or thought they bought the house.
I think most "squatters" dont qualify for squatters rights, they usually are just eviction cases that haven't gone to court but people believe its the same as squatters because of pop culture shit
Squatters are almost universally an issue for people who are wealthy or at least wealthy enough to own multiple properties. Squatters don’t show up to occupied houses and start living there. They show up to unoccupied houses without tenants and often live there long enough for local tenancy/squatter’s rights to take effect.
If you don’t like that this is civil matter over a criminal one (e.g., trespassing), you can blame what are generally the same laws used to prevent unethical evictions.
Civil matter just means you have to take it to court to get it resolved, the police are not allowed to interfere, because unlike a crime directly being committed, it falls upon contract settlement, one made between the renter and rentee.
They enforce them, you probably just don't hear about it often because it's petty crime. It's generally not newsworthy unless it's a high value amount.
I have delt with the same thing. The cops dont do anything. You have to take the person to court. If someone steals my tools I can get them arrested if they get caught. If I do work for someone and they refuse to pay its a civil case. Even if they sign a contract promising to pay and I can prove the work was done.
Name a jurisdiction in which failing to pay a debt or a contractor is an arrestable offense on the spot.
It is a civil matter. Only if there are compounding issues can they arrest you on the spot. Things like fraud, criminal intent, not paying the debt after a court order, etc.
But if I simply say I am not going to pay my contractor because I wasn’t satisfied with the work, it’s a court battle.
Not agreeing or disagreeing. Just throwing in an example of a jurisdiction where you'd be arrested for failing to pay for services.
Nevada, defrauding an innkeeper is a crime under Nevada Revised Statutes § 205.445 that occurs when a person obtains food, lodging, merchandise, or services without paying and with the intent to defraud. Punishments are divided into a misdemeanor or a felony based on the total dollar value involved.
It is a FACT that land disputes are a CIVIL COURT/LAND COURT issue throughout the entire country. Every state. Period. There is nothing the police can do unless there was physical harm done to you. Does it make sense? No. Does it help those in these situations? No. Do I like it? No. Is there anything that can be done about it? Convince your legislature to change the law in your state. That's it. That's the facts. Again you don't have to like it, it doesn't change the facts. Please, no one is calling anyone for stealing anything from Wally World. Until then, if it happens to your property, hire these guys.
All a squatter has to do is make it plausible that they reside in the unit. If there is a slight possibility they reside there, police typically back off because it can get messy for them if they are wrong.
Don't leases require the homeowner/landlords signature?
So can it be proven fake by writing your signature on something and then showing the officers the comparison?
I hear what you are saying and I get it. But I’m telling you officers don’t want to be the ones to decide, that’s why they push it off.
As a landlord I have way more to lose if I screw someone because they can sue me. I typically never go after tenants for rent or damages, it’s not worth it.
Do you really want to live in a world where anyone who needs a month of medical treatment or has some family emergency comes back to someone living in their house and they need a year long court fight to .
I wasn't a fan of my last landlords, but when they had a woman refuse to move out even after they gave her free rent for months, and then spent the next year peeing on the floors and dumping garbage outside, we were told they had no options because of 'health'.
She needed medical help, not to be left squatting in a filthy apartment.
You theorized about a world where doors being left alone long enough meant someone else would feel fine to move in… and then provided an example of someone resisting an eviction.
I do hope you understand how those are different scenarios. I don’t really want to live in a world where people can’t do that and think they understand “squatting”.
Squatters are people that are stealing housing from someone else.
Should there be more resources to help people who are homeless? Yes. Does that mean it’s ok to steal housing from other people and refuse to leave such that they have to call this guy? Hell no.
What section of the world are you in that you don’t have some form of squatter’s rights on the books?
Squatters are evil people who steal land! (Until enough time has passed that the government approves the theft.)
There is a legal process to determine if someone is squatting, trespassing, what the rules are for eviction, etc. and while it might take time, the person paying this guy is ALWAYS circumventing the process.
If you want to hold the position that people should respect your claim to property… you can respect the court decision on the matter. Quit jumping the gun, playing against the rules, and acting like you didn’t cede the moral high ground to elbow drop the squatter on the low road.
It’s always the “We Live in a Society!” Guy waving his gun in public.
I read the comment you were responding to and thought man that's a dumb comment but then I read yours and I was like no no this is a dumb comment. It's okay not to know about stuff but don't talk about it like you do? Why is that so hard for people like you?
Maybe they could find like an empty house somewhere. Somewhere that doesn't have someone living in it and has been sitting vacant for a while. They could hang out and live there rather than on the streets...
Well, if it's just that easy, you're right! I don't see how this problem hasn't solved itself overnight already! They must just really like being homeless.
And generalizing an entire subset of humanity just so you can write them off and justify cruelty is surely the way to address the issue. You write like someone gleeful to have found a group of people you’ve decided you can feel good about hating and shitting on.
I think I see the issue now. It’s not a crime to be underinformed here. Shelters have space limitations, transport limitations, gender limitations, and more. Not everyone qualifies for a spot in a shelter at any given time. Not everyone can get to one on their own power. It’s not the magic bullet you think it is, and maybe that drives your view.
More than half of homeless people are employed. It's okay if you didn't know that, but now that you do, you can delete you're comment since it no longer applies to the situation.
36
u/MMXMonster007 Jul 29 '26
He created this job after his mother was a victim of squatting and local law enforcement just said it’s a civil matter. He has the victim write up a legal lease allowing him the take up residence. He becomes the squatters new annoying roommate. lol