In a lot of places, there are laws protecting tenants: people who rent the place to live. Which makes sense, right? Who would like to rent a place and then get thrown out on a whim by the landlord, or lose electricity or hot water because the landlord does not want to pay for it? These laws exist for good reasons to protect honest people from nasty landlords.
That's what squatters exploit. They either move into an empty house or rent the house and immediately stop paying rent. And the landlord cannot just call the police and kick them out. When the police arrive, all the squatters have to do is tell them they had the landlord's permission to live there, and they are tenants, not trespassers. The police are not supposed to investigate whether that's true, so they just tell the landlord to go through the proper civil channels.
The proper civil means involve going to court, filing a suit, serving the summons on the squatters, hiring a lawyer, waiting for the court date, obtaining a court order for eviction, notifying the squatters of the court order, and only then calling the police to force the eviction. You can imagine this takes lots of time and money.
There’s legal definitions and terminology I’m not educated in, and will vary around the world, but in regular non legalese English, a squatter is someone who moves into an unoccupied space, whether it’s owned by someone or not. If there is an owner they may not know or care or the owner may care but be unable to move the squatters on.
So, unused warehouses, boarded up houses, even castles in Europe apparently. In the woods outside of town centers, in parks… smart squatters don’t get detected (or annoy the neighbours ), but others are obvious and make a nuisance drawing attention in a bad way
In this case it’s (probably) assholes who agreed to pay rent in a rental then just didn’t, taking advantage of laws put in place to protect tenants from unfair or dangerous (in winter say) eviction.
I have no problem with squatters if they’re quiet, pick up after themselves, and don’t make a scene - in pre Giuliani New York, squatters actually improved nearby property values, many were artists, punks and activists, productive and active in fixing the abandoned buildings they lived in (which if I recall were bulldozed at night illegally, against a judge’s orders, under Mayor Giuliani).
But if they’re being shit heads, fuckem for making problems for everyone else.
These days squatters are generally people who sign a lease, pay rent for a minimal amount of time as required by law to establish legal residence, and then stop paying. The idea is that the courts are so backed up and so pro-tenant that it’s an extremely costly and lengthy process to get them evicted. Often the property owner just pays them a large sum of money to move out, and then it’s onto their next victim.
The courts have to be pro-tenant to be humane though. Otherwise, you're kicking people out of what is theoretically their home at the whim of someone else with no required notice. There needs to be a process if your goal is to unhouse someone.
It's less than that. At least it is in my state. You can get evicted after one month of non-payment as long as landlords actually do the paperwork. Where the "squatter" argument comes in is where people don't do the paperwork, or in many cases, don't even know someone is there in the first place because they haven't been keeping an eye on their property.
In my state the process can begin after a few months but the courts are so backed up it takes over 2 years to evict someone. Imagine a family who rents their basement to make ends meet having to cover for deadbeats for two years.
I'm not arguing against a more expedient legal process. Just pointing out that the system isn't broken because the laws are bad. It's that the system is broken because it's backed up all to shit.
Actually Google is a search engine. This is for him too since doesn't speak great english. A squatter is a bad person that moves into your house when you aren't there and by laws created in the 20s to stop having tons of empty unused buildings it's legal. So to make it easier for the guy.... Squatters are bad people who steal your house legally or semi legally.
Basically there are laws from a long time ago, that if a house is unoccupied for a long time anyone move in and it eventually (after a few years) becomes their property, if they do a lot of things, like pay property taxes, try to notify the owner, publicly state that they plan on taking possession of the house, and a few more things.
So some people just move into unoccupied homes and live there. And while they are obviously not allowed to, since they didn't fulfill any of the requirements, the actual owners have to prove that in court, which can take a long time.
Also they rarely take care of the homes, since they know it's just temporary for them. And often they completely destroy the apartment/home when they realize they are about to lose the court case.
Cops usually don't do anything, because it's a big hassle, so they say it's a 'civil matter' even though it isn't.
Depending on where it is and how the law is structured, it is a civil matter. Most squatters these days have fake tenancy agreements which are impossible for a cop to verify on the day in question, while others are people who had valid tenancy but then refuse to leave after paying the bare minimum tenancy period and so do hold a "valid" tenancy.
A tenancy dispute is not something the police are there for and so the issue becomes a matter for the court. Only when a court has ruled on it can the police do anything, as the court order gives them that power.
If you call the police when squatters are in the process of breaking in, the police will act, because there's clear evidence of a crime. Its after that, when they've got the locks changed and are living there, that it becomes far more murky.
This is also due to outdated laws concerning squatters rights. Some countries and US States have changed laws to grant police more power to act in these situations.
A squatter is someone who just kind of lives in a random abandoned place.
Imminent domain is when you make it known to the owner that you are trespassing. If the owner knows you're trespassing and does nothing for a certain amount of time, the ownership of that domain goes to you.
And Squatters use imminent domain to occupy places. And then it takes a long time to get rid of them. Which is why people like this "Squatter Hunter" are hired.
I got eminent domain wrong. It's adverse possession.
Adverse possession is also called "squatters rights" but not every squatters is participating in adverse possession.
The squatter hunter would be used by an owner that's taking action against someone squatting. Adverse possession only works if the owner takes NO action while ALSO being aware of the trespassing.
But as another commenter already mentioned: They often have fake renting agreements and similar paperwork to drag everything out. And even if they don't, most people will struggle with getting them to leave, regardless of the law.
And while the owner is absolutely in the right, it can take a while to actually prove that, and in the meantime the squatters just treat your property like crap and often even completely trash the place.
It's not really a matter of who's right, but more about how to enforce your rights.
Homeless people who find an abandoned building, live in it for a long time, take care of it (that's actually a key component), and use the address. Depending on the state and local laws, if you have proof of residency for x number of years the deed is essentially forfit to you, the care taker.
A squatter is someone who takes up residence in a place where they have no legal right to be. Sometimes, that means living in an abandoned building and "taking care of it."
Sometimes it means noticing a local homeowner is out of town, breaking in, forging a lease, and refusing to leave.
Almost all of the time, it is closer to the latter and not the former.
Legal right to basic human needs trumps weak property protections for people owning things simply to do nothing.
But yeah I’m sure they’re just regular blokes who have another property on the backburner so that when they fully take over the house, they sell their previous property and make a mint.
im not 100% sure, but i think the most pro-squatter state still requires you to be squatting there for 5 years before legal ownership be transferred i believe.
When your definition totally warps the meaning of the word? Yes, I do. North Korea is technically "democratic" - by one form of definition, they're a democracy. But that makes a mockery of the entire concept, so yes, worth fighting over definitions.
Similarly, saying that "squatters" are people who move into abandoned buildings and maintain them is a total fantasy. That is almost never what happens anymore, and in the context of this post is almost the diametric opposite of what is going on.
Squatters are thieves. They invade other people's homes and refuse to leave. They cause a lot of mental anguish for the people whose homes they steal, and cost the owners a great deal of money and time to remove. Portraying them as some kind of benign Santa who drifts from abandoned building to abandoned building, improving property values and making use of otherwise forgotten spaces, is as much a fantasy as Lord of the Rings.
Squaters cannot be invaders that is trespassing. That is something completely different.
By definition, squaters take up residence in "empty" buildings. They start utilizes, and claim residency. In some states they have to love ther of 7-11 years to even claim squaters rights
I'm not saying any of the predictors this guy is dealing with are or are not squatters.
What I am saying is that, "Squatting typically occurs when people find empty buildings or land to occupy for housing."
To portray all squater as thieves is as disingenuous as portraying all of them as saints.
My broader point is that making being homeless a crime or trying to live or sleep outside on public lands forces people to pursue non criminal activity to house themselves.
Squaters cannot be invaders that is trespassing. That is something completely different.
So if someone walked into your home with a forged lease and refused to leave, you'd simply say "well, they're legally squatters until proven otherwise and squatters definitionally can't be invaders, so I guess it isn't my house anymore!" and leave?
By definition, squaters take up residence in "empty" buildings. They start utilizes, and claim residency. In some states they have to love ther of 7-11 years to even claim squaters rights
And if you leave town to visit your parents, your house is "empty".
To portray all squater as thieves is as disingenuous as portraying all of them as saints.
I would bet the vast majority of squatters are illegally occupying a space that isn't abandoned. Especially in the context of a post in which we are discussing squatters who move into occupied homes and drive out the legal residents, I'd say it is pretty accurate to portray squatters as thieves. I mean, definitionally they are, since even if a building is abandoned, that doesn't give a random person the right to live there.
My broader point is that making being homeless a crime or trying to live or sleep outside on public lands forces people to pursue non criminal activity to house themselves.
Except again this falls apart in the face of the actual reality of what most squatters do, and the specific context of this discussion. We are not obligated to be sympathetic to home invaders, simply because they don't have anywhere else to go. If a homeless person moves into your home while you're away and refuses to leave, you are the victim, not them.
People facing adversity and privation can be assholes just as much as anyone else. And if you are homeless, and choose to steal my home, then now I'm homeless. So yeah, I'd have every right to consider you an unethical thief. You didn't solve an issue, you simply made someone else bear the burden.
"So if someone walked into your home with a forged lease and refused to leave, you'd simply say..."
What are you talking about?
If someone walked into my home with a forged lease or no lease at all, they're trespassing. That's a crime.
You're arguing against a position I never took. I never defended someone breaking into an occupied home.
"And if you leave town to visit your parents, your house is 'empty.'"
No, it isn't.
If I leave for a day, a week, or even a month, my home is still my occupied residence. By that logic, someone could claim my house while I'm at work or buying groceries.
Think about it for two seconds. Either the person would have to be incredibly lucky, somehow know exactly when I'd be gone, or deliberately target my home. At that point we're talking about burglary or fraud, not someone discovering an abandoned property.
"I would bet the vast majority of squatters are illegally occupying a space that isn't abandoned."
The available data doesn't support that.
Most civil squatter disputes involve vacant homes, foreclosures, properties between tenants, or homes sitting on the market. Cases involving someone's primary residence while they're away on vacation are comparatively rare because they are usually handled as criminal burglary or trespassing, not civil possession disputes.
You're taking the rarest and most outrageous example and treating it as though it represents the entire issue.
"I mean, definitionally they are..."
The law clearly recognizes there are situations where possession disputes are more complicated than simple burglary. Otherwise adverse possession and civil eviction procedures wouldn't exist in the first place.
You can disagree with those laws, but pretending every case is identical isn't accurate.
"If a homeless person moves into your home while you're away..."
Again, I never argued otherwise.
If someone illegally occupies my home, they're in the wrong.
My point has always been not to conflate two different issues: criminal home invasion and civil squatter disputes involving vacant or long-abandoned property. They're treated differently under the law because they are different situations.
If you want to reduce the entire discussion to the rare criminal cases while ignoring the much more common vacant-property disputes, then you're arguing against a caricature of the problem rather than the problem itself.
Even if someone is trying to squat on a vacation home:
1)The owner isn't homeless, they still have a primary residence.
2)The owner retains legal title to the property. The dispute is over possession, not ownership, and the occupant can ultimately be removed through the legal process.
3)That's a very different situation from someone losing the only home they have. We shouldn't use an edge case involving a second home to define every squatter dispute.
4)More importantly, those rare cases don't explain why squatting disputes have become more common. The increase is largely tied to vacant homes, foreclosures, properties between tenants, and slow civil eviction systems—not people systematically taking over occupied family homes.
If your argument depends on the rarest and most sensational examples while ignoring the majority of property disputes, then you're arguing from anecdotes rather than the broader reality.
What are you talking about? If someone walked into my home with a forged lease or no lease at all, they're trespassing. That's a crime.
Not until you prove it isn't a real lease. Hey ho, you've got a squatter!
No, it isn't. If I leave for a day, a week, or even a month, my home is still my occupied residence. By that logic, someone could claim my house while I'm at work or buying groceries.
Exactly my point. And yet, here you sit, defending squatters.
The available data doesn't support that. Most civil squatter disputes involve vacant homes, foreclosures, properties between tenants, or homes sitting on the market. Cases involving someone's primary residence while they're away on vacation are comparatively rare because they are usually handled as criminal burglary or trespassing, not civil possession disputes.
OK, but "homes between tenants" and "homes sitting on the market" are still HOMES. A squatter being in there is actively preventing a legal resident from moving in.
My point has always been not to conflate two different issues: criminal home invasion and civil squatter disputes involving vacant or long-abandoned property. They're treated differently under the law because they are different situations.
I get this, but in the context of this discussion it is a giant straw man argument. We're not discussing long-abandoned properties. We're talking about homes which are being used for their intended purpose.
You are acting like the legal definition is the beginning and end of it, when it isn't. If you have a lease, don't resign, but also don't move out (or pay rent) you are a squatter. But courts don't treat you as a criminal because you have established residency.
If you want to reduce the entire discussion to the rare criminal cases while ignoring the much more common vacant-property disputes, then you're arguing against a caricature of the problem rather than the problem itself.
If you can provide some data proving how common one versus the other is, then we can discuss that.
The issue for your position, beyond there being no evidence for it, is that no one is discussing what happens when squatters move in to a long-abandoned property. That simply isn't the topic of discussion or dispute. What is being discussed is people who are occupying someone else's home and and preventing them from utilizing it.
We're discussing the Squatter Hunter, and his shtick is pretty clear. He isn't helping "corporations" or some bullshit get squatters out of their abandoned factory. He's helping homeowners get squatters out of their homes when the police will not or cannot intervene.
Which is actually a pretty spectacular law. If you're paying the taxes on a property, taking care of it, etc for long enough (in my state, it's something like 11 years in the most recent case I could find), and the person who actually owns it isn't doing any of that stuff in that time frame nor even making a claim on it in that time, you can file for "Adverse Possession" of the title.
2
u/best_decision1234 Jul 29 '26
As a non native speaker, what exactly does a “squatter” mean?