7 ms·

"If he wants the house, buy the house like everyone else had to," Lowrie said. "Get the money, buy the house." My personal opinion is good on the guy, if hes s

"If he wants the house, buy the house like everyone else had to," Lowrie said. "Get the money, buy the house." My personal opinion is good on the guy, if hes smart enough to find a way to legally obtain a house like this then more power to him. Mrs Lowrie is just pissed she didnt get the same opportunity.

ImprovedSilence 15y ago
yeah, judging from some of the comments on the article, its a race issue too... deal with it people, all afraid of their home values dropping.... also, HOA's just suck.
- tptacek 15y ago
  "HOA's suck" seems like an awfully frail case to make against the concept of property rights. I guess you can make it, but then I reserve the right to make fun of you when you get huffy about the eminent domain claims by states that want more commercial developments.
tptacek 15y ago
This person is gaming a law designed to protect homeowners from spurious litigation†. He knows full well he has no moral right to the property ("adverse selection" codes are not an invitation to utilize unused property). He's taking advantage of someone else's misfortune in a long shot bid to poach property. It seems weird to me that anyone would cheer him on. Within reasonable limits, a shorter time based hurdle to adverse possession claim is more homeowner-friendly. Texas is on the lower side at 10 years. The only possible outcome to a spate of bad-faith adverse possession claims is for the state to jack the limit up to 20 or 30 years. † More commonplace application of adverse possession: I build a new garage, but somehow get the property line wrong and impinge on my neighbor. Nobody notices. Later, I sell my house to you. A couple years after that, my old neighbor sues you.
- brudgers 15y ago
  >"He knows full well he has no moral right to the property Throughout the Americas, the same logic that one can claim ownership of unused land underpins most land titles - e.g. the original entitlement of most of Texas was made on the basis that the land was underused. One need only look at the sovereign land grants which most title histories in the US begin with.
  - philwelch 15y ago
    If you go far back enough, all land ownership is based on "might makes right". There's always a genocide or war at some point in the process. As it happens, the organized might (the government) has decided to maintain and enforce a regulated market in real estate, largely to everyone's benefit.
- _delirium 15y ago
  I agree those are the most common uses, and one of the historical justifications--- to keep a settled de-facto property situation from being thrown into chaos by someone digging up a forgotten 90-year-old document. But I'm not sure that the doctrine doesn't also have a historical purpose of inviting people to make productive use of abandoned/derelict property. Especially in pre-20th-century legal treatises, that seems to be taken for granted as one of the reasons for the adverse-possession doctrine, and in the American West it was frequently used that way, as people took over farms or ranches that had been abandoned by the landowner, e.g. because he moved away without disposing of it, or died with heirs who never showed up to take possession. The Homestead Act of 1862 was even more or less a formalization of one particular kind of squatting, on government land, which previously had been done under the adverse-possession doctrine (with the U.S. losing title for not making use of the property).
- ruby_on_rails 15y ago
  I think its rather cute that people take the moral high ground when it comes to the law. However such ought-to-be approaches to the law are irrelevant. Its the legal system not the justice system. He did his homework and he is within his rights to take advantage of all laws which apply. Americans don't get all up in arms when major corporations use loop wholes in the law to get over on us (when was the last time General Electric paid taxes? The 70's?). Furthermore, the articles author pointed out that original owner was foreclosed on and promptly went mia and company which owned the mortgage went under. Its that either of those 2 parties or even a third party will assert their rights over the property, but until that occurs he is the legal owner as he legally filed as such. His neighbors can moan about it all they please, but they have no standing in the case whatsoever. Example: Someone defrauded Southwest Airlines: me having nothing to do with the case cannot bring fraud charges against whoever did; I have no standing in the case. I could have been standing right next to the guy that did it, as he did it, but I still have no standing in the case. Thirdly, who's misfortune is he taking advantage of? The homeowners? No, they didn't pay their bills and left, the title went to the mortgage company. The Mortgage company? No, they went under. Whoever working there had long since lost their jobs and most likely found new employment before this guy applied to legally own the property. You want to make this guy out to be a bad guy because he doesn't use things the way "normal" people do and he got ahead for it. You are boring and lack any relevant imagination.
ctdonath 15y ago
Few people have ever, in fact, read the law. Doing so often reveals amazing opportunities. In this case, he looked into what the legal status of a home is when the mortgage paying owner abandons it, and the mortgage company ceases to exist. Answer: nobody owns it, and whoever files paperwork and actually starts living there gets it. Go figure. To those saying "pay the $300,000!": to whom? The homeowner? he gave up ownership by moving out and abandoning the mortgage payments. The mortgage company actually owns the house until it's paid off, but if the company goes defunct then nobody owns it. There is nobody to pay!
- tptacek 15y ago
  What? No. That's not what happened. It's not "nobody owns it". When your mortgage company folds, the titles don't vanish into the ether. The titles have economic value, even in the (extraordinarily unlikely) case where that value is pennies on the original dollar. The assets of the mortgage company are sold. Meanwhile, this is a terrible outcome for the neighborhood. Many people on HN are no doubt failing to find ways to shed tears for mortgage companies, but during the 10+ (note carefully that "plus" sign) years this guy's BS claim to the house takes to resolve itself, the house is out of the market; it can't be sold to anyone, at any price. It must instead be occupied by someone who has virtually no incentive to maintain or improve it.
  - Despite 15y ago
    Is the guy living there now? Seems he would have the same incentives as any owner. I don't see why the neighborhood cares at all, or why anyone should care what the neighbors think.
    - dctoedt 15y ago
      > Is the guy living there now? Seems he would have the same incentives as any owner. My brother owns rent houses; from the stories he tells, he would disagree even about renters, let alone squatters. And recall the quote attributed to Lawrence Summers: In the history of the world, no one has ever washed a rented car. [1] [1] http://quoteinvestigator.com/2010/06/21/wash-rental/ http://quoteinvestigator.com/2010/06/21/wash-rental/
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]

ImprovedSilence 15y ago

yeah, judging from some of the comments on the article, its a race issue too... deal with it people, all afraid of their home values dropping.... also, HOA's just suck.

tptacek 15y ago
"HOA's suck" seems like an awfully frail case to make against the concept of property rights. I guess you can make it, but then I reserve the right to make fun of you when you get huffy about the eminent domain claims by states that want more commercial developments.

tptacek 15y ago

This person is gaming a law designed to protect homeowners from spurious litigation†. He knows full well he has no moral right to the property ("adverse selection" codes are not an invitation to utilize unused property). He's taking advantage of someone else's misfortune in a long shot bid to poach property. It seems weird to me that anyone would cheer him on. Within reasonable limits, a shorter time based hurdle to adverse possession claim is more homeowner-friendly. Texas is on the lower side at 10 years. The only possible outcome to a spate of bad-faith adverse possession claims is for the state to jack the limit up to 20 or 30 years. † More commonplace application of adverse possession: I build a new garage, but somehow get the property line wrong and impinge on my neighbor. Nobody notices. Later, I sell my house to you. A couple years after that, my old neighbor sues you.

brudgers 15y ago
>"He knows full well he has no moral right to the property Throughout the Americas, the same logic that one can claim ownership of unused land underpins most land titles - e.g. the original entitlement of most of Texas was made on the basis that the land was underused. One need only look at the sovereign land grants which most title histories in the US begin with.
- philwelch 15y ago
  If you go far back enough, all land ownership is based on "might makes right". There's always a genocide or war at some point in the process. As it happens, the organized might (the government) has decided to maintain and enforce a regulated market in real estate, largely to everyone's benefit.
_delirium 15y ago
I agree those are the most common uses, and one of the historical justifications--- to keep a settled de-facto property situation from being thrown into chaos by someone digging up a forgotten 90-year-old document. But I'm not sure that the doctrine doesn't also have a historical purpose of inviting people to make productive use of abandoned/derelict property. Especially in pre-20th-century legal treatises, that seems to be taken for granted as one of the reasons for the adverse-possession doctrine, and in the American West it was frequently used that way, as people took over farms or ranches that had been abandoned by the landowner, e.g. because he moved away without disposing of it, or died with heirs who never showed up to take possession. The Homestead Act of 1862 was even more or less a formalization of one particular kind of squatting, on government land, which previously had been done under the adverse-possession doctrine (with the U.S. losing title for not making use of the property).
ruby_on_rails 15y ago
I think its rather cute that people take the moral high ground when it comes to the law. However such ought-to-be approaches to the law are irrelevant. Its the legal system not the justice system. He did his homework and he is within his rights to take advantage of all laws which apply. Americans don't get all up in arms when major corporations use loop wholes in the law to get over on us (when was the last time General Electric paid taxes? The 70's?). Furthermore, the articles author pointed out that original owner was foreclosed on and promptly went mia and company which owned the mortgage went under. Its that either of those 2 parties or even a third party will assert their rights over the property, but until that occurs he is the legal owner as he legally filed as such. His neighbors can moan about it all they please, but they have no standing in the case whatsoever. Example: Someone defrauded Southwest Airlines: me having nothing to do with the case cannot bring fraud charges against whoever did; I have no standing in the case. I could have been standing right next to the guy that did it, as he did it, but I still have no standing in the case. Thirdly, who's misfortune is he taking advantage of? The homeowners? No, they didn't pay their bills and left, the title went to the mortgage company. The Mortgage company? No, they went under. Whoever working there had long since lost their jobs and most likely found new employment before this guy applied to legally own the property. You want to make this guy out to be a bad guy because he doesn't use things the way "normal" people do and he got ahead for it. You are boring and lack any relevant imagination.

ctdonath 15y ago

Few people have ever, in fact, read the law. Doing so often reveals amazing opportunities. In this case, he looked into what the legal status of a home is when the mortgage paying owner abandons it, and the mortgage company ceases to exist. Answer: nobody owns it, and whoever files paperwork and actually starts living there gets it. Go figure. To those saying "pay the $300,000!": to whom? The homeowner? he gave up ownership by moving out and abandoning the mortgage payments. The mortgage company actually owns the house until it's paid off, but if the company goes defunct then nobody owns it. There is nobody to pay!

tptacek 15y ago
What? No. That's not what happened. It's not "nobody owns it". When your mortgage company folds, the titles don't vanish into the ether. The titles have economic value, even in the (extraordinarily unlikely) case where that value is pennies on the original dollar. The assets of the mortgage company are sold. Meanwhile, this is a terrible outcome for the neighborhood. Many people on HN are no doubt failing to find ways to shed tears for mortgage companies, but during the 10+ (note carefully that "plus" sign) years this guy's BS claim to the house takes to resolve itself, the house is out of the market; it can't be sold to anyone, at any price. It must instead be occupied by someone who has virtually no incentive to maintain or improve it.
- Despite 15y ago
  Is the guy living there now? Seems he would have the same incentives as any owner. I don't see why the neighborhood cares at all, or why anyone should care what the neighbors think.
  - dctoedt 15y ago
    > Is the guy living there now? Seems he would have the same incentives as any owner. My brother owns rent houses; from the stories he tells, he would disagree even about renters, let alone squatters. And recall the quote attributed to Lawrence Summers: In the history of the world, no one has ever washed a rented car. [1] [1] http://quoteinvestigator.com/2010/06/21/wash-rental/ http://quoteinvestigator.com/2010/06/21/wash-rental/

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]