57 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}
57 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}

Bank of America Takes Florida Squatter to Court Over $2.5 Million Mansion

by MoneyMagnetMagnate
48 replies
  • OFF TOPIC
    • |
BofA Takes Squatter to Court Over $2.5M Mansion - Yahoo! News

Bank of America is taking a Florida man to court after he attempted to use an antiquated state law to legally take possession of a $2.5 million mansion that is currently owned by the bank.
Andre "Loki" Barbosa has lived in a five-bedroom Boca Raton, Fla., waterside property since July, and police have reportedly been unable to remove him.
The Brazilian national, 23, who reportedly refers to himself as "Loki Boy," cites Florida's "adverse possession" law, in which a party may acquire title from another by openly occupying their land and paying real property tax for at least seven years.
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    First,I can't see anyone being able to squat for 7 years,and why can't the police get him off the property?
    I can't stand BoA,but the whole idea on both sides is silly. :rolleyes:
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7657705].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author MoneyMagnetMagnate
      Originally Posted by KimW View Post

      First,I can't see anyone being able to squat for 7 years,and why can't the police get him off the property?
      I can't stand BoA,but the whole idea on both sides is silly. :rolleyes:
      Not to mention - how are you able to pay property tax on property you don't own ???
      and who was supposed to be paying them - the itinerant or defaulting owner, or BofA?


      *and I know you're not...and I'm not a big fan of BofA either -
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7657737].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author socialentry
      Originally Posted by KimW View Post

      First,I can't see anyone being able to squat for 7 years,and why can't the police get him off the property?
      I can't stand BoA,but the whole idea on both sides is silly. :rolleyes:
      Yeah, 7 years seems like a long time to be a hobo in a 2.5 mil mansion

      Bamboozled... as a ESL speaker, it is the first time I hear this exppresion but I shall remember these words and endaevor to use them more often in conversations with friends and strangers
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7662405].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Greg71
        Isn't he...umm...trespassing?
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7662571].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author seasoned
          Originally Posted by Greg71 View Post

          Isn't he...umm...trespassing?
          Believe it or nt, that is REQUIRED in nearly every statute! It is required for adversarial possession.

          Steve
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7663910].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author seasoned
        Originally Posted by socialentry View Post

        Yeah, 7 years seems like a long time to be a hobo in a 2.5 mil mansion

        Bamboozled... as a ESL speaker, it is the first time I hear this exppresion but I shall remember these words and endaevor to use them more often in conversations with friends and strangers
        Bamboozled is rarely used.

        Steve
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7663894].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author HeySal
    Come to think of it - I've never heard of a bank paying property tax on what they own. I would think that they would try to work with property owners who are defaulting a little harder if they had to pay taxes if they take it away from them.

    Some states have lien sales and you can sometimes purchase a house for just the back taxes.

    I've heard of the squatters rights law, not quite sure how it works, but you have to live there a long time to be able to actually take title to it - and, from what I've heard, you can't have any utilities hooked up until its yours. It seems to me that there would be more people looking into this law right now. You can't buy tax lien property in all states and I don't think this squatter's law covers all states either.
    Signature

    Sal
    When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
    Beyond the Path

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7657960].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

      Come to think of it - I've never heard of a bank paying property tax on what they own. I would think that they would try to work with property owners who are defaulting a little harder if they had to pay taxes if they take it away from them.
      Actually, they take various insurance and taxes out of the payments made, and DO pay taxes. I have heard from some that they only do it for a time, but I refinanced so often that I haven't hit such a point.

      Some states have lien sales and you can sometimes purchase a house for just the back taxes.
      That is generally for homes owned that haven't paid taxes. Not all homes are owned by banks.

      I've heard of the squatters rights law, not quite sure how it works, but you have to live there a long time to be able to actually take title to it - and, from what I've heard, you can't have any utilities hooked up until its yours. It seems to me that there would be more people looking into this law right now. You can't buy tax lien property in all states and I don't think this squatter's law covers all states either.
      I think some states might not have property taxes. ALSO, some might have other methods. You COULD have bonds, for example. If they have a shortfall, they may make less, but it is less trouble.

      Adversarial law has been around for thousands of years, and in the US since day one. THAT was what miners used to do. They traveled to public land, or unsettled land, found something worthwhile, and recorded it to "stake their claim". If someone else then tried to take anything, they could defend it, etc....

      Steve
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7658339].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author John Durham
      Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

      Come to think of it - I've never heard of a bank paying property tax on what they own. I would think that they would try to work with property owners who are defaulting a little harder if they had to pay taxes if they take it away from them.

      Thats because , for the bank its written off as a loss. We only pay tax on profit, not losses.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7662155].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author seasoned
        Originally Posted by John Durham View Post

        Thats because , for the bank its written off as a loss. We only pay tax on profit, not losses.
        NOT TRUE! Tax is NOT paid on profit! Tax is paid on the total of an asset for a period of time!

        In OTHER words.....

        business income=1000 expenses=900 "profit"=100
        PASSIVE INCOME=30 fees=2000 "profit"=-1970
        REAL ESTATE ASSAYED VALUE=250,000

        CONGRATS! You LOST $1870 and OWE TAXES on 100 profit, and 250,000 R/E asset
        The tax on the R/E asset is EVERY BLASTED YEAR! In fact, I believe it is every 6 months!
        You ALSO have to pay tax(they call it a fee, but it operates as a tax) on your CAR and many other vehicles!

        And the bank CAN'T write it off as a loss from the STATES point of view. They want SOMEONE to pay the tax! If the tax is not paid? Well, in Indiana, that leaves it open for a squatter to LEGITIMATELY take EVERYTHING!

        I may not be a lawyer or R/E agent, etc... But I DID study CA real estate law AND with my mother effectively having adverse possession, I wanted to make sure she couldn't lay claim to it. I was happy to find that second step. Since I had the mortgage which was paying every year, she was blocked from keeping me out. Had that not been the case, I would have been forced to kick her out.

        Steve
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7662246].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
    It is NOT an antiquated state law!!!!!! It is basically a universal COMMON law, and likely exists in some form in EVERY state! The forms are VERY similar! It IS, after all, how the FIRST person got the right to be there. SELLING the right is the SAME as abandonment, adverse possession, recording, and payment of back taxes of some length(in indiana I believe it is 5 years. In california, as I recall, it was *******ZERO******** years).

    If the bank property is in CA, then a record of adverse possession of a year(IIRC) will mean the squatter gets the property. If the bank property is in IN, then they forfeit the property if they haven't paid taxes for 5 years. Banks generally pay taxes during the loan for just this reason!

    There is *****ALSO***** ANOTHER law! NON adversarial USE of property for a period, which in CA is a YEAR, causes a LOSS of rights to prevent access to that piece of property. In legal terms, it is called an EASEMENT! Easement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia My CA principles in real estate teacher said this would be a good reason to deny access to your property at least one day each year. Access would THEN have to be adversarial and prevent an easement from forming. Of course, if an easement forms, and you deny access, you may actually be SUED for denying access through your OWN property!

    Steve
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7658193].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Kay King
      I don't think he has a prayer. This old law has been used in the past when someone managed to live in an abandoned property without the owner knowing or challenging the occupancy.

      The bank owns the property - and they are challenging his claim. I guess meanwhile he gets to live there for free and at least he picked a high end property rather than a cottage.

      When I heard the news report I wondered if he's been able to connect utilities to the house or not.
      Signature
      Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
      ***
      Live life like someone left the gate open
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7658273].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    Again, Why can't the police get him off?
    As far as the taxes,usually the taxes are paid in the state/county/city where the property is located,and the people getting the money don't care who pays it,as long as it gets paid,which is partially why properties can be sold for just the back taxes.
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7658353].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    ANother version tells a bit more info:
    Bank of America files to evict 23-year-old squatting in $2.5-million Boca Raton mansion - Sun Sentinel
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7658438].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by KimW View Post

      Interesting! I didn't look aat ANY stories about this, until THIS one now! NOTE how they talked about "staking a claim" and "adverse possession", etc... And the squatter has FRIENDS, and has been there 3 years! YEAH, I think B of A may as well start writing it off. Have they even paid taxes?

      Steve
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7658624].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author AprilCT
        Taking property that doesn't belong to you is theft, plain and simple. Seems this type of theft is part of the laws that need to be reworded and enforced against opportunists. I've always felt that just because something is legal or fuzzily sort of maybe legal, that's absolutely no guarantee it is right or moral. If someone breaks into your property, the police should be able to very promptly remove them and force them to pay for any damages.

        If our country can get employment for all breadwinners straightened out and the lender's money making machines running properly and legally and proper laws put into place to protect homeowners, perhaps there won't be as many problems with this type of breaking and entering crime.

        As for BOA, I've heard the horror stories and feel bad for the people who have had to deal with them.

        There are just some people who see something someone else has and since you aren't using it at the time they come along, they think it belongs to them. We've had things stolen right off our own front porch, only one of which we got back undamaged, one item damaged and have no idea who stole the other as it was never found and we had to pay to buy it new. Thieves make me very angry.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7658756].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author seasoned
          Originally Posted by AprilCT View Post

          Taking property that doesn't belong to you is theft, plain and simple. Seems this type of theft is part of the laws that need to be reworded and enforced against opportunists. I've always felt that just because something is legal or fuzzily sort of maybe legal, that's absolutely no guarantee it is right or moral. If someone breaks into your property, the police should be able to very promptly remove them and force them to pay for any damages.
          Well, there IS a problem with your reasoning! Do you know what happens, eventually, if a place that is in the city, or registered in a special way, or is otherwise hurting the city, is abandoned in the USA? A government AGENCY(HUD) takes it and cuts a sweet deal with someone. One deal they cut, that I know about, involves a property in the HEART of a major city. It takes up an ENTIRE city block. They get the WHOLE property and everything on it for 99 years, by paying $1/year! The CATCH? They have to restore it. Because it is registered as historic, they have to restore it back to its recorded state.

          If our country can get employment for all breadwinners straightened out and the lender's money making machines running properly and legally and proper laws put into place to protect homeowners, perhaps there won't be as many problems with this type of breaking and entering crime.
          YEP, but they won't even TRY!

          As for BOA, I've heard the horror stories and feel bad for the people who have had to deal with them.

          There are just some people who see something someone else has and since you aren't using it at the time they come along, they think it belongs to them. We've had things stolen right off our own front porch, only one of which we got back undamaged, one item damaged and have no idea who stole the other as it was never found and we had to pay to buy it new. Thieves make me very angry.
          Yeah, someone stole my hose! I stole it BACK, and listened FUMING as she claimed to someone ELSE that it was stolen!

          It was a white hose with stripes a certain color, VERY unusual at the time, a certain length, and stained with cupric sulfate. I mean SERIOUSLY, how many people do YOU know using things like cupric sulfate. I WAS! I was the one that stained MY hose! And the fact that I used the hose where it was stolen, etc.... If I waited long enough, I might not ever have known it was stolen in the first place. But HEY, I even saw her in MY home when I wasn't there. She was the manager at that building. I had a chance to get her deported, and I should have taken it. It turns out she was an illegal alien. BTW she was from serbo croatia, as I recall.

          Steve
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7660068].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author HKSEO Jonbones
          Originally Posted by AprilCT View Post

          Taking property that doesn't belong to you is theft, plain and simple. Seems this type of theft is part of the laws that need to be reworded and enforced against opportunists. I've always felt that just because something is legal or fuzzily sort of maybe legal, that's absolutely no guarantee it is right or moral. If someone breaks into your property, the police should be able to very promptly remove them and force them to pay for any damages.

          If our country can get employment for all breadwinners straightened out and the lender's money making machines running properly and legally and proper laws put into place to protect homeowners, perhaps there won't be as many problems with this type of breaking and entering crime.

          As for BOA, I've heard the horror stories and feel bad for the people who have had to deal with them.

          There are just some people who see something someone else has and since you aren't using it at the time they come along, they think it belongs to them. We've had things stolen right off our own front porch, only one of which we got back undamaged, one item damaged and have no idea who stole the other as it was never found and we had to pay to buy it new. Thieves make me very angry.
          Comparing morality and legality is not the way to make a good point. Plenty of things are legal that are not morally right.
          Signature
          Letmeknowseo.comSEO News and tips From real SEO'ers!
          Linklicious- Get your links crawled, so they can count
          SEO Black Book By: R.L. Adams An Insider's Guide to the SEO Industry
          Glowing Reviews- Get your Online Business Reviews to STICK!
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7670855].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
    OH, and the banks are running a SCAM where the entire US government is complicit! I have told some of them TO THEIR FACE that this is THEFT!

    Let's say you have a credit card with a $3000 credit line, and you keep TRYING to pay it down and can't. One day, it is down to $1000, but you don't know. You pay $1000 and then ANOTHER $1000. If they were DECENT, they would pay it down to 0, and send the second check back. They DON'T!

    OK, you have $4000 credit, RIGHT? Well, SORT of! They keep it for a time and then maybe send you a check, EVEN if THEY are your bank! EVEN if you have other debt there! After a time, they send it to the state that then wants you to effectively sign your life away to get it back, and they may lose it.

    SERIOUSLY, it creates pollution, wastes paper, increases debt, increases fraud, and WHY? If they want money from me they will call and maybe even come to my door and want it NOW! But if they have to pay ME, they don't know where I am and want me to wait!

    Oh well, on monday I guess I better call two banks to move some pennies from one account to another. SERIOUSLY!

    Steve
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7660114].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author KimW
      Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

      OH, and the banks are running a SCAM where the entire US government is complicit! I have told some of them TO THEIR FACE that this is THEFT!

      Let's say you have a credit card with a $3000 credit line, and you keep TRYING to pay it down and can't. One day, it is down to $1000, but you don't know. You pay $1000 and then ANOTHER $1000. If they were DECENT, they would pay it down to 0, and send the second check back. They DON'T!

      OK, you have $4000 credit, RIGHT? Well, SORT of! They keep it for a time and then maybe send you a check, EVEN if THEY are your bank! EVEN if you have other debt there! After a time, they send it to the state that then wants you to effectively sign your life away to get it back, and they may lose it.

      SERIOUSLY, it creates pollution, wastes paper, increases debt, increases fraud, and WHY? If they want money from me they will call and maybe even come to my door and want it NOW! But if they have to pay ME, they don't know where I am and want me to wait!

      Oh well, on monday I guess I better call two banks to move some pennies from one account to another. SERIOUSLY!

      Steve
      The credit interest that the Government now allows those corporations to chain us to their cards with used to be illegal. As you say, you can never pay off a card anymore. Unless you come into a large sum of cash and make one lump payment,you will owe on these cards for the rest of your life.
      Signature

      Read A Post.
      Subscribe to a Newsletter
      KimWinfrey.Com

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7661034].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author seasoned
        Originally Posted by KimW View Post

        The credit interest that the Government now allows those corporations to chain us to their cards with used to be illegal. As you say, you can never pay off a card anymore. Unless you come into a large sum of cash and make one lump payment,you will owe on these cards for the rest of your life.
        HECK YEAH! It USED to be illegal to charge 20% or more. It was called USERY!

        So WHAT is the limit NOW? I have NO IDEA if there even IS one. OH, the average citizen could MAYBE charge as much as about 13% now. You BETTER be sure! If you charge too much, they might judge as judge wapner(a retired judge that runs a TV court that s binding and following US law) did! The case was that a person needed money, but couldn't borrow. She borrowed from a person that borrowed at 20% or so. She loaned it AT COST! The defendant WON, and owes NOTHING, but the plaintiff has to pay principle and interest. So the bank gets richer, and the helpful friend gets PUNISHED! The person with the problem gets off for NOTHING!

        ANYWAY, getting back to the NON citizen limit..... One company charges 144%, last I checked, for one loan. Since THAT is exorbitant, they have one called the problem solver loan. The base interest rate is apparently capped at only 342.86%! The one they advertise is their $10,000 variant, and IT only costs 89.68%! Such a DEAL! OK, let's look at the cheapest(by percentage) one:

        Loan Product Borrower Proceeds Loan Fee APR Number of Payments Payment Amount
        $10,000 $9,925 $75 89.68% 84 $743.49

        First of all, they LIED! It ISN'T $10,000, it is $9925!

        The total payments are supposed to be: 62453.16 over 7 years
        Total costs: 52528.16
        Interest per year: 7504.03

        IMAGINE!!!!!!!! You pay almost 76% of the principle in the FIRST year, and are STILL expected to pay for 6 more years!!!!!!! The politicians that authorized that should be locked up for a couple decades with limited resources. After all, they ARE doing that with the borrowers!

        HERE is how wikipedia defines usary:

        Usury (pron.: /ˈjuːʒəri/[1][2]) is the practice of making unethical or immoral monetary loans. Depending on the local laws or social mores, a loan may be considered usurious because of excessive or abusive interest rates. According to some jurisdictions and customs, simply charging any interest at all can be considered usury.[3][4][5] Other terms used for usury or usurers include loan shark, as well as Shylock which is sometimes used with an antisemitic connotation.
        Steve
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7661234].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author SteveJohnson
          Originally Posted by MoneyMagnetMagnate View Post

          Not to mention - how are you able to pay property tax on property you don't own ???
          and who was supposed to be paying them - the itinerant or defaulting owner, or BofA...
          How? Simple - march to the county tax collector's office and pay the bill

          Seriously, though, they don't care who pays the bill, just that it gets paid.

          Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

          Come to think of it - I've never heard of a bank paying property tax on what they own. I would think that they would try to work with property owners who are defaulting a little harder if they had to pay taxes if they take it away from them.

          Some states have lien sales and you can sometimes purchase a house for just the back taxes.

          I've heard of the squatters rights law, not quite sure how it works, but you have to live there a long time to be able to actually take title to it - and, from what I've heard, you can't have any utilities hooked up until its yours. It seems to me that there would be more people looking into this law right now. You can't buy tax lien property in all states and I don't think this squatter's law covers all states either.
          Mortgage holders or trustees will pay property taxes when the homeowner doesn't, simply because the lender doesn't want to lose the property to the government. That's why most mortgages and deeds of trust set up escrow accounts to pay taxes - they don't trust that the homeowner will pay them on time.


          Originally Posted by AprilCT View Post

          Taking property that doesn't belong to you is theft, plain and simple. Seems this type of theft is part of the laws that need to be reworded and enforced against opportunists. I've always felt that just because something is legal or fuzzily sort of maybe legal, that's absolutely no guarantee it is right or moral. If someone breaks into your property, the police should be able to very promptly remove them and force them to pay for any damages.

          ...
          A lot of those laws are in place to deal with abandoned property. But something sounds fuzzy to me if a trespasser can't be physically removed because they've presented 'adverse possession paperwork' to the police.

          Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

          HECK YEAH! It USED to be illegal to charge 20% or more. It was called USERY!

          So WHAT is the limit NOW? I have NO IDEA if there even IS one. OH, the average citizen could MAYBE charge as much as about 13% now. You BETTER be sure! If you charge too much, they might judge as judge wapner(a retired judge that runs a TV court that s binding and following US law) did! The case was that a person needed money, but couldn't borrow. She borrowed from a person that borrowed at 20% or so. She loaned it AT COST! The defendant WON, and owes NOTHING, but the plaintiff has to pay principle and interest. So the bank gets richer, and the helpful friend gets PUNISHED! The person with the problem gets off for NOTHING!
          ..
          Most states have usury laws, but there are loopholes - for instance, the ones that 'title loan' places use, or pawn shops. You are actually selling your car or property to the business, who will then sell it back to you at a predetermined price. It's not a 'loan', so they don't have to abide by the laws.

          As for credit card usury laws, most of those were invalidated with the savings and loan bailout of the 1980s when banks were allowed to become 'national associations' whose branches were not subject to state usury laws.

          BTW, Wapner's (and Judge Judy's, for that matter) rulings are only binding in that the adversaries agree to abide by the ruling; it's basically binding arbitration. If the loser refuses to do what the tv judge orders, the only remedy the 'winning' party has is to sue them in real court.
          Signature

          The 2nd Amendment, 1789 - The Original Homeland Security.

          Gun control means never having to say, "I missed you."

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7670416].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author seasoned
            Originally Posted by SteveJohnson View Post

            Most states have usury laws, but there are loopholes - for instance, the ones that 'title loan' places use, or pawn shops. You are actually selling your car or property to the business, who will then sell it back to you at a predetermined price. It's not a 'loan', so they don't have to abide by the laws.
            OBVIOUSLY, SOMETHING changed. One moment it seemed like there weren't ANY, and now they are ALL OVER!

            As for credit card usury laws, most of those were invalidated with the savings and loan bailout of the 1980s when banks were allowed to become 'national associations' whose branches were not subject to state usury laws.
            ******WRONG******! The limits were STILL in place in the NINETIES! I mentioned that several times here! In CA, for example, they were RELAXED for banks and R/E brokers. And a broker is one LICENSED to run a broker with agents.

            BTW, Wapner's (and Judge Judy's, for that matter) rulings are only binding in that the adversaries agree to abide by the ruling; it's basically binding arbitration. If the loser refuses to do what the tv judge orders, the only remedy the 'winning' party has is to sue them in real court.
            YEP, but done according to current law, which was my point.

            Steve
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7670865].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    "Taking property that doesn't belong to you is theft, plain and simple. "
    Yep,and that is exactly what Bank Of America does.

    As for BOA, I've heard the horror stories and feel bad for the people who have had to deal with them.

    Then you should tell your elected officials to stop them,instead of helping them. Because the only reason they can do what they do is because the government protects them,and not the citizens it is suppose to be protecting.
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7661026].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    Yep, I think you and I have talked about usury before.

    Edit:
    The company is called BLue Sky or something like that.
    I liked their first ads better,where they were honest and said "Our loans aren't cheap",but they don't do that anymore.
    Like you said,they now call their loan "The Problem Solver" ,but it sure isn't.

    And,they operate on an Indian reservation so they have a lot different guidelines.
    Smart move on their part,but stupid for anyone that really would use them.
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7661755].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by KimW View Post

      Yep, I think you and I have talked about usury before.

      Edit:
      The company is called BLue Sky or something like that.
      I liked their first ads better,where they were honest and said "Our loans aren't cheap",but they don't do that anymore.
      Like you said,they now call their loan "The Problem Solver" ,but it sure isn't.

      And,they operate on an Indian reservation so they have a lot different guidelines.
      Smart move on their part,but stupid for anyone that really would use them.
      Being on an indian reservation likely DOES make it easier for them to do this, but I don't think the usury laws are for indians. Technically, if they were, it would be VIOLATING treaties, as the indians are not supposed to exploit the situation to the detriment of the US, and the US is not supposed to make things worse for the indians.

      The WHOLE idea of the treaties was to satisfy the indian traditions by leaving them land, and allow them to stay out of the us while dealing with it outside of various customs laws, etc... So it was like a nation within a nation.

      Steve
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7662104].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author KimW
        Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

        Being on an indian reservation likely DOES make it easier for them to do this, but I don't think the usury laws are for indians. Technically, if they were, it would be VIOLATING treaties, as the indians are not supposed to exploit the situation to the detriment of the US, and the US is not supposed to make things worse for the indians.

        The WHOLE idea of the treaties was to satisfy the indian traditions by leaving them land, and allow them to stay out of the us while dealing with it outside of various customs laws, etc... So it was like a nation within a nation.

        Steve
        Yeah,I probably should have made that 2 different posts.
        I was just commenting that usury was a topic we discussed before.

        Then I switched over covering your post about that loan company.

        The two comments were not related.
        Sorry about any confusion.
        Signature

        Read A Post.
        Subscribe to a Newsletter
        KimWinfrey.Com

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7662324].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author John Durham
    @ Steve.

    I have been bamboozled! This is debauchery!

    JK...I just wanted to use those two words. Thats why I dont do my own taxes. Limited understanding in some areas.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7662312].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    Maybe so Steve,but that is why it is difficult to understand why the cops can't remove him.
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7664337].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by KimW View Post

      Maybe so Steve,but that is why it is difficult to understand why the cops can't remove him.
      Well, if I were an attorney, and any attorney I'm sure would do so, I would argue that they have not recognized that I have been there for a year, and created an easement. This is the law in california, and I believe elsewhere. THEN, I would argue about any taxes I paid, and the length to get squatters rights. So the police may be BARRED from this.

      Steve
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7665198].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
      Banned
      Originally Posted by Greg71 View Post

      Isn't he...umm...trespassing?
      Sounds like it, yes.

      Originally Posted by KimW View Post

      it is difficult to understand why the cops can't remove him.
      I know real estate laws vary enormously from country to country, and even significantly from state to state in the US, but why would the police be able to remove him?

      Trespass on private property is surely a tort, not a crime? Or is that different, over there? Do you have "criminal trespass", or something? :confused:
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7665630].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author seasoned
        Originally Posted by Alexa Smith View Post

        Sounds like it, yes.



        I know real estate laws vary enormously from country to country, and even significantly from state to state in the US, but why would the police be able to remove him?

        Trespass on private property is surely a tort, not a crime? Or is that different, over there? Do you have "criminal trespass", or something? :confused:
        As I recall, this WOULD be a TORT. Breaking in is harsher, and they MAY have broken in, but who would really report it? ALSO there are limitations.

        Steve
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7665651].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author KimW
          Originally Posted by Alexa Smith View Post

          Sounds like it, yes.



          I know real estate laws vary enormously from country to country, and even significantly from state to state in the US, but why would the police be able to remove him?

          Trespass on private property is surely a tort, not a crime? Or is that different, over there? Do you have "criminal trespass", or something? :confused:
          Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

          As I recall, this WOULD be a TORT. Breaking in is harsher, and they MAY have broken in, but who would really report it? ALSO there are limitations.

          Steve
          Interestingly,you are both correct.
          It is apparently not a criminal act in most places.
          I am surprised though because I have seen police arrest people on private property for trespassing before.
          One is never too old to learn something new.
          Signature

          Read A Post.
          Subscribe to a Newsletter
          KimWinfrey.Com

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7666801].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author seasoned
            Originally Posted by KimW View Post

            Interestingly,you are both correct.
            It is apparently not a criminal act in most places.
            I am surprised though because I have seen police arrest people on private property for trespassing before.
            One is never too old to learn something new.
            YEAH, if one trespasses on your property, and they won't move, you DO have the right to call the police and have them moved. If it is a legit trespass, they MIGHT be fined and locked up(Depends on charges, and will likely be for a short term). But the bank would have a difficult time making the case.

            Steve
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7666879].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
              Banned
              Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

              But the bank would have a difficult time making the case.
              Here also.

              The argument here often seems to be about "whether they broke in" (which does make it potentially criminal rather than only civil-law liability). Squatters can always say "the door was open when we got here" and unless the plaintiff/owner can actually prove, with reliable eye-witness testimony, that that isn't true (which they almost never can), they're in a very difficult position and the police can't really help.

              I understand that our law on this issue is about to change very soon - I think there's something "in parliament" at the moment. I might even be out of date: it could have just gone through already. :confused:
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7668283].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author seasoned
                Originally Posted by Alexa Smith View Post

                Here also.

                The argument here often seems to be about "whether they broke in" (which does make it potentially criminal rather than only civil-law liability). Squatters can always say "the door was open when we got here" and unless the plaintiff/owner can actually prove, with reliable eye-witness testimony, that that isn't true (which they almost never can), they're in a very difficult position and the police can't really help.

                I understand that our law on this issue is about to change very soon - I think there's something "in parliament" at the moment. I might even be out of date: it could have just gone through already. :confused:
                People break into abandoned property all the time. Some people even destroy property before they are foreclosed on. Tere was even talk at one point about letting the homeless do this!

                Steve
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7669158].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Richard Tunnah
                Originally Posted by Alexa Smith View Post

                Here also.

                The argument here often seems to be about "whether they broke in" (which does make it potentially criminal rather than only civil-law liability). Squatters can always say "the door was open when we got here" and unless the plaintiff/owner can actually prove, with reliable eye-witness testimony, that that isn't true (which they almost never can), they're in a very difficult position and the police can't really help.

                I understand that our law on this issue is about to change very soon - I think there's something "in parliament" at the moment. I might even be out of date: it could have just gone through already. :confused:
                It changed late last year Alexa here (UK) and is now a criminal offence to squat in a residential property. Therefore squatters can be removed and charged by the police. Commercial properties remian fair game for squatters and are classed as a civil matter that can take months via the court process to get a writ to remove them.
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7669561].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
                  Banned
                  Originally Posted by Richard Tunnah View Post

                  It changed late last year Alexa here (UK) and is now a criminal offence to squat in a residential property. Therefore squatters can be removed and charged by the police. Commercial properties remian fair game for squatters and are classed as a civil matter that can take months via the court process to get a writ to remove them.
                  Thanks for the update, Richard ... I knew I'd seen something about it on TV around November/December, but couldn't remember the details.
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7673263].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author garyv
    If I were the owner - or the bank, I'd give warning, and then fumigate extremely heavily for large rodents.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7669318].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Kay King
      Alexa - "in parliament" doesn't work in Florida

      The old law is simple and says if you can live openly (without hiding) in a proerty for 7 years without challenge from the real owner...you can claim the property as yours.

      The Bank's problem is proviing a clear title line of ownership - and that may take time considering the known paperwork problems of some foreclosures in the past few years.

      The Bank knows he's there and so it's not going to work...but the dude is living in a mansion for free at the moment.
      Signature
      Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
      ***
      Live life like someone left the gate open
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7669426].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author seasoned
        Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

        Alexa - "in parliament" doesn't work in Florida

        The old law is simple and says if you can live openly (without hiding) in a proerty for 7 years without challenge from the real owner...you can claim the property as yours.

        The Bank's problem is proviing a clear title line of ownership - and that may take time considering the known paperwork problems of some foreclosures in the past few years.

        The Bank knows he's there and so it's not going to work...but the dude is living in a mansion for free at the moment.
        ADVERSARIAL!!!!!!!!!!

        Steve
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7670837].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by garyv View Post

      If I were the owner - or the bank, I'd give warning, and then fumigate extremely heavily for large rodents.
      They have to make sure the way is clear.

      Steve
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7670826].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Anoosh Kashefi
    Nice information you got here SteveJohnson. Extremely informative. Our country is pretty crazy with all the laws/lawsuits. You can sue anyone for anything and win. It is just crazy.

    Overall, I hope the guy wins the house. The banks take peoples homes, get bailed out by the people they take homes from, and then commence to take more homes. I think they can deal handle 2.5 million.
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7670509].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author KimW
      Originally Posted by SteveJohnson View Post

      How? Simple - march to the county tax collector's office and pay the bill

      Seriously, though, they don't care who pays the bill, just that it gets paid.

      Mortgage holders or trustees will pay property taxes when the homeowner doesn't, simply because the lender doesn't want to lose the property to the government. That's why most mortgages and deeds of trust set up escrow accounts to pay taxes - they don't trust that the homeowner will pay them on time.


      A lot of those laws are in place to deal with abandoned property. But something sounds fuzzy to me if a trespasser can't be physically removed because they've presented 'adverse possession paperwork' to the police.

      Most states have usury laws, but there are loopholes - for instance, the ones that 'title loan' places use, or pawn shops. You are actually selling your car or property to the business, who will then sell it back to you at a predetermined price. It's not a 'loan', so they don't have to abide by the laws.

      As for credit card usury laws, most of those were invalidated with the savings and loan bailout of the 1980s when banks were allowed to become 'national associations' whose branches were not subject to state usury laws.

      BTW, Wapner's (and Judge Judy's, for that matter) rulings are only binding in that the adversaries agree to abide by the ruling; it's basically binding arbitration. If the loser refuses to do what the tv judge orders, the only remedy the 'winning' party has is to sue them in real court.
      Originally Posted by Anoosh Kashefi View Post

      Nice information you got here SteveJohnson. Extremely informative. Our country is pretty crazy with all the laws/lawsuits. You can sue anyone for anything and win. It is just crazy.

      Overall, I hope the guy wins the house. The banks take peoples homes, get bailed out by the people they take homes from, and then commence to take more homes. I think they can deal handle 2.5 million.
      I don't,what makes him deserve it? He isn't even trying to make a point against BOA,he is just trying to get a free house. :rolleyes:
      Signature

      Read A Post.
      Subscribe to a Newsletter
      KimWinfrey.Com

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7670870].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
    A lot of people don't seem to realize that banks are NOT the ones making all the money on these loans. OH, they DO make money! They make a small portion on ALL. But when that home is taken..... It hurts:

    1. The bank
    2. people that invested in bonds
    3. People tht invested in some CMOs.
    4. other borrowers

    And WHY does the squatter deserve it more than the previous owner?

    Steve
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7670925].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    I can't speak for anyone else but I am 100% sure that BoA makes a hell of a lot of money off my property/loans,just by the fake penalties they trump on and try to tack onto the accounts.
    Take for example 15 drive bys,to make sure the property is inhabited, :rolleyes: ,
    at $50 a pop.
    That is $750 and there has never been a reason to think the house was not inhabited. We have lived in the same location since September 1999. There is NO reason for that,period.
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7670970].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by KimW View Post

      I can't speak for anyone else but I am 100% sure that BoA makes a hell of a lot of money off my property/loans,just by the fake penalties they trump on and try to tack onto the accounts.
      Take for example 15 drive bys,to make sure the property is inhabited, :rolleyes: ,
      at $50 a pop.
      That is $750 and there has never been a reason to think the house was not inhabited. We have lived in the same location since September 1999. There is NO reason for that,period.
      Well, yeah, most late payments, etc... are a different story. I'm talking about principle and interest.

      WHY do they care if you are in your property? I have a homestead exemption, so I guess my STATE cares to a degree, but the bank!?!?!? NOPE!

      Steve
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7671719].message }}

Trending Topics