Man buys new home in affluent Texas suburb for $16 dollars!

This is a very interesting story.

It has to do with what is called a squatters law and a foreclosed home in a rich Dallas, Texas suburban neighborhood.


Here is an excerpt from the report.


If someone you knew claimed to have bought a new house for $16, you'd probably expect it to be a rundown hovel.
But for Kenneth Robinson, that princely sum could see him as the new owner of a $300,000 home in an well-manicured part of Flower Mound, Texas.
On June 17, Mr Robinson took advantage of a little known Texas law to move into the abandoned home.







SNIP


The house had been in foreclosure for more than a year and its owner walked away. Then, the mortgage company went bust.

Kenneth Robinson answers the front door at his $16 mansion.

After months of research, Mr Robinson used the obscure law 'adverse possession', filled out some paperwork costing just $16, and moved some of his belongings into the home.

Under the law, if someone moves into an abandoned home they have exclusive negotiating rights with the original owner.
If the owner wants them to leave, they have to pay off the mortgage debt on the home and the bank has to file a complicated lawsuit to get them evicted.
Mr Robinson believes that because of the cost required to move him out, he will be able to stay in the house. Under occupancy laws, if he remains there for three years he can ask the court for the title.


SNIP


He told WFAA.com: 'I want to be owner of record. At this point, because I possess it, I am the owner.
'This is not a normal process, but it is not a process that is not known. It's just not known to everybody.'
Mr Robinson printed out an online form at the Denton County courthouse which states that he is claiming ownership of the abandoned property.







SNIP


Police have said they can't remove him from the property because home ownership is a civil matter.



Full story:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2016745/Man-uses-obscure-law-claim-ownership-300k-home-upscale-Texas-town--just-16.html







For some strange reason... this story doesn't bother me at all.

with absurd legal maneuvering. He won't keep it.

There's plenty of precedent in TX on that.

I'm sure there has been more absurd legal maneuvering on the part of the banks than on him.

And yet, they do, and they default. Why shouldn't this guy gain from someone else's stupidity?

Apparently despite what the Far Right tells us..... foreclosures happen there too!


I wonder if this would have even been a story if it occurred in an inner-city minority neighborhood?


I wonder if residents would have been as upset if a white person had moved in? My understanding is that as long as there is no illegal activity going on, having a home occupied is always better for a neighborhood than having an empty abandoned home on the street.

You would think the rich white people would be happy, and would praise this man's legal mind ! LOL!:D

I live in that area, though not that particular street. The neighbors on one side of me are from India, while those on the other side are of Indian descent, though he was born in the UK and she was born in Africa before moving to the States as a baby. The couple across the street is black, and a couple of houses down from them the husband and wife are from Finland and Jamaica respectively, and the family next to them is Japanese.

Plenty of white people, yes, but I'd say a well-above average mix of skin tones throughout the area.

Flower Mound is 90.24% white, with the largest minority being Hispanics (5.63%, who also as a group are poorer than the US average) & Asians (3.05%, who as a group are more affluent than the US average).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flower_Mound,_Texas

the headline. I wonder what the taxes are on that house, and if this man will be able to pay those.

Given the law in Texas, perhaps this has already been happening. If not, it may start happening a lot more.

If he had stayed quiet about it for three years, maybe. But now that it's all over the place, someone, somewhere will intercede on the previous owner's behalf...I guarantee it.

Cool idea, though. Most people don't realize that Texas is easily the most consumer-friendly state when it comes to matters of debt and ownership of property securing debt.

to see more like it. more power to him. even if he ends up without the house he's had all this time to live there rent free. hard to beat that deal.

... and upon consideration, one can't break and enter property that is, for legal purposes, abandoned/unowned.


... it's a grey area. Any legal beagles out there want to comment and muddy the waters?

Kinda like a tree falling in the forest.

Who else lives in Texas? Start house hunting.

Thats funny.

:shrug:

Is there a ceement pond in the back?

Theres no water or electricity in the home It's been 100+ degrees here for almost 3 weeks. Where's he putting his waste?

I think it's neat what this obviously smart guy is doing but I don't think it should be possible to do it. My HOA has had some issues with this and I just don't think that anyone should be able to just sign a piece of paper that says they've lived on a parcel for x number of years and then be awarded the title. It's not right.

If you're paying your property taxes, keeping your property maintained, and are otherwise expressing a continued legal and financial interest in the property, there's no risk to you.

Here in California, the law requires that you continually inhabit the property for five years, paying all taxes on the land, and otherwise maintain it to the standard expected of an occupied property. Pulling this off basically requires the titled owner to completely abandon the property for five years straight.

Here it's easier for a person to do. Simply putting a fence on our property for a certain period, after that we can't make them move it.

It is, therefore, a bad thing.

It will have consequences for people who live in that neighborhood.

Don't like the law? Campaign for politicians that are against it.

It's loopholes like this that also allow corporations and banksters to lie and steal too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adverse_possession#Requirements_for_adverse_possession

It happens in the open. There's no "lying" involved. And since it's perfectly legal, it's not "stealing" either.

One where a homeowner enlarged their back yard by 150% by building a fence in the common area. The owner claims the prior owner was given permission to put in the fence. Even though they have not furnished any proof, there's nothing we can do because of time the fence was there. I can't really say that I blame them too much for not wanting to shrink their yard, if they were decent honest people, they would concede they are outside the boundaries of their lot and remove their fence and posessions from the common area.
They may have a legit reason for their claim but IMO, property legal descriptions, not fences, should dictate who is an owner of a parcel.

In another case, a wealthy (not a poor person) neighboring owner was using a large chunk of our common area. They claimed they were given the land by the developer, without proof (because it's not true). Because of mistakes their lawyer made, they will lose their case. They sued us and are being counter-sued for tens, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars.

From the article, it sounds like the man in the OP is claiming possession of a vacant property even though he didn't buy it. As you can see, there is no legitimate reason to be awarded the parcel. He didn't even spend very much time on the property. There was no misunderstanding over property lines or anything like that. He's simply taking advantage of a loophole that enables someone to snatch up homes by signing an affidavit. Like I said, that's pretty clever but it's dishonest and there will be consequences for other owners in that neighborhood.

This reminds me of some of the cases you may have heard about where people get these fake checks for a lot of money in junk mail they get. And they go deposit the checks and end up with millions of dollars in their account. Sure it's clever. Sure it makes the bankers sweat. But they always lose it. It's not their money. Depositing a bogus check thinking it's a real check for a million dollars isn't a valid reason to keep the money.

Hence, legal.

Hence, not stealing.

And not lying either, since he's doing everything in the open.

You don't like it?

Tough.

You can't stand that a working-class black person is going to pull a fast one on the fat cats, do you? Good. Your displeasure is my pleasure. And yes, I'm pretty sure the person's low albedo increases your annoyance. You are a poor-hater, I know that from previous posts from you. Asshole righ-wing troll. (Pardon the triple redundancy.)

And I'll leave it at that.

... but I don't think you grasp the concept of what consequences and why adverse possession laws are in place in the first place.

The laws are in place to rectify the abandonment of property and buildings. To protect neighborhoods and properties against ramshackle properties. To maintain tax rolls.

That's the "service" this person in the OP is providing.

The two cases you cite are cases where rightful owners were using, maintaining and paying property taxes. Shame on you for not protecting your property rights while your common areas were adversely possessed right in front of your (or your other owner's) eyes.

And shame on the owners of the property in the OP for abandoning it.

...hm, no. I think I'll stop here. Let me listen to some Vangelis music to relax. Space music, in honor of the end of the Space Shuttle missions.

See what I did there?

For your information it was the board of directors that finally did something about it after years of a property management company not wanting to get involved.

The house would have sold eventually. Better it sell for half price than for zero by a homeless person who will probably lose the house again soon even if they are allowed to steal it.

I don't think you are grasping the issues at play here. I think it's intentional. I'll bid you good day, sir.

You're just going to leave me all by my ignorant lonesome?

nm

And the guy seems to be doing his homework, so I'd expect him to be aware of exactly what he needs to do to not get kicked out.

He's looking at around $7,000 for property taxes on that house.

"The number one risk is eviction. Any person or a bank with the legal title can start the process.

In Robinson's case, it could be Bank of America.

"Bank of America told me it has not foreclosed on the property, rather the original owner just walked away," he said. "If it does foreclose, it will exercise all of its legal rights."

That could mean having Robinson removed from the house by police, or offering him a financial incentive to leave."

I thought this was the kicker:

"Robinson says even if he's forced to move, he could still claim possession of the appliances, the pool table or anything inside."

These baffle and disgust me. Unless they're loaded, in which case they only disgust me. (Since I can understand self-interest.)

there have been a few cases like this in california, and they were squatting in gated communities.

And that gives me satisfaction.

In the United States, the government can always override private property considerations for the public good. This has been stretched to the point where some consider it misuse, such as when homeowners are evicted so that businesses may be constructed there. This is another example, where the property being abandoned and having no responsible owner is a harm to the public. The theory, before modern utilities, was that someone who would, and could, actually live in the house was preventing it from becoming a public nuisance, and possibly dangerous.

Sounds perfectly reasonable to me, a lot more so than evicting people from places they are living.