60
submitted 3 months ago by andrewta@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] ineffable@sh.itjust.works 18 points 3 months ago

Bet you $100 he is breaking the law almost every time

[-] comador@lemmy.world 12 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Actually he's not, he is using a loophole whereby the owners sign an official lease with him for him to reside there.

The other tenant(s) do not have a lease and therefore are not within the legal right to complain.

edit: He also doesn't do it directly for profit, thus bypassing other laws. His site explains it in a youtube video here: https://squatterhunters.com/about/

[-] ineffable@sh.itjust.works 12 points 3 months ago

The website doesn't really explain anything though, and even says that the laws should be amended

Why would the legal world take much longer and many more dollars to achieve what this guy can? Why wouldn't everyone just sign a lease to their friend?

If the landlord is aware of the squatters and then enters into a lease intended to deprive them of possession, how is that not just an end run around the law?

[-] comador@lemmy.world 7 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

The website doesn't really explain anything though

The video does, but here's one that may explain it better:

https://www.the-sun.com/news/10824220/squatter-hunter-flash-shelton-evict-laws-business/

Why would the legal world take much longer and many more dollars to achieve what this guy can?

The court system here has a huge backlog, so it can literally take a year in MOST cases to get rid of them (if not longer like during Covid). An owner basically has to first call the cops who verify they are not a paying tenant, then weeks later file a petition with the city to have them removed within 90 days, then after 90 days, if they do not vacate, submit a court action to go to court. If they're a no show on the court date several months later, they will finally get forcibly removed a few weeks after the court date. All this because they, squatters have rights:

https://www.sapling.com/12143680/legally-rid-squatters-california

Why wouldn't everyone just sign a lease to their friend?

If you have friends willing to take the risk of getting injured or hurt in the process, sure, but I don't know anyone who would do that personally.

If the landlord is aware of the squatters and then enters into a lease intended to deprive them of possession, how is that not just an end run around the law?

As stated before, it's a loophole to the squatters rights linked above. Here is SoCal you either wait your turn for your day in court whilst they trash the place OR you do something like this. The law just hasn't caught up and thus why Squatter Hunter is lobbying for change.

[-] ineffable@sh.itjust.works 6 points 3 months ago

Thanks, you did say to watch the video and I missed that, I'll give it a watch

[-] ShepherdPie@midwest.social 2 points 3 months ago

The legal world takes longer because courts are backed up and it can take months to get any resolution.

People don't just sign leases to their friend because the intent here is to have him move into the home. Unless your friend is willing to move in in order to drive these people out, your plan won't work.

The lease allows him to live in the house despite the squatters illegally occupying the home. How can you honestly question whether the home owner is breaking the law when the squatters have no legal right to live in the home in the first place?

this post was submitted on 19 Mar 2024
60 points (85.7% liked)

News

21752 readers
3874 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS