Texas McMansion for $16.

From the article:
> The site takes steps to assure potential Robinsons that adverse possession is not squatting. "Squatter," says the site, "is an unfortunate and negative term used to describe someone who unlawfully occupies a vacant property or other real estate."

Now I would submit that squatting is unlawful, and adversely occupying the property is unlawful until all of the elements have been met and the minimum time limit has ripened. Also I don't know about their "usually 10 years" allegation. From what I have heard it is usually 20 years. But maybe not in the state where the article was written.

Regardless, I would think that the real owner can kick off the squatter at will unless the time requirement has ripened. In fact, that is the best way to get the time clock to stop the possession.

It's quite the ordeal, I would imagine, to look for a place to break and enter, and squat for the required time. You could go to several places and get kicked off or arrested for tresspassing within the first month (not to mention to find the best places to break in to). Maybe you find another place and stay for 5 years and finally someone will come boot you out. Start over again looking for a place and get kicked out until you finally get into one where you can stay more than a couple of months. Or what if you stayed for 17 years, 8 months, and got booted 4 months before your time ripened. They have a right to kick you off the property if you haven't met the time limit (example is for if that state has an 18 year requirement). Now find somewhere else and start all over. 45 years of vagrancy and at the age of what...age of 65 finally you "beat the system". Oh wait....you have met the minimum standards for adverse possession.....but prove it. You don't have clear title yet. What if someone with a written deed to the property comes in and says "that's mine"? Now lets go to litigation and court expenses to prove our cases. You may have met the minimum time and conditions in reality, but perhaps you can't prove it. I would suspect the courts would side more with the title-holder over the squattor, but that is only a guess.

Or maybe someone doesn't come make the claim...but try to sell it without a deed. Just assure the buyer that you own it by virtue of an unwritten transfer. How about during your 20-year occupation, you want to relocate? Now what? Do you see if you can tack your time at the first place to your new job location? Good luck with that.

Sorry...babbling on here. But I don't recommend trying to acquire a house by squatting on it for 10 to 20 years.

I don't know Texas law

but I wonder how he's going to meet all the aspects of Adverse possession? I can see the "Open, Notorious and Hotile" but all the others? How could he possibly get "Color of Title"?

I can see your question about just letting it sit vacant though. I would think the "owner" accepting, say $10,000, rather than losing it altogether.

Andy

I don't know Texas law

There is no requirement in Texas for “color of title” in AP acquisition. In fact, as discussed previously, color of title would impair your ability to recover from AP. The term used in Texas is the “best use doctrine” as may be applied in this case. Texas courts have ruled that it is in the best interest of the state for the land and/or improvements being put to best use. It was a way to make the land productive despite absentee owners (typically northern carpet baggers).

God Bless Texas

Gene

> There is no requirement in Texas for “color of title” in AP acquisition. In fact, as discussed previously, color of title would impair your ability to recover from AP. The term used in Texas is the “best use doctrine” as may be applied in this case. Texas courts have ruled that it is in the best interest of the state for the land and/or improvements being put to best use. It was a way to make the land productive despite absentee owners (typically northern carpet baggers).
>
> God Bless Texas

Unless you're filing under the 3 or 5 year statute.

This is just plain stealing. I have no idea why the police won't arrest him for trespassing, breaking and entering, etc. I doubt he's going to pay the taxes on a $350,000 house. Any adverse possessions that does not arise from legitimate confusion about title or boundary lines should be outlawed. No color of title = arrested ...

In Florida, a guy got arresting when it was discovered he was claiming AP on 70 bank owned homes and renting them out. The Texas cops, and the banks that hold title, needs to wake up.

If the mortgage Co. went belly up, their creditors now hold title, maybe. The property may well be in legal limbo and he may well end up with clear title if he keeps the taxes paid.

Strange as it sound he may actually get it done.

:-S