I’m almost certain that squatter’s rights aren’t applicable here. Those come up when someone has been openly living somewhere for a long period of time and where no action has been taken against them. The situation here deals with people who have been there a short time, where action has been taken.
In general, a property owner has the right to recover possession of their property from unauthorised possessors through legal action such as ejectment. However, in the English common law tradition, courts have long ruled that when someone occupies a piece of property without permission and the property’s owner does not exercise their right to recover their property for a significant period of time, not only is the original owner prevented from exercising their right to exclude, but an entirely new title to the property “springs up” in the adverse possessor. In effect, the adverse possessor becomes the property’s new owner. Over time, legislatures have created statutes of limitations that specify the length of time that owners have to recover possession of their property from adverse possessors. In the United States, for example, these time limits vary widely between individual states, ranging from as low as three years to as long as 40 years.
Although the elements of an adverse possession action are different in every jurisdiction, a person claiming adverse possession is usually required to prove non-permissive use of the property that is actual, open and notorious, exclusive, adverse and continuous for the statutory period. The possession by a person is not adverse during periods when they are in possession as a tenant or licensee of the legal owner.
The issue with the hotel and pub in London, I think, is what I described in a comment below. Trespass in England is mostly part of civil law, rather than criminal law. So it’s usually not a crime to trespassing. You can be sued, but not sent to jail for it. It doesn’t mean that the state is fine with it, just that it’s a different class of law involved.
On squatter’s rights, I think that the aim may be to try to keep the situation and law in line with each other, to discourage the two from drifting apart. You don’t want to wind up with a situation where situation of illegality is the norm, and then someone comes out and brings the law into force and it’s way more disruptive (and possibly unexpected). It’s not designed to provide free stuff to the squatter, but to ensure that landowners act sooner rather then later.
There are similar rules in some other areas. For example, a trademark holder must defend their trademark against infringing use, or they can lose rights over the trademark. They can’t wait until someone has built up a major brand based on the trademark and then try to start enforcing it.
In common-law legal systems, laches (/ˈlætʃɪz/ LAT-chiz /ˈleɪtʃɪz/; Law French: remissness, dilatoriness, from Old French laschesse) is a lack of diligence and activity in making a legal claim, or moving forward with legal enforcement of a right, particularly in regard to equity. This means that it is an unreasonable delay that can be viewed as prejudicing the opposing party. When asserted in litigation, it is an equity defense, that is, a defense to a claim for an equitable remedy. It is often understood in comparison to a statute of limitations, a statutory defense, which traditionally is a defense to a claim “at law”.
The person invoking laches is asserting that an opposing party has “slept on its rights”, and that, as a result of this delay, circumstances have changed (witnesses or evidence may have been lost or no longer available, etc.), such that it is no longer a just resolution to grant the plaintiff’s claim. Laches is associated with the maxim of equity: “Equity aids the vigilant” - not those who sleep on their rights. Put another way, failure to assert one’s rights in a timely manner can result in a claim being barred by laches.
I’m strongly in favor of laws restricting how many 1-3 family homes a company can own. I think that limit should go up and down the chain of corporate ownership including parents and subsidiaries. There should be exceptions for things like worker housing, but single family homes should not be an investment opportunity for large corporations. All that does is drive up the prices and makes it harder for average people to own a home. There is no overall benefit to society.
Where the hell are you getting any of that from what I said?
I am saying that if you don’t own a building, and otherwise have no rights to that building, just because you barge in and lock the door doesn’t mean you should own the building or have any rights to that building whatsoever. The police should go in and arrest you.
I would agree with something like this, but focusing on residential properties. I also think there should be limits to how many residential properties a single company can own. I don’t mean like apartment buildings, I mean like single-family or two / three family houses.
1 to 3 family homes are a resource that should be for the good of the American people. I’m not against somebody making money as part of that, but when the opportunity for investing starts pricing people out of the market then we need to have a hard think about whether the investing market is more important than the people or not. I don’t think it should be.
Squatters should have civil rights. Rights to the property that belongs to somebody else which they are squatting in should not be among their rights. If you are squatting on a property and that property owner wants you gone, you should be removed immediately.
Where the hell are you getting that from? I didn’t say anything about immigrants.
This has nothing to do with race or nationality or citizenship.
I am saying if you have no rights to a building, as in you don’t own the building and you don’t have a lease there, then barging in and locking the door behind you should not automatically grant you any sort of special treatment. You are an illegal intruder, and the police should go in and arrest you.
I think that should apply in situations like this and it should apply in situations even if the owner of the building hasn’t been around in a month.
Hopefully this starts to shed some light on the travesty that is ‘squatters rights’. Squatters shouldn’t have rights.
I’m almost certain that squatter’s rights aren’t applicable here. Those come up when someone has been openly living somewhere for a long period of time and where no action has been taken against them. The situation here deals with people who have been there a short time, where action has been taken.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adverse_possession
The issue with the hotel and pub in London, I think, is what I described in a comment below. Trespass in England is mostly part of civil law, rather than criminal law. So it’s usually not a crime to trespassing. You can be sued, but not sent to jail for it. It doesn’t mean that the state is fine with it, just that it’s a different class of law involved.
On squatter’s rights, I think that the aim may be to try to keep the situation and law in line with each other, to discourage the two from drifting apart. You don’t want to wind up with a situation where situation of illegality is the norm, and then someone comes out and brings the law into force and it’s way more disruptive (and possibly unexpected). It’s not designed to provide free stuff to the squatter, but to ensure that landowners act sooner rather then later.
There are similar rules in some other areas. For example, a trademark holder must defend their trademark against infringing use, or they can lose rights over the trademark. They can’t wait until someone has built up a major brand based on the trademark and then try to start enforcing it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laches_(equity)
When the corporations own all the properties, you’ll wish there were squatters rights.
I’m strongly in favor of laws restricting how many 1-3 family homes a company can own. I think that limit should go up and down the chain of corporate ownership including parents and subsidiaries. There should be exceptions for things like worker housing, but single family homes should not be an investment opportunity for large corporations. All that does is drive up the prices and makes it harder for average people to own a home. There is no overall benefit to society.
But think of the shareholders! /s
Yeah, a bunch of people should be disenfranchised arbitrarily by someone on the internet! Let’s go! Oh yeah who cares about people anyway!
Where the hell are you getting any of that from what I said? I am saying that if you don’t own a building, and otherwise have no rights to that building, just because you barge in and lock the door doesn’t mean you should own the building or have any rights to that building whatsoever. The police should go in and arrest you.
deleted by creator
I would agree with something like this, but focusing on residential properties. I also think there should be limits to how many residential properties a single company can own. I don’t mean like apartment buildings, I mean like single-family or two / three family houses.
1 to 3 family homes are a resource that should be for the good of the American people. I’m not against somebody making money as part of that, but when the opportunity for investing starts pricing people out of the market then we need to have a hard think about whether the investing market is more important than the people or not. I don’t think it should be.
Squatters absolutely should have rights, just like everyone else should.
Squatters should have civil rights. Rights to the property that belongs to somebody else which they are squatting in should not be among their rights. If you are squatting on a property and that property owner wants you gone, you should be removed immediately.
Immigrants aren’t people. you, probably
Where the hell are you getting that from? I didn’t say anything about immigrants.
This has nothing to do with race or nationality or citizenship. I am saying if you have no rights to a building, as in you don’t own the building and you don’t have a lease there, then barging in and locking the door behind you should not automatically grant you any sort of special treatment. You are an illegal intruder, and the police should go in and arrest you. I think that should apply in situations like this and it should apply in situations even if the owner of the building hasn’t been around in a month.