330 000$ house for 16$, you too can have that

This is awesome.

A $330,000 home for $16? 'This is not a normal process'

A little-known Texas law and a foreclosure could have a man in Flower Mound living on Easy Street.

Flower Mound's Waterford Drive is lined with well-manicured $300,000 homes. So, when a new neighbor moved in without the usual sale, mortgage-paying homeowners had a few questions.

"What paperwork is it and how is it legally binding if he doesn't legally own the house?" said Leigh Lowrie, a neighboring resident. "He just squats there."

Lowrie and her husband said the house down the street was in foreclosure for more than a year and the owner walked away. Then, the mortgage company went out of business.

Apparently, that opened the door for someone to take advantage of the situation. But, Kenneth Robinson said he's no squatter. He said he moved in on June 17 after months of research about a Texas law called "adverse possession."

"This is not a normal process, but it is not a process that is not known," he said. "It's just not known to everybody."

He says an online form he printed out and filed at the Denton County courthouse for $16 gave him rights to the house. The paper says the house was abandoned and he's claiming ownership.

"I added some things here for my own protection," Robinson said.

The house is virtually empty, with just a few pieces of furniture. There is no running water or electricity.

But, Robinson said just by setting up camp in the living room, Texas law gives him exclusive negotiating rights with the original owner. If the owner wants him out, he would have to pay off his massive mortgage debt and the bank would have to file a complicated lawsuit.

Robinson believes because of the cost, neither is likely. The law says if he stays in the house, after three years he can ask the court for the title.

Awesome. I wonder if other states have this kind of laws...

Homeless people living in tent cities should do that... that would solve a lot of things and screw the big banks.

LOLWUT. I might move to the states if this turns out to be that easy.

This is awesome... I live in Texas and my lease is up in 2 and a half months..
Definitely going to be doing some research and look for abandoned houses lol

Originally posted by Vitchilo

Awesome. I wonder if other states have this kind of laws...

I did a quick search and here's what I found for (ALL) states: Link

Some states are better than others. It looks like Arizona might be the place to be.

Thanks for sharing!

Darn it! Florida already voted to change this law in early May of this year.
capitalsoup.com...

Of all the old laws that are kept on the books, the ones that benefit the people most are the ones that are changed immediately.

reply to post by freakjive


According to your information, I've got four years left until I can file. I wonder if the May ruling I linked to cancels out the 7 year stint required?

reply to post by Vitchilo


That is awesome and certainly cheaper than my current rent so it's something I'll look into. Thank you for posting this for us.

reply to post by Vitchilo


nice i need a house, maybe i can join the fam now in corpus c., might have to deal with those weirdos from central though

Who are all these people encouraging theft. And this is just a loop hole that isn't legal. There is no legality to stealing someones house.

Shame on everyone who posted. Life is a school, try to pass it please, thats where happiness lies. You have family on the other side rooting for you, your own soul is.

reply to post by Unity_99


It is legal. Why don't you read the article and other info provided.
Or maybe we should just let the house sit empty and deteriorate while the city has to pay to have the lawn mowed. Then, the neighbors can keep their fingers crossed that crack heads don't start using it as a haven.

Originally posted by Unity_99
Who are all these people encouraging theft. And this is just a loop hole that isn't legal. There is no legality to stealing someones house.

Shame on everyone who posted. Life is a school, try to pass it please, thats where happiness lies. You have family on the other side rooting for you, your own soul is.

edit on 15-7-2011 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)

Lowrie and her husband said the house down the street was in foreclosure for more than a year and the owner walked away. Then, the mortgage company went out of business.

It was in foreclosure for over a year, that isn't someones house anymore. The mortgage company should have had full ownership of the house, but going out of business.......

Up here, 4 months missed mortgage payment on a house, it's foreclosure time. To get out of foreclosure, you have to pay in full usually, by re-mortgaging through a different bank. Once the house has been foreclosed on, sometimes a bank will sell it for the left over mortgage, and back taxes.

Interesting scenario. Can't wait to see what the outcome will be.

The statute is structured in such a way as to require an affirmative act by the original owner to reclaim the property within certain periods of time, referred to as statutes of limitation. If he is prevented from doing so by physically recapturing possession, then he must file a trespass to try title suit in order to reclaim possession and establish legal ownership. If the original owner does not take either action, then his claim is barred, and the adverse possessor prevails. Note that the doctrine of adverse possession does not apply to public lands or against a government entity.

www.lonestarlandlaw.com...

I'm not sure this is actually 'adverse possession' as the article describes it. I'm not sure what the law states in Texas, but here in California, you cannot claim adverse possession until you have occupied the land for 5 years. But then again, there may be a variation in the law if the property is abandoned, and/or Texas law may not have this requirement.

Regardless of the situation, this guy is just playing the odds, which, at this point, are largely in his favor.

So basically, this is squatting and stealing from the government or morgage company??? ie. the ones who do auctions when land is taken? Still wouldn't do it that way. I think of this instead. And remember, wood and expensive parts can be replaced by recyling, and paper crete, ie. paper mache, mixed with sand or minerals or clay, and a long fibred strong grass like hemp. So this could be made much cheaper, and communities should be getting together to problem solve poverty issues to begin with.

Why not a solidarity between those paying outrageous rents, and the homeless for example, grass roots, solidarity? If it wasn't for 5 boys, this is what i dream of doing.

yurts

tiny homes

just to copy / paste my reply from the other thread on this :

good luck to him - but my understanding of it is that now its publicised -

as i see it - reading what i can glean from the internet

the home was collatoral on a loan , the loan was forclosed - making the home the property of the morgage company , which is now in a state of bankrupcy

bankrupt companies do NOT just evaporate into thin air leaving thier debts voided , and thier asseets as " treasure trove "

the home - is still listed as an asset of the insolvent company [ as it was collatoral on a loan they made ]

thus the recievers or administrators of the companies insolvency - are at liberty to dispose of any an all assets , as they see fit

using the proceeds to pay off the bankrupt firms creditors

thus - the gentlemans writ of adverse posesion is then void - as the home has been sold from under him by legal process

the key to his downfall is being on the news - the way to actually suceed with writs of adverse posessio is to keep it quite - and let the writ run , without the true owners realising that it is inforce

then you get the house

now they know - they can simply sell the house and he has no legal standing

reply to post by scojak


Here in Illinois you must occupy the land for 7 years and have been paying property taxes..and upkeep.

There are $1 houses in Detroit.

If homelessness is such a problem why don't people buy these houses and give it to the homeless? Which is the party that's missing out here?

Also, if a family is bankrupt, why don't neighbors but a family's house and allow them to live in it. Am I missing something here? Which is the losing party here?

So what happens if someone else decides to occupy another room in the house? It's not his yet. He cannot deny someone else access to it by law. So after the 3 years it comes down to which one gets their paper work through faster?

House might be cheap, but at the end of the day you're still in Texas.

reply to post by Unity_99

There is no legality to stealing someones house.

But no one owns the house right? So who is the victim?
Looks like an advantage for the people at this point.

spec