It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Man Pays $15 For $340,000 Flower Mound Home

page: 1
6
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 1 2011 @ 07:53 PM
link   
dfw.cbslocal.com...


FLOWER MOUND (AP) - It has the makings of a tall tale: A man finds a two-story, 3,250-square-foot house worth $340,000 in a Dallas suburb and pays only $15 for it.



Kenneth T. Robinson, 50, who sells vitamins and other dietary supplements for a marketing company, laid claim to the 1997-built house in Flower Mound under Texas’ obscure “adverse possession” law — commonly known as “squatter’s rights.”



Robinson determined that the owner of record moved out about a year ago and cannot be found, and the property wasn’t listed for sale. He filed an affidavit of adverse possession with Denton County for a $15 fee, turned on the utilities and moved in.


Some of his neighbors didnt take to kindly to him moving into the house


Some even called police. Robinson said he showed officers the affidavit and explained to them the laws of adverse possession. That led investigators to search for an owner or mortgage company who might have a complaint against Robinson


Well, the police couldnt find anyone.


“We couldn’t find anyone. No foreclosure, nothing,” police Capt. Wess Griffin said. “It appears to us to be largely a civil matter.”


Still, the neighbors wouldnt give up the fight


But a neighborhood delegation showed up at the house anyway to deliver a message: Robinson was not welcome there.


Then Robinson thought the confrontation was going to get a little violent, and called the police. I guess the neighbors are a little mad they had to pay a few hundred thousand dollars for their houses, while Robinson had to only pay 15.

I grew up in the town of Flower Mound and found this story pretty...humorus. For as long as Ive lived in the area, Ive never heard of the "adverse possession" law. Seems I learn something new about this area every day!




posted on Aug, 1 2011 @ 07:57 PM
link   
Good for him! The neighbors should be happy he moved in. I'm sure they would be a lot more upset if a real squatter showed up. Or how about rowdy kids throwing rocks through abandoned windows? I would take an intelligent man over an abandoned home and the alternatives any day.



posted on Aug, 1 2011 @ 08:00 PM
link   
I think it's awesome!

If he's following the law, and the house was abandoned, then more power to him. The neighbors should be happy, because doesn't a well-kept house increase their property values more than an empty, neglected home? Of course, the answer is yes.



posted on Aug, 1 2011 @ 08:07 PM
link   
I dont really understand why the neighbors are soo ticked off at him. (well, yes, the money thing). But the house was abandoned and this guy moved in and plans to take care of it.

I personally would rather have somebody living in and taking care of a house, instead of having an abandoned house next to me....



posted on Aug, 1 2011 @ 08:10 PM
link   
I think there was another thread on this.

At any rate, good for him!

The corrupt banks HATE seeing people use their intelligence to circumvent their hold on the people.



posted on Aug, 1 2011 @ 08:12 PM
link   
reply to post by buni11687
 


Dear buni11687,

The law and consequences are more than just this guy getting a $15 house. If it turns out that the person who bought this house had left it without a foreclosure being completed (often referred to as jingle mail, people had adjustable rate loans, the rates went up they couldn't make the payments so they sent their keys to the mortgage company and moved out without getting a deed in lieu of going through the foreclosure process) then that person would still be responsible for the loan; but, have no right to the actual home once the adverse possession had completed.

These types of things are also leading to mortgage companies preferring to demolish some houses rather than just let them sit empty in cases where they do not think the home will ever be sold. A lot of the mortgage mess was due to people lying about how much they made, buying homes they could not afford as an investment and skipping out when the investment failed. There are plenty of opportunities to refinance homes to keep people in them, the HOPE loan is a good example where if you qualify they can reset your principle to 90% of the current market price and get people into a fixed interest rate below market. And no I am not a loan processor; but, had a partner that was a mortgage broker.



posted on Aug, 1 2011 @ 08:16 PM
link   
I was thinking about this, and the only other answer I can think of why they would be pissed is this - homes are valued only by what someone will pay for them. So, the fact this guy purchased the house for $15 means this house is only worth $15. (This was explained to me by a relative who appraises homes). Now, when one of the neighbors tries to sell their home, the $15 home will come up and lower their appraisal value drastically. Same thing happens with foreclosures. Greatly decreases the value of the rest of the homes around it. In fact this happened to the area I used to live in (I got out just in time luckily) My townhouse sold for $178,600.... but the woman who bought it from me tried to sell it three years later and it was only worth $115,000 - because 4 houses on her street went into foreclosure.



posted on Aug, 1 2011 @ 08:26 PM
link   
Im working on a job site right now that needs work because the OWNER of a house next door lives in China and has not even lived in the house yet since purchasing it 10-12 years ago. Since this has happened, the roof has been ripped open by animals, the pool cover is damaged - dangerous for children and animals to fall into and the main water line going into the house has ruptured, filling the house with water, which overflowed out of the foundation and proceeded to flood the houses in the area as well, ruining their driveways and causing their underground sump pumps to run nearly non stop until we discovered the source.

If it was within Canadian law, I would squat this as well, just for the purpose of fixing it up before it falls into complete disrepair and damages any more houses in the area.

Since then we've had the city shut off the main valve at the street and the basement is still filled with water.

Abandoned houses 'should' be available for grabs.

No property owner should be able to leave it sitting like that.

-GM



posted on Aug, 1 2011 @ 08:26 PM
link   
Here's the question: How do I find an abandoned $300K home?



posted on Aug, 1 2011 @ 08:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Universer
Here's the question: How do I find an abandoned $300K home?

Depending where you live you may not be able to do it, some states require like 15 or even up to 30 years possesion (NJ, of course)
PA is 21 years Florida is looking pretty hopeful to me, adverse possession 7 years unchallenged. Now all I have to do is find the home owned by "snowbirds" who haven't used it in eons, lol.

edit on 1-8-2011 by ldyserenity because: smiley gone wrong



posted on Aug, 1 2011 @ 09:11 PM
link   
Generally speaking, in most states you must wait 7 years before you can get a deed. If the owner of record shows up within the 7 years and kicks you out, he gets to keep the improvements you may have made.



posted on Aug, 1 2011 @ 09:21 PM
link   
Yes, but how technically do you go about finding such a house? I guess a $300K house with an unmowed lawn would stick out like a sore thumb.



posted on Aug, 1 2011 @ 09:32 PM
link   
good for him

i should drive over and congratulate him lol



posted on Aug, 1 2011 @ 09:45 PM
link   
reply to post by buni11687
 


For those who admire what this person has done I wish to make you aware of this little tidbit. The man is attempting to steal a home; but, who is he really stealing it from. Well, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac own 70% of all the mortgages and you and I, the taxpayers, own Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. That means there is a 70% chance that he is stealing from you and I as we will pay the taxes that will pay for Fannie Mae and Freddie Macs losses. The same is true for when "the banks" refinance at a lower amount, 70% of the time you and I will make up the difference by paying for it with out taxes.

Now as for me, I am happy to see people get lower loans that they can afford as it is better than not getting any payback on OUR investment; however, I am not good on buying squatters homes with my tax dollars. In fact, there is a proposal to rent out the houses owned by the government which again is better for taxpayers as at least the home provides some money back to the government rather than just causing a need for more taxes.

The single largest group of investors in Wall Street are pension plans. Our pension plans own the banks, so even when it isn't the government losing money it is your credit union or your pension plan, still like people stealing from you? The question we should be asking is how we get this nation back on track and stabilize and correct the housing market. The crashes started with the housing market and that is the part that needs to be fixed first, stealing houses is not going to improve that market.



posted on Aug, 1 2011 @ 10:56 PM
link   
reply to post by AQuestion
 


The thing is. Someone has to pay the taxes ; and, if a Lender is involved, they will pay them. Additionally, the lender can foreclose easily without a deed in lieu. They simply advertise in a generally circulated newspaper in the area. If no one responds within an allocated time, the court will give them a deed. And consequently this guy will be evicted.

Also, if this guy gets away with it after the statutory amount of continuos, hostile, and notorious possession and pays the taxes along the way, then he has stolen from no one. Both the lender and the owner would have abandoned the property.



posted on Aug, 1 2011 @ 11:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by ogbert
reply to post by AQuestion
 


Also, if this guy gets away with it after the statutory amount of continuos, hostile, and notorious possession and pays the taxes along the way, then he has stolen from no one. Both the lender and the owner would have abandoned the property.



Dear ogbert,

I was not referring to the property taxes, I was referring to the Federal Income Tax that you and I pay to pay for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac which own 70% of these homes or the investment that you have in your 401K or pension that owns this mortgage because our 401Ks and pensions own the banks. I do not expect this guy to get away with it, I expect him to be kicked out, publicizing it certainly doesn't help his situation.

If Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac lost on investments than our income taxes are used to make up the difference. If the banks lose on their investments then our 401ks and pension funds lose on their investments. In regards to stealing, that is simple, of course he is attempting to steal it, he is not attempting to buy it and he is stealing it from you and me because in the end we will pay for it.



posted on Aug, 1 2011 @ 11:18 PM
link   
reply to post by CeeRZ
 


I live in the area & saw when this story ran live... I believe it was $16 he paid to the county to print out a single form not to pay for the house... so in all actuality he paid nothing to move into the house... It has been stated that he has to stay 3 years unopposed to gain real ownership... He found a loophole & I think it's great! The home was forclosed on then almost immedieatly the mortgage company failed so the deed is "lost" so to speak... Flower Mound is (sort of) an "Uppity area", I think the neighbors are just mad because they had to pay for thier homes & in this market are likely to be struggling to pay thier (more likely than not) multiple notes on thier homes, or maybe they knew the family that was forclosed on so it hurt them personally... who really knows why they are upset, but it seems to only be a handful of neighbors that are having issue with him "squatting" there... The way I see it the value of the house will be unaffected because he paid for the form not the house & that is if... IF... he stays the required 3 unopposed years.

Just my 2 cents



posted on Aug, 1 2011 @ 11:23 PM
link   
reply to post by wastedown
 


Dear wastedown,

Are you therefore okay with having you income tax used to absorb the loss to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac or your 401K or pension fund absorbing the loss because they have stock in the bank?



posted on Aug, 1 2011 @ 11:28 PM
link   
reply to post by AQuestion
 


Bs. He owns the house now. You dont. He didn't steal it. He got it 100% legally.
for you.



posted on Aug, 1 2011 @ 11:31 PM
link   
reply to post by PsykoOps
 


Dear PsykoOps,

Actually he doesn't own the house yet, he has to stay there without being evicted by the rightful owner for a period of time and that still doesn't change the fact that you and I will pay for him to have that house for $16 if he does last for the time period. Put your thumb down after removing it from your mouth, put a million thumbs down, it doesn't change who will pay for this loss one bit.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join