As long as you strictly obey all speed limits on your way there.
No, you cannot. Historically all that was required to protect against adverse possession was that the legal owner of the land take steps to protect his or her interest. So if you show up in at my house, I give you the boot, yer out of luck. You show up at my summer cabin, move in, live there for a period of time (usually a matter of years or decades) and I take no steps to eject you, then you could get good legal title to the land.
In this case, if the banks were able to eject the squatters, the squatters would not get an interest. But if the squatters move in and the banks take no action for a period of time, then the banks may be out of luck.
Sure, I guess I agree with that. Adverse possession is now pretty limited in most jurisdictions (it's been abolished where I live for nearly a century). I just thought it was stupid for Huzurdaddi to be all "they must hate private ownership" when adverse possession and homesteading have been at the heart of the Anglo-American notion of ownership for a very long time.
All the banks should have to do then is ask the police to remove them from the banks property.
Well, first the banks have to prove that they own the homes. But in many cases, the paperwork proving ownership was misplaced, destroyed, or never existed. If the bank cannot prove it owns the home, it has no standing to evict the occupants.
The people don't own the home either so they should have no standing to live for free.
They're in possession. If a person has possession, and no one else has better title, then the person in possession gets the asset. Absent evidence to the contrary, the person in possession is presumed to be the owner.
I wonder: If an amnesty on all of these failed mortgages had been passed at the same time as the bailout...what would the effect have been?
And when tenants are ejected that way the day after rent payment by a landlord? Repeatedly?
No, no problems at all with that!
The right - small government until it comes to THEIR issues, then civil law becomes criminal!
What the hell are you talking about? They arent paying anything, the houses have been forclosed on. How can you compare that to someone being evicted AFTER paying their rent? This would be the same as someone who hasnt payed rent in months being evicted.
You want to give landlords the ability to use the police to evict anyone from a house they own on their say-so.
You haven't bothered thinking of how that can be abused. Of course.
Can the banks use tear gas and force in ejecting the squatters? :)
If the banks couldn't prove that how did they manage to foreclose on the houses in the first place? I know there are problems with a couple banks and their paperwork but why were they allowed to foreclose when those questions existed.
Just trying to evict someone on back rent is a true pain in the ass process for landlords.
Here ya go, off the top of my head: http://abcnews.go.com/Business/bank-america-florida-foreclosed-angry-homeowner-bofa/story?id=13775638
They already can do that if they go through the eviction process. So they already have a legal process to remove people from a place they own if the people stop paying rent to them. I am not sure why you think they should not have that recourse under the law.
I can't speak to the foreclosure process in NY, but in many places if the owner does not oppose the foreclosure, the courts don't take a very careful look at the bank's documentation. Illegal foreclosures have been pretty well documented in several states at this point, mostly relating to "robo signing" and deficient proof of title.
In terms of "a few banks", some of the banks involved in fraudulent foreclosures included Countrywide and Bank of America. This is a very widespread problem.
And, strictly from personal experience of a LOT of homes: squatters tend to take care of their residence, I mean they LIVE there. Much like those houses you see full of 20 or so illegal aliens tend to actually make improvements on the house they live in.
Renters however, people who get evicted, tend to wreck the shit out of the place so should renting be abolished?
I've also seen plenty, PLENTY of people who were renting a house but had no idea the owners lost the house and then BOOM they get evicted suddenly, after months of paying rent, with no notice whatsoever.
I think the law should help those people, even at the risk of...other people having a roof over their head? Is that what we're risking here? Christ.
Again, what you called for is for them to be able to evict them at-will, using the police. I have no problem with a process involving due process. During which such things as a contract and evidence of paying rent is a defence. And with penalties for abusive landlords.
But the process is necessary. (And there's absolutely no need to make it a criminal process)
If you want to argue that it should be done by a magistrate's hearing rather than requiring a judge, well, sure, then we have something to discuss.
(Of course, I also support rent caps (already heavily used in America) and tax on unoccupied houses / brownfield land, to encourage usage)