quote:

ORIGINAL: hlen5

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: DarkSteven

The owner has renounced all claim to the property and the mortgage company does not exist.This is exactly why the law was written - to permit someone to take possession of he house.  The reason he is getting it for so little is because there is nobody to take a payment for it.

More power to him.

..... Even then such a renouncement would have to be on paper and often in the form of a 'quit claim' deed.........

I thought quit claim deeds were just that. the mortgage payer relinquishes all claim to the house and the lender takes the property back, and sells it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomImus

quote:

ORIGINAL: LinnaeaBorealis
Seriously???? Everything he has done is within the letter of the law. So you'd be worried about his not breaking laws to get what he wants??? I think your thinking is a little weird. But that could just be me.

He''ll be a great neighbor... until he digs up some legal loophole to acquire your automobile. The guy is a deadbeat any way you slice it. The technical legality of it doesn't hide the fact that he's a squatter. If you want to applaud him for that, go for it. I will give him credit that he is an ingenious deadbeat.

I doubt this whole thing is going to work for him.

This is just one more story being blown up by the media.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: DarkSteven

The owner has renounced all claim to the property and the mortgage company does not exist.This is exactly why the law was written - to permit someone to take possession of he house.  The reason he is getting it for so little is because there is nobody to take a payment for it.

More power to him.

As I wrote, the 'owner' is the prevailing note holder. (recorded) I'd like to meet the note holder that can just walk away from a $300,000 house. Even then such a renouncement would have to be on paper and often in the form of a 'quit claim' deed. Never heard of one being signed without a pretty substantial check in return.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyConstanze
Not sure if it is really such an issue, but when we bought the house, we were told to make sure that we move our stuff in ASAP and not leave it empty, as once you get squatters in, they're almost impossible to get rid of, that it's an expensive and lengthy procedure as physical possession counts a lot and they can actually prosecute you if you're trying to get into your own house and you're the one who needs evidence that they have actually broken in, if there are no witnesses they can claim it was vandalism and they just saw that a backdoor was open and they walked in.

I have read in Costa Rica, if you buy a property/land and there are squatters you can not evict them at all, they are there for life if they wish. Your best bet is to simply hire them to caretake the property for you... (to keep other potential squatters away)..

quote:

ORIGINAL: DarkSteven
You're describing the system as it is supposed to work.  House still has equity in it, title is transferred properly.

That ain't happening here.  There is no equity, or the owner would not have left.  Just because it is a $300K house does not mean that the owner has $300K equity.  The mortgage company, which is owed big money, is in no shape to collect it.  As I said, the law was written to make sure that the house does not stay abandoned and that its tax obligations get paid.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
I am thinking you misunderstand. Our co. was adding a lien and trust me, no owner wants a mechanical lien on his property, it removes all flexibility...can't sell or mortgage it. The management company is who we were dealing (contracting) with and it was they who didn't pay us until...

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyConstanze
Not a clue about Costa Rica, but I think in the UK the law was made so empty buildings would not go to ruins because they're not occupied, and speculators then can tear them down (not quite sure, but I think I heard that once a house has reached a certain level of "ruin" they might get permission to tear it down instead of renovating it) and build modern buildings (and keeping the prices up with creating an artificial shortage or turn the space into offices). But like every law, there are loopholes and people taking advantage of them. The housing market is currently down, so if work requires you to move away people tend to rent their houses out, an unoccupied house in a central area with a "for rent" or "for sale" sign can attract squatters.

I googled: http://www.squatter.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=10&Itemid=25

Heaven knows that I wouldn't be happy paying all sorts of legal costs to get squatters out of my property, possibly have them damaging the house...