Go Back  British Expats > Living & Moving Abroad > USA
Reload this Page >

$330K home had for $16 in loophole law

$330K home had for $16 in loophole law

Old Jul 21st 2011, 10:28 pm
  #1  
Bob
BE Site Lead
Thread Starter
 
Bob's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2004
Location: MA, USA
Posts: 91,772
Bob has a reputation beyond reputeBob has a reputation beyond reputeBob has a reputation beyond reputeBob has a reputation beyond reputeBob has a reputation beyond reputeBob has a reputation beyond reputeBob has a reputation beyond reputeBob has a reputation beyond reputeBob has a reputation beyond reputeBob has a reputation beyond reputeBob has a reputation beyond repute
Default $330K home had for $16 in loophole law

Kenneth Robinson beat the system. We should all be Kenneth Robinson. Kenneth Robinson for President! Kenneth! Kenneth! Why the fuss? Because Robinson found a loophole in the law that let him pay 16 dollars to own a $330,000 house.


It's a little known law called "adverse possession" where you can avoid the inconvenience and expense of applying for a traditional mortgage. He supposedly spent months and months researching the law and combing through listings to find the perfect house that would fit within the requirements of the law. The $330,000 house in Flower Mound, Texas did just that....
http://gizmodo.com/5823573/man-used-...a-330000-house

Good going that chap...wonder if google will spike on Adverse Possession searches
Bob is offline  
Old Jul 21st 2011, 10:45 pm
  #2  
 
Joined: Aug 2004
Location: Eugene, OR
Posts: 1,352
avanutria has a reputation beyond reputeavanutria has a reputation beyond reputeavanutria has a reputation beyond reputeavanutria has a reputation beyond reputeavanutria has a reputation beyond reputeavanutria has a reputation beyond reputeavanutria has a reputation beyond reputeavanutria has a reputation beyond reputeavanutria has a reputation beyond reputeavanutria has a reputation beyond reputeavanutria has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: $330K home had for $16 in loophole law

Hm, I wonder if a $16 house that you have to stay in for three years to own is worth living in a neighborhood where everyone around is "jealous and pissed" at you.
avanutria is offline  
Old Jul 21st 2011, 10:58 pm
  #3  
Bob
BE Site Lead
Thread Starter
 
Bob's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2004
Location: MA, USA
Posts: 91,772
Bob has a reputation beyond reputeBob has a reputation beyond reputeBob has a reputation beyond reputeBob has a reputation beyond reputeBob has a reputation beyond reputeBob has a reputation beyond reputeBob has a reputation beyond reputeBob has a reputation beyond reputeBob has a reputation beyond reputeBob has a reputation beyond reputeBob has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: $330K home had for $16 in loophole law

Originally Posted by avanutria View Post
Hm, I wonder if a $16 house that you have to stay in for three years to own is worth living in a neighborhood where everyone around is "jealous and pissed" at you.
Well there is that, but that's what insurance is for.

Plus now they know, they can try and figure it out for themselves
Bob is offline  
Old Jul 21st 2011, 11:19 pm
  #4  
BE Forum Addict
 
Joined: Mar 2008
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Posts: 4,896
md95065 has a reputation beyond reputemd95065 has a reputation beyond reputemd95065 has a reputation beyond reputemd95065 has a reputation beyond reputemd95065 has a reputation beyond reputemd95065 has a reputation beyond reputemd95065 has a reputation beyond reputemd95065 has a reputation beyond reputemd95065 has a reputation beyond reputemd95065 has a reputation beyond reputemd95065 has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: $330K home had for $16 in loophole law

As far as I know, in California you have to have have occupied the property for five years and paid property taxes on it for the entire time in order to claim adverse possession.

While the law is undoubtedly different in Texas, I don't think that this guy is out of the woods yet and even if he does eventually get to keep the property it is probably going to cost him more than that $16 filing fee.
md95065 is offline  
Old Jul 22nd 2011, 1:08 am
  #5  
Lost in BE Cyberspace
 
Michael's Avatar
 
Joined: Jun 2008
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Posts: 10,678
Michael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: $330K home had for $16 in loophole law

The perfect storm of events that happened to make the house available was that the house foreclosed, the original owner abandoned his mortgage and the mortgage company closed shop
If the original owner wanted the 'squatter' to leave, the owner would have to pay off his mortgage and the bank would have to file a lawsuit against the squatter to get him evicted. If that doesn't happen, under Texas occupancy laws, Robinson believes the house will be his as long as he stays there for three years.
Even though the mortgage holder closed shop, some company purchased the assets and liabilities of the defunct mortgage company and mortgage companies will not let someone get away with a loophole.

Mortgage companies have deep pockets and will file a lawsuit that could cost the squatter millions of dollars to fight the lawsuit. I doubt that there is one in a million chance that he will still be in the house in another year.
Michael is offline  
Old Jul 22nd 2011, 4:35 am
  #6  
BE Forum Addict
 
Ash UK/US's Avatar
 
Joined: Sep 2003
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 4,525
Ash UK/US has a reputation beyond reputeAsh UK/US has a reputation beyond reputeAsh UK/US has a reputation beyond reputeAsh UK/US has a reputation beyond reputeAsh UK/US has a reputation beyond reputeAsh UK/US has a reputation beyond reputeAsh UK/US has a reputation beyond reputeAsh UK/US has a reputation beyond reputeAsh UK/US has a reputation beyond reputeAsh UK/US has a reputation beyond reputeAsh UK/US has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: $330K home had for $16 in loophole law

If nothing else he has a place that is pretty much rent free for a while.
Ash UK/US is offline  
Old Jul 22nd 2011, 5:16 am
  #7  
Lapine Member
 
snowbunny's Avatar
 
Joined: Nov 2004
Location: Austin, Texas in my own little world
Posts: 21,691
snowbunny has a reputation beyond reputesnowbunny has a reputation beyond reputesnowbunny has a reputation beyond reputesnowbunny has a reputation beyond reputesnowbunny has a reputation beyond reputesnowbunny has a reputation beyond reputesnowbunny has a reputation beyond reputesnowbunny has a reputation beyond reputesnowbunny has a reputation beyond reputesnowbunny has a reputation beyond reputesnowbunny has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: $330K home had for $16 in loophole law

It'll be interesting to see how this plays out since if he legally owns the property, but doesn't have a mortgage - and the debt holder wins a judgment against him - he could declare bankruptcy and keep the house under Texas law. The fine point here is whether the homestead exemption would apply.
snowbunny is offline  
Old Jul 22nd 2011, 7:11 am
  #8  
BE Forum Addict
 
Joined: Mar 2008
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Posts: 4,896
md95065 has a reputation beyond reputemd95065 has a reputation beyond reputemd95065 has a reputation beyond reputemd95065 has a reputation beyond reputemd95065 has a reputation beyond reputemd95065 has a reputation beyond reputemd95065 has a reputation beyond reputemd95065 has a reputation beyond reputemd95065 has a reputation beyond reputemd95065 has a reputation beyond reputemd95065 has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: $330K home had for $16 in loophole law

Originally Posted by snowbunny View Post
It'll be interesting to see how this plays out since if he legally owns the property ...
... but that is part of his problem - he has declared that he is occupying the property but he doesn't "own it" yet - he has to stick it out for 3 years before his adverse possession turns into ownership. I believe that if someone could establish that they are the owner then they could initiate eviction proceedings against him and sue him for trespass - as far as I can tell he is banking on the fact that nobody would notice - in which case he was pretty stupid to get himself into the news ...
md95065 is offline  
Old Jul 22nd 2011, 2:01 pm
  #9  
Bob
BE Site Lead
Thread Starter
 
Bob's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2004
Location: MA, USA
Posts: 91,772
Bob has a reputation beyond reputeBob has a reputation beyond reputeBob has a reputation beyond reputeBob has a reputation beyond reputeBob has a reputation beyond reputeBob has a reputation beyond reputeBob has a reputation beyond reputeBob has a reputation beyond reputeBob has a reputation beyond reputeBob has a reputation beyond reputeBob has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: $330K home had for $16 in loophole law

Originally Posted by md95065 View Post
... but that is part of his problem - he has declared that he is occupying the property but he doesn't "own it" yet - he has to stick it out for 3 years before his adverse possession turns into ownership. I believe that if someone could establish that they are the owner then they could initiate eviction proceedings against him and sue him for trespass - as far as I can tell he is banking on the fact that nobody would notice - in which case he was pretty stupid to get himself into the news ...
Either way, he's taking squatters rights to a new level for free digs while it all gets sorted out and you've got to admire that kind of brass balls

I'll doubt it'll ever pan out, but I'm rooting for the chap
Bob is offline  
Old Jul 22nd 2011, 3:22 pm
  #10  
Lapine Member
 
snowbunny's Avatar
 
Joined: Nov 2004
Location: Austin, Texas in my own little world
Posts: 21,691
snowbunny has a reputation beyond reputesnowbunny has a reputation beyond reputesnowbunny has a reputation beyond reputesnowbunny has a reputation beyond reputesnowbunny has a reputation beyond reputesnowbunny has a reputation beyond reputesnowbunny has a reputation beyond reputesnowbunny has a reputation beyond reputesnowbunny has a reputation beyond reputesnowbunny has a reputation beyond reputesnowbunny has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: $330K home had for $16 in loophole law

Originally Posted by md95065 View Post
...as far as I can tell he is banking on the fact that nobody would notice - in which case he was pretty stupid to get himself into the news ...
Well... I don't know that he intentionally meant to go viral. ;-) The neighbours are probably fighting to force him out - harder than any bank ever would.
snowbunny is offline  
Old Jul 22nd 2011, 3:27 pm
  #11  
BE Forum Addict
 
Ash UK/US's Avatar
 
Joined: Sep 2003
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 4,525
Ash UK/US has a reputation beyond reputeAsh UK/US has a reputation beyond reputeAsh UK/US has a reputation beyond reputeAsh UK/US has a reputation beyond reputeAsh UK/US has a reputation beyond reputeAsh UK/US has a reputation beyond reputeAsh UK/US has a reputation beyond reputeAsh UK/US has a reputation beyond reputeAsh UK/US has a reputation beyond reputeAsh UK/US has a reputation beyond reputeAsh UK/US has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: $330K home had for $16 in loophole law

Originally Posted by snowbunny View Post
Well... I don't know that he intentionally meant to go viral. ;-) The neighbours are probably fighting to force him out - harder than any bank ever would.
Yeap I am thinking now matter how it turns out, he is not making any friends with his neighbours.
Ash UK/US is offline  
Old Jul 22nd 2011, 4:12 pm
  #12  
BE Forum Addict
 
Joined: Mar 2008
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Posts: 4,896
md95065 has a reputation beyond reputemd95065 has a reputation beyond reputemd95065 has a reputation beyond reputemd95065 has a reputation beyond reputemd95065 has a reputation beyond reputemd95065 has a reputation beyond reputemd95065 has a reputation beyond reputemd95065 has a reputation beyond reputemd95065 has a reputation beyond reputemd95065 has a reputation beyond reputemd95065 has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: $330K home had for $16 in loophole law

Originally Posted by Bob View Post
Either way, he's taking squatters rights to a new level for free digs while it all gets sorted out and you've got to admire that kind of brass balls
Well that's the American way isn't it?

They may have paid for Louisiana and Manhattan but most of the territory that currently makes up the US was acquired by "squatters rights" and "adverse possession" ...
md95065 is offline  
Old Jul 22nd 2011, 4:17 pm
  #13  
Septicity
 
fatbrit's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 23,762
fatbrit has a reputation beyond reputefatbrit has a reputation beyond reputefatbrit has a reputation beyond reputefatbrit has a reputation beyond reputefatbrit has a reputation beyond reputefatbrit has a reputation beyond reputefatbrit has a reputation beyond reputefatbrit has a reputation beyond reputefatbrit has a reputation beyond reputefatbrit has a reputation beyond reputefatbrit has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: $330K home had for $16 in loophole law

Originally Posted by Michael View Post
let someone get away with a loophole.
Don't be so negative! Adverse possession has a long history -- its roots are seen in both Roman and common law.
fatbrit is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.