$330K home had for $16 in loophole law
Jul 21st 2011, 10:28 pm
#1
BE Site Lead
Thread Starter
Joined: Aug 2004
Location: MA, USA
Posts: 92,170
$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....
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....
Good going that chap...wonder if google will spike on Adverse Possession searches
Jul 21st 2011, 10:45 pm
#2
Joined: Aug 2004
Location: Eugene, OR
Posts: 1,352
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.
Jul 21st 2011, 10:58 pm
#3
BE Site Lead
Thread Starter
Joined: Aug 2004
Location: MA, USA
Posts: 92,170
Re: $330K home had for $16 in loophole law
Plus now they know, they can try and figure it out for themselves
Jul 21st 2011, 11:19 pm
#4
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Mar 2008
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Posts: 4,913
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.
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.
Jul 22nd 2011, 1:08 am
#5
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Jun 2008
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Posts: 10,678
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.
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.
Jul 22nd 2011, 4:35 am
#6
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Sep 2003
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 4,525
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.
Jul 22nd 2011, 5:16 am
#7
Lapine Member
Joined: Nov 2004
Location: Austin, Texas in my own little world
Posts: 21,691
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.
Jul 22nd 2011, 7:11 am
#8
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Mar 2008
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Posts: 4,913
Re: $330K home had for $16 in loophole law
Jul 22nd 2011, 2:01 pm
#9
BE Site Lead
Thread Starter
Joined: Aug 2004
Location: MA, USA
Posts: 92,170
Re: $330K home had for $16 in loophole law
... 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 ...
I'll doubt it'll ever pan out, but I'm rooting for the chap
Jul 22nd 2011, 3:22 pm
#10
Lapine Member
Joined: Nov 2004
Location: Austin, Texas in my own little world
Posts: 21,691
Re: $330K home had for $16 in loophole law
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.
Jul 22nd 2011, 3:27 pm
#11
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Sep 2003
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 4,525
Re: $330K home had for $16 in loophole law
Yeap I am thinking now matter how it turns out, he is not making any friends with his neighbours.
Jul 22nd 2011, 4:12 pm
#12
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Mar 2008
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Posts: 4,913
Re: $330K home had for $16 in loophole law
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" ...
