‘I was just trying to be kind’: This Kentucky homeowner let his friends stay in his garage for months — then they claimed ‘squatters rights’ and got a court order to force him out of his home : weirdnews

[-] protist@mander.xyz 124 points 4 days ago

The court's decision in Toma's case may have stemmed from several factors. When Sencuk applied for the protective order, he indicated Toma was a roommate — not the homeowner — so the nature of their relationship may not have been clear to the judge.

Additionally, Sencuk claimed he and Toma had an agreement that he would perform various maintenance and chores around the property in exchange for living in the garage, which may have seemed credible to the court. Toma denies this arrangement ever existed.

However, since the protective order was issued, Sencuk has moved out.

The guy never claimed "squatters rights," he sought a protective order against the other people in the house and lied to get it, then moved out before it was even issued

[-] queermunist@lemmy.ml 56 points 4 days ago

This article is such a mess. I have to wonder if AI wrote it.

[-] fushuan@lemm.ee 12 points 4 days ago

But the title will be enough for scared homeowners to validate their feelings.

[-] Zier@fedia.io 18 points 4 days ago

Author: GChPatT

[-] Zexks@lemmy.world 14 points 4 days ago

The judge who signed this needs to be disbarred. JUDICIAL OVERSIGHT. Can we get some god damn.

[-] kandoh@reddthat.com 24 points 4 days ago

This stuff always ends up being propaganda for landlords

[-] anonymouse2@sh.itjust.works 45 points 4 days ago

Per the article, takes 15 years of adverse possession to claim squatter's rights in KY. Order that got homeowner kicked out was a protective order that stemmed from a physical altercation between the "squatter" and one of the homeowner's roommates.

[-] scutiger@lemmy.world 5 points 4 days ago

It takes 15 years of squatting to gain adverse possession. That is to gain ownership of the property, you have to live there for 15 years without the owner making an active effort to stop you.

[-] Madison420@lemmy.world 2 points 4 days ago

In most states it's the opposite, the owner has to attempt to stop you and you have to hold it hostility.

Nebraska for reference

The squatter's presence and use of the property must be continuous, actual, visible, notorious, distinct, and hostile to the actual property owner's rights.

Meaning you must openly try to prevent the owners use and they most attempt to prevent yours.

[-] scutiger@lemmy.world 4 points 4 days ago

I don't think that's what that means. I believe "hostile" in this sense is closer in meaning to "contrary." It's hostile to the owner's rights, not hostile to the owner.

You have to make it clear that you're living there with regular upkeep. Mow the lawn, fix up the house, etc. You can't hide the fact that you're living there from the owner or neighbors.

If the owner shows up one day and discovers you've been living there, they can politely ask you to leave and now you're officially trespassing and you lose your claim to adverse possession.

If you've made it clear that you live there, and your neighbors all know you, but the real owner has never showed up in 15 years, or just doesn't care and never asked you for rent or asked you to leave, congrats on your new property.

[-] Madison420@lemmy.world 0 points 4 days ago

Thats literally what I said... I quoted Nebraska directly.

They don't mean you have to fight them it means you have to try to prevent their use and they must attempt to prevent yours.

[-] Feathercrown@lemmy.world 1 points 3 days ago

But that's not what we're saying. It counts as adverse posession if you're doing something contrary to the owner's interests/rights and they don't stop you.

[-] Madison420@lemmy.world 1 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

That's what hostile means!

A hostile possession is the action of an occupier who does not have the true owner's consent or permission, but possesses or occupies the real property of the true owner.

Ie. The actual owner needs to say no don't do that and the squatter has to try to prevent and buy that I mean literally say "no don't" or something to that effect.

Hostile does not mean you even have to be rude or anything but friendly it just means it's against your interests and you've made them aware. It's so the owner doesn't wait the squatting period and then take action, the theory being if you didn't know or take action until then then you've abandoned the property.

[-] Feathercrown@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago

You could have no consent/permission without the owner even knowing you're there

[-] Madison420@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

Doesn't matter, that's all civil you gotta take them to court about it.

[-] Feathercrown@lemmy.world 2 points 4 days ago

Doesn't that only mean that you have to be hostile to their rights, not the other way around?

[-] Madison420@lemmy.world 2 points 4 days ago

The owner needs to attempt repossession to have a claim and the squatter needs to rebuke every attempt to have a claim.

[-] ThermonuclearCactus@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 4 days ago

So its like a team sport? Squatters versus homeowners?

[-] Nuke_the_whales@lemmy.world 12 points 4 days ago

Why even go to the authorities. Get your cousins, some baseball bats and evict them.

[-] Madison420@lemmy.world 6 points 4 days ago

Because that's a felony?

[-] Spacehooks@reddthat.com 5 points 4 days ago

In the south? I thought this was murica!

[-] pushka@beehaw.org 1 points 4 days ago

in the UK you would need to live there for 10 years

[+] Hydra_Fk@reddthat.com -19 points 4 days ago

[removed by mod]

[-] protist@mander.xyz 16 points 4 days ago

If you shoot someone in your home who you previously invited into your home, you're going to prison.

[-] Nuke_the_whales@lemmy.world -3 points 4 days ago

If you tell someone sure. This seems like a situation where the government is almost encouraging you to deal with it on your own. Just make sure you hide any evidence

[-] Madison420@lemmy.world 3 points 4 days ago

That right there kids is the reason our prisons are overfull and our schools understaffed.

[+] dohpaz42@lemmy.world -16 points 4 days ago

You know the system is genuinely broken when people can “squat” and force you out of your own home; while you’re still living there.

[-] TachyonTele@lemm.ee 31 points 4 days ago

That's not what happened, but I agree with you on the thought.

[-] dohpaz42@lemmy.world 1 points 4 days ago

Sencuk and one of Toma’s roommates got into a physical altercation, leading to Sencuk filing an emergency protective order against Toma. The judge granted the order, which forced Toma to stay 500 feet away from them — and his own home, effectively leaving him homeless.

But it was what happened. All because the courts believed Sencuk (the squatter).

[-] ShepherdPie@midwest.social 8 points 4 days ago

That quote says nothing about squatting. it mentions a protective order being issued after a physical altercation occurred.

[-] jacksilver@lemmy.world 3 points 4 days ago

It's kinda interesting situation. In a situation like this, what is the best course of action? If someone in a household is assaulting another, one party is going to end up kicked out when th law gets involved. So why should ownership be a mitigating factor?

[-] ShepherdPie@midwest.social 3 points 4 days ago

Yeah it's a messy situation that the media is trying to spin into some rage-bait headline. A similar scenario would be a husband beating up his stay-at-home wife, who then gets a protective order against him. The headline here could also read "squatter uses courts to get homeowner kicked out of his own property" and half of the people who see it would skip reading the details and start ranting about "the rights of homeowners!, this country is going to shit!, and blah blah blah."

[-] dohpaz42@lemmy.world -3 points 4 days ago

Sigh. You’re right. It’s not like the “physical altercation” didn’t occur because the guy who got assaulted was trying to claim squatter’s rights and wouldn’t leave the house that he didn’t live in.

What was I thinking? 🤦‍♂️

[-] ShepherdPie@midwest.social 2 points 4 days ago

What does that even mean? Is that a roundabout way of saying that this guy deserved to be assaulted and that a homeowner can, or should be able to, physically harm anyone in their home for any reason simply because they own it?

You sure the guy who was assaulted didn't live there? It seems they quoted the homeowner right in the headline as saying "I let my friends live in my garage for months."

It seems like you're Just making up your own story and your own facts at this point.

[-] TachyonTele@lemm.ee 2 points 4 days ago

Squatting has nothing to do with your quote, or anything else.

Weird News - Things that make you go 'hmmm'