jmorris wrote:Actually it does happen in Texas. I don't believe (IANAL) that Castle Doctrine applies in such cases.
I don't see why not. If they don't belong in you home and they were never authorized to be there earlier (which is very important), the home owner should be allowed to order them out under threat of deadly force and use deadly force if they resist. It should be legally equivalent to walking in on a burglary.
In Texas, I wonder what would happen if the owner called 911 and pleaded for help because strange men are in her house RIGHT NOW!
If it were in the same situation as this where the "squatters" had occupied the house for months and had paperwork saying they bought the house? Approx the same thing. JP court should act quicker and the DA would hopefully move sooner but unless it's a Deed done in crayon do we really want beat cops making the call on such things at the curb? What if the person you believe is the homeowner isn't? What if it is a repo, or foreclosure, some sort of rent to own deal gone bad? What if the person in the house paid money to some scam artist and get woke up at gunpoint because why? The cops should just know who is right?
rp_photo wrote:I don't see why not. If they don't belong in you home and they were never authorized to be there earlier (which is very important), the home owner should be allowed to order them out under threat of deadly force and use deadly force if they resist. It should be legally equivalent to walking in on a burglary.
In Texas, I wonder what would happen if the owner called 911 and pleaded for help because strange men are in her house RIGHT NOW!
That's a reasonable response if you come home and find evidence there are strangers in your house. For all you know, they're armed and dangerous. Solo house clearing can be fun in a training class, but it's not something I want to do IRL. Especially not without serious backup.
sent to you from my safe space in the hill country
Most of the stories I have read involve people squatting in foreclosed homes. It is a nuicance to the banks, but I care less for that.
The link on that OP story where eviction was stayed due to the squatter suppposedly in poor health just smacks of bull. I can't believe a judge would allow that at all.
MechAg94 wrote:Most of the stories I have read involve people squatting in foreclosed homes. It is a nuicance to the banks, but I care less for that.
The link on that OP story where eviction was stayed due to the squatter suppposedly in poor health just smacks of bull. I can't believe a judge would allow that at all.
Well the NY housing court allowed it because they are run by different standards than a reg court. He was arrested and charges were pressed in a criminal court totally separate from the housing court.
I could imagine situations where it's hard for the LEOs to sort it out "right now" - so you've got to leave it to the court. It's pretty easy to get your name on the mail.
When I ran an HOA *yuck* - we had one home that was not being paid for... That is, the original owner hadn't made payments on the home in over a year. He had it in the name of a trust that was in the state of California. That trust was basically impossible to "serve" in a manner consistent with court filings - short of the a judge in Texas saying that it's OK to notify a trust in CA via legal notices in the paper.. And likely that would have been contested in terms of procedure.... Anyway, that home was "sold" on a lease back deal to the occupant who lived in the neighborhood. That occupant had no idea that the bank was going to take it as soon as they could get the procedure straight. I can see that becoming a bad situation, especially for someone who might want to defend his "castle".
And there are craigslist scammers that will "rent" YOUR home to someone who is unsuspecting...
