patrick.net

I don't see how the ability of the bank to come in at the last moment is much of a problem. If you pay the property tax and utilities for five years even if you aren't able to claim the house free and clear under adverse possession, you will have lived in a house for five years for much less than the cost of renting it.

gavinIn,

> you will have lived in a house for five years for much less than the cost of renting it.

That seems like a big gamble. You'd live there for free if you didn't pay the property tax at all.

gavinln says

I don’t see how the ability of the bank to come in at the last moment is much of a problem. If you pay the property tax and utilities for five years even if you aren’t able to claim the house free and clear under adverse possession, you will have lived in a house for five years for much less than the cost of renting it.

Well, it's a problem if you want to take title to the property. You're right, if you just want to live in the house for less, then this could work, but as justme pointed out, why pay anything if that's your goal?

justme, camping: You got to choose your enemies carefully. If you stop paying your mortgage you only have the bank after you. If you stop paying your property tax, you now have the state after you.

You're right that bank attorneys know about adverse possession. So does every other attorney in the country. They teach it during the first year of law school.

Hey, look, the state already provides resources on it. Even says how to STOP adverse possession claims.

http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/row/landsurveys/Study_material/California-Adverse-Possession.pdf

gavinln says

justme, camping: You got to choose your enemies carefully. If you stop paying your mortgage you only have the bank after you. If you stop paying your property tax, you now have the state after you.

That depends on whether the mortgage company is paying your property taxes. You're right though, if no one was paying them, the state could come after you.

With what's been going on lately, people aren't paying anything (mortgage or prop tax), and neither the bank nor the state is taking the house, so I don't know who is paying what.

LarryP says

Maybe I should write a book on how to do this…..

Too late:

http://www.allbookstores.com/book/9781847663726/Adverse_Possession.html

So, let me get this right, you think the bank will come in at the last second and pay the back property taxes?

Well, that's true they could. However, you seem to think that the banks have their act together. If they did, they wouldn't wait so long to foreclose.

Also, five years of back property taxes is going to add up! For a 500,000 house, that's about $37,500

If the home "squatter" pays the taxes as they go, it will further strengthen their claim. Also, the bank won't be able to track when the five year mark is up. :) The bank is the one that gets notice that the taxes are due from the county. (BTW: This has NOTHING to do with the state people, it's a county govt. tax)

So, if you pay your property taxes, the bank will probably lose track that they haven't paid the taxes.

It doesn't matter if the bank pays the taxes, as long as you do too. The state will gladly take 2x the revenue with no complaints.

The criteria for adverse possession is that you - or someone - occupies the house "openly and notoriously", and that YOU pay the prop taxes.

I believe there's also something in there about casting a cloud on the title (aka - getting a wino to sign a quitclaim deed).

A friend of mine has successfully acquired a few houses this way - albeit in dicey neighborhoods - this was before the boom. You could probably do this in much nicer neighborhoods today.

Brixmitch, you're just wrong. Until the 5 years is completely up, the title owner has every right to the property. If they came in on the last day and said, "oh, you're on my property, that's ok," your adverse possession claim is gone, since it is no longer adverse. Paying taxes on the last day would do the same thing. You seem to be forgetting about the "adverse" in "adverse possession."

Larry, you're logic is a little off. #1 the banks aren't foreclosing because they are being paid and pushed by the government not to. #2 if you had to pay $40k in back taxes to retain possession of a $500k asset, wouldn't you do it or would you just piss away the $500k and get nothing?

If you guys want to try it, go ahead. When you have success, post it, and I'll congratulate you.

Adverse position requires that the possession be adverse to the owner of record. If the bank has not foreclosed, the would-be adverse possessor is still the owner of record. This simply will not work and is bad advice.

steve says

Adverse position requires that the possession be adverse to the owner of record. If the bank has not foreclosed, the would-be adverse possessor is still the owner of record. This simply will not work and is bad advice.

Right. Thanks. That was one of my questions above.

Adverse position requires that the possession be adverse to the owner of record. If the bank has not foreclosed, the would-be adverse possessor is still the owner of record. This simply will not work and is bad advice.

I will also add:
(1) Paying taxes does not help you become an adverse possessor so that is a waste of money. In fact, in Illinois, per a a court decision, AP can actually wipe out tax liens (i.e., the adverse possessor can obtain clean title without paying off any mortgages OR tax liens). In other words, why pay the taxes each year if you can just wipe them out?
(2) Even if the bank foreclosed and took title but you remained in the house, all the bank would have to do to defeat your AP is give you permission to stay in the house for 1 day during that 5 year period, thus destroying the 5 year streak of adversity you need to prove.
BOTTOM LINE: If you can stay in a house rent/mortgage free, go for it for as long as you can. But don't make any plans around the idea that you will own it someday through AP.

I have completed two adverse possessions. It does work, you just have to do it correctly.

As far as the owner of record, who is the owner? The home owner or the bank?

In any event, you can always collaborate with someone else. You can "swap" your house with someone else, who is in the same position.

I think the courts would grant a clean title to a homeowner, who's been in foreclosure for five years. Some remedy would be considered by the courts.

Tax implications?

That doesn't make sense. What do you mean "tax implications"?

You aren't going to have interest payments to deduct. So your tax "bill" is going to be higher if you can't write off your interest on your mortgage.

However, WHO CARES. You don't make mortgage payments, so you save that money.

Are you referring to getting hit with a big tax bill cause you got a house without a mortgage or something?

None.

Unless you sell the house, then maybe your taxed, but aren't you able to sell your primary residence up to $500,000 tax free?

Larry

What are the tax implications?

larrypatrickmaloney says

I have completed two adverse possessions. It does work, you just have to do it correctly.
As far as the owner of record, who is the owner? The home owner or the bank?
In any event, you can always collaborate with someone else. You can “swap” your house with someone else, who is in the same position.
I think the courts would grant a clean title to a homeowner, who’s been in foreclosure for five years. Some remedy would be considered by the courts.

Maybe you can explain in detail what you did then because from your posts you don't really seem to understand what adverse possession is, so it seems unlikely that you would be able to pull it off.

If Larry can't answer his own question about who the owner of record is, there is zero chance he pulled off an adverse possession. The owner of record is the person who was deeded the house last. The bank is only a mortgagee unless and until it forecloses (not when it sends a notice of foreclosure but when it actually forecloses). Bottom line, talk to a lawyer and get some real advice before spending 5 years of your life trying to pull off something someone mentioned on a message board.

larryp says

Now, I debated about writing this publicly, because I want to jealously guard this “open secret” to my advantage.

Dear Penthouse:
I never thought this could happen to me, but...

@larrypatrickmaloney: How can you have "completed two adverse possessions," as you say, and not know whether the bank or the home owner is the owner of the record?

ellie--

Very nice. that made me laugh.

tatupu70 says

ellie–
Very nice. that made me laugh.

Thanks - I had a whole scenario in my head, but realized that less is more. :)

uvafitz says

If Larry can’t answer his own question about who the owner of record is, there is zero chance he pulled off an adverse possession. The owner of record is the person who was deeded the house last. The bank is only a mortgagee unless and until it forecloses (not when it sends a notice of foreclosure but when it actually forecloses). Bottom line, talk to a lawyer and get some real advice before spending 5 years of your life trying to pull off something someone mentioned on a message board.

My response was more rhetorical than practical.

The owner of record is the homeowner, but the bank has a lien on the property.

So, who is the REAL owner. (The bank is). Until the house is paid off, the bank really owns the property, and can take the house back.

If the house is in your name, then you need to find someone else who can adversely possess your house.

larrypatrickmaloney says

So, who is the REAL owner. (The bank is). Until the house is paid off, the bank really owns the property, and can take the house back.

Um, not to put a fine point on this, but no they are not. They cannot take the house back--unless you fail to follow the terms of the loan.

You own the house. The bank has a contract with you with the house as backing.

Sounds like stealing to me....of course that's the culture of today though. Something for nothing, something for nothing. Seems like everywhere I turn I hear that the key to happiness is "Something for nothing." The only key to bettering yourself is abandoning the hope of getting something for nothing. People that get too caught up in this type of greed forget that if they're getting something for nothing, somebody else is losing their shirt...which exposes the "Something for nothing" culture for what it is: selfishness. So go ahead and ruin our culture for your kids and grandkids by teaching them that selfishness is your life motto, thus perpetuating the belief in your kids and grandkids only to find out one day that you've been aspiring to things which cannot satisfy.

jeffweichers says

Sounds like stealing to me….of course that’s the culture of today though. Something for nothing, something for nothing. Seems like everywhere I turn I hear that the key to happiness is “Something for nothing.” The only key to bettering yourself is abandoning the hope of getting something for nothing. People that get too caught up in this type of greed forget that if they’re getting something for nothing, somebody else is losing their shirt…which exposes the “Something for nothing” culture for what it is: selfishness. So go ahead and ruin our culture for your kids and grandkids by teaching them that selfishness is your life motto, thus perpetuating the belief in your kids and grandkids only to find out one day that you’ve been aspiring to things which cannot satisfy.

Greedy? The bank is the greedy one.

Look, if you are stuck in limbo, for five years, and the bank isn't even bothering to foreclose on you, then what is the home owner to do?

Another method, one could use, is just save all your mortgage payments. If after five years, the house finally goes to foreclosure, go to the auction with your saved cash, and bid against the bank.

By that time, the property will have probably dropped enough that you can buy it from the bank at the reduced price at the auction.

Ok, Larry. Time to move on to reality.

Well said Camping.

Larry, I think you should work with Tom Vu, you might be able to come up with a new system he could advertise.

camping says

Ok, Larry. Time to move on to reality.

Sure, that is why I use my real name, and I don't hide behind an alias.

"Go camping" ha!

larrypatrickmaloney says

camping says

Ok, Larry. Time to move on to reality.

Sure, that is why I use my real name, and I don’t hide behind an alias.
“Go camping” ha!

Larryp:

It seems hokey. If it works for you, that's cool. But obviously many of us don't believe you or don't care. You'll obviously never win, at least here. IMHO, of course.

WTHeck???!!!

I just can't, for the life of me, imagine living like some squatter in a house waiting for the sheriff to move me out and throw all my things out in the street where other animals and savages can go through it and pick and choose while I run around looking for a truck to move my things. I realize that some people put themselves or are put into such situations through hard~luck and loss of jobs and/or illness etc. The majority of these people just should never own houses, condos etc. But to actually sit around and ponder how one will take/steal a house from a legal owner is beyond me.

Don't you have any decency? Don't you care about the trauma and humiliation your family will have to endure when they are thrown out into the street with all the neighbors watching? Does such a scenario not concern you? I guess if you are used to living like an animal you probably don't think it's wrong to go into a supermarket and just start eating food items as long as you walk out with the food in your belly~~~hey 'it's not stealing'. I suppose you consider anyone and everyone who owns something YOU want to be 'greedy'. The banks are 'greedy' because they give you a loan and they charge interest for their service? Besides, banks may not be moving people out of foreclosures because of several reasons~~~most of which have been discussed on this forum, ad nauseum. 'Forgetfulness' is not a way that I would describe banks and bankers. They have their reasons for doing things and their own time schedules. Furthermore, how would you feel if someone did this to you? You own a house, out of town, and hold the mortgage and someone comes and moves in and adversely takes possession~~~I suppose you would be all right with it since the owner is 'greedy' and only the squatter is free from greed or malice.

I also read that you don't have to pay taxes because taxes are unconstitutional. *tin hat time

PS

My comments are not a response to the OP, per se, but just my opinion of people who think that 'scheming' should be an inspiration.

OK gang, here is a great story on how this is done! :)

http://www.infowars.com/toledo-man-streams-foreclosure-occupation-over-internet/

You live in your house, bank forecloses, they take title/deed, and you remain in the house against their will.

If you can do it long enough, you can get your house back, without the mortgage.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JgrdaUERGw

Jeff if the bank doesn't care about the property, then perhaps they have abandoned it. But of course we know that they will likely come in before 5 years, although they hate to mark to market, which is what this all is about.

Wanted to follow up on my original post, and provide an interesting article.

In case I wasn't clear, if you are foreclosed upon, you should try to stay in the house. Fight to stay, and if you can stay for five years after foreclosure, you have a case for adverse possession.

Also, check out this article:

http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/05/24/1645122/new-rule-says-banks-must-prove.html?story_link=patrick.net

Looks like people are wising up! Maybe my original post is where people had their "secret" meeting. http://www.americanbanker.com/bulletins/-1025519-1.html?source=patrick.net#most-emailed-list

larrypatrickmaloney says

,p>In any event, you can always collaborate with someone else. You can “swap” your house with someone else, who is in the same position.

Collusion and fraud. Great way try and steal a home. Brilliant.

Adverse means against the owners wishes. If the lien holder allows you to stay, it is not adverse.

We have to wait 4 more ...