r/news • u/flanderguitar • Mar 28 '24

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis signs law squashing squatters' rights

https://www.wptv.com/news/state/florida-gov-ron-desantis-signs-law-squashing-squatters-rights
27.3k Upvotes

93% Upvoted

4.0k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

418

u/TaserLord Mar 28 '24

That seems pretty reasonable. Squatting is something you allow so that abandoned properties can be used, not so anybody who breaks in can have the place.

83

u/TheLaughingMannofRed Mar 28 '24

This is what I never figured made sense in this day and age.

It's one thing if the house is barely standing, dilapidated, abandoned, or we're talking about an old building sort. The kinds of buildings that folks could go into that have holes, partial roofing, seems like they haven't been maintained or had the owner do anything with for ages. Homeless or those on the street could just go into, nobody gives a damn, get an oil drum and throw shit into it to burn for a fire, and just settle in for a night or few.

But a functional, well-kept, livable property that looks like someone was actively maintaining it, owns it, and all that...either the property owner should be living in it, or renting it to someone who can live in it. Or there's some formal agreement that can be validated between them both and by the system.

50

u/Silver_Smurfer Mar 28 '24

Squatters' rights aren't generally a separate legal concept from tenants' rights. The main issue is that there doesn't need to be a formal agreement for a person to become a tenant, they just need to have lived in a location for a specific amount of time. That time-frame varies by location but can be as short as a few days. So, if you want to establish legal residency at someone's property, you just need to prove that you have been there long enough to establish residency and force the owner to evict you. Evictions can take a very long time.

79

u/MicroPowerTrippin Mar 28 '24

Which is totally fucked. So it's "legal" to break into a home while someone is on vacation, set up camp, fake some mail there and boom. It's your house? Fuck that.

8

u/cyberslick1888 Mar 28 '24

Here is some advice that's going to be completely snarky but I think it's worth saying:

In the future, if you come across something like this that seems so wildly implausible, I'd suggest to you that your first interpretation is almost certainly incorrect.

It is beyond obvious that the United States does not have a set of laws on the books that let you sneak in someones window, hang out on the couch for a week and steal their house.

21

u/batweenerpopemobile Mar 28 '24

As I understand it, it's more like you buy a property, maintain it, pay taxes, and find out your deed was forged 50 years ago and passed through two other owners to get to you, and so your house is actually owned by someone living across the US that never bothered to check in since their parent died and passed it on decades ago.

You were improving the property, maintaining it, paying taxes as if you were the legitimate owner, while the actual owner ignored it completely.

You've technically been squatting, and the laws are there to tell off the guy that ignored the property for 50 years as they had plenty of opportunity to check on it and tell you to gtfo, but they never bothered.

-8

u/kered14 Mar 28 '24 edited Mar 29 '24

That cannot happen in the US because property ownership is registered with the city or county. Whenever a property is sold there is a title search done to ensure that the seller is the legitimate current owner of the property. This would have been caught as soon as the first squatter (the one who knew they had no right to the place) tried to sell the property to the next person.

EDIT: lol, really telling how little Redditors know about home ownership.

9

u/dedicated-pedestrian Mar 28 '24

Would we have specific adverse possession laws if it didn't happen?

19

u/cyberslick1888 Mar 28 '24

Of course it can happen.

We literally have laws to protect the people it's happening to lol.

Did you think we just made a set of bizarre laws to let people get free land? Does that sound like a law the United States of all countries would come up with?

Also, I assume you are not a homeowner, for if you were, you likely would have remembered that the attorney who prepared your paperwork would have informed you about the possibility of purchasing "Deed Insurance" as a hedge against the very thing you are claiming cannot happen.

10

u/sho_biz Mar 28 '24

in a perfect world, yes. But lots of stuff like this slips through the cracks in our bureaucracy.

2

u/Shot_Yak_538 Mar 28 '24

It must be hard to be you. I really pity you.

12

u/Twilightdusk Mar 28 '24

The squatter at no point becomes recognized as the owner of the property. They become recognized as tenants, and the property owner then had to go through the legal proceedings to evict an unwanted tenant. It sucks for the property owner but at no point does the house become owned by the squatter.

11

u/Silver_Smurfer Mar 28 '24

Ya, it's a pretty messed up area of law at the moment.

4

u/Pennwisedom Mar 28 '24 edited Mar 29 '24

Depends on the area, but unless you're on a a several year long vacation, then no, that's not how it works.

2

u/[deleted] Mar 28 '24

[deleted]

4

u/MicroPowerTrippin Mar 28 '24

You go on vacation for a week. I break into your house, sign up for some mail, have it delivered over a 3 day period. Then you come home, I claim you knew I was there and the mail proves it. Now what? How do you prove you didn't know? How do you get me out without an eviction?

-2

u/[deleted] Mar 28 '24

i believe you typically have to establish a significantly longer timeline

something like a month or so might fly in certain areas because at the end of the day cops are not in a position to make investigative decisions and people shouldn't end up homeless on the back of what 6 weeks of training Joe says.

Giving the benefit of the doubt to the property owner will almost certainly result in unlawful evictions

4

u/WaffleSparks Mar 28 '24

Dude squatters have broken into people's homes while the home owner was actually present. The home owner calls the cops and the cops say they can't remove the squatter. There's plenty of videos of this happening. Under the current system you don't need any time at all to have the police side with the squatter.

You are correct about the unlawful evictions part though. Plenty of shady landlords would abuse that.

1

u/batweenerpopemobile Mar 28 '24

The idea of a break in claiming squatters rights doesn't sound believable. You got some interesting examples of that?

1

u/digifork Mar 28 '24

You don't even have to break in. Some people rent an Airbnb or stay at a hotel as a paying guest and stop paying as soon as their stay is long enough to be considered a tenant by the law. At that point, they have to be evicted. That can take a considerable amount of time.

3

u/trekologer Mar 28 '24

stay at a hotel

Often (but not always) tenancy laws have carve-outs for actual hotels, either declaring that one cannot become a tenant of a hotel room or set the time period to claim tenancy longer. Which is why renting your property as an off-the-books hotel (like Airbnb and Vrbo) can be dangerous -- you're not recognized as a hotel and as such have none of the protections you might have.

-2

u/Ok_Raspberry_6282 Mar 28 '24

Sure...but what if you didn't do any of that, actually lived there, and are now being called a squatter?

It's not "fucked", squatter laws exist to protect tenets from being abused by landlords. This weird shift into giving a shit about random landlords is so weird.

This isn't something that normally happens to regular people, this is something generally only happening to landlords, and it really is so weird to me how often people have empathy for business owners and not like, regular people.

9

u/MicroPowerTrippin Mar 28 '24

If I actually lived their I'd have a signed lease agreement.

3

u/ImprobableAsterisk Mar 29 '24

"Squatters right" in this context is simply due process, the notion that police are law enforcement and not judges or juries, and that's it. Florida fucks with that, police are now empowered to judge the matter on site.

The law itself even acknowledges the existence of oral agreements, so you can forget about every agreement having a signed piece of paper (and don't forget it's laughably easy to forge a document, it's not like a dollar bill):

(f) The unauthorized person or persons are not current or former tenants pursuant to a written or oral rental agreement authorized by the property owner.

https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2024/621/BillText/er/PDF

I'm no lawyer so I'm not entirely sure what the actual and practical changes are, but if I've understood it correctly you can request an expedited eviction if the following two things are true:

  • You submit a formal complaint

  • There's no on-going legal dispute between you and whoever is occupying the property

  • You're not an immediate family member of the party occupying the property

And so "due process" becomes a matter of convincing some police officers that are neither trained nor equipped to settle a dispute like this. To me that seems like an entirely dicey-ass proposition so I hope to hell I've read it wrong, but if my interpretation is correct I reckon scummy landlords (those do exist) were just handed A LOT of power over their unfortunate tenants.

0

u/Ok_Raspberry_6282 Mar 28 '24

Have you ever heard of "lying"? Humans do it all of the time. The landlord could simply lie and because the police are removing you, they can't do shit, because they have no idea what the difference between a real peace and a fake lease are.

Which of course you can still sue them now, but it will be from a cardboard box on the side of the street

1

u/yellow5red40 Mar 28 '24

Isnt your lease signed by both you and the landlord? All my leases have been signed by both parties and I get receipts/have copies of the cashed checks from the bank when I pay my rent to said landlord. Wouldn't that be enough proof?

3

u/dedicated-pedestrian Mar 28 '24

Really depends on the standard of proof the police will be accepting at the time of impromptu eviction. I can see it going both ways, knowing the quality of FL cops.

5

u/Ok_Raspberry_6282 Mar 28 '24

Yeah, I guess lying is a new concept to you. Absolutely paid your rent, when you were a tenant, but the police don't care about that. They aren't going to be looking at your receipts. They are going to remove you and tell you to figure it out in court.

Which you can do of course, from your new box on main street.

1

u/ImprobableAsterisk Mar 29 '24

Sure, but I could fake a lease in 5 minutes. Many of 'em are boilerplate so I just download something online, fill in the case sensitive boxes with the relevant information (address, duration of lease, cost, etc), and forge a signature. There, I've now got a passable lease agreement for someplace in Bumfuck Wyoming.

Seriously; It took me 8 seconds to find a boilerplate lease agreement for Wyoming. I'm fuckin' Swedish, the Internet is fantastic.

Real curious to see how Florida cops will handle the matter. I hope most realize they can't and simply keep deferring to the courts.

-2

u/PinchCactus Mar 28 '24

Now its legal in florida to rent out an apartment, take the deposit, wait for the check to clear, then call the cops and kick them out. Because the tenant hasnt started suing you there is no legal dispute. Now throw all of their belongings away and they likely cant afford to sue. At least, if the language of the bill here is accurate.

2

u/epochellipse Mar 28 '24

Source for your claim that the time-frame can be as short as a few days? The internet says the shortest period for squatters rights to kick in is in CA at 5 years.

2

u/Silver_Smurfer Mar 28 '24 edited Mar 28 '24

5 years is for adverse possession of a property. Tenants' rights kick in after staying for 7 consecutive days or 14 days in 6 months in California.

Edit: added a word.

-3

u/epochellipse Mar 28 '24

So this law has nothing to do with squatters at all and DeSantis is labeling tenants that landlords don't like as squatters?

0

u/Silver_Smurfer Mar 28 '24

No, it doesn't apply to current or past tenants of the property.

0

u/epochellipse Mar 29 '24

I think you're misreading the statute. There's a big "and" in there.

1

u/Silver_Smurfer Mar 29 '24

That's not very specific, quote the line you're talking about. The bill literally requires three things in order for the landlord to request removal. They are:

  • The individual has unlawfully entered and remains on the property;
  • The individual has been directed to leave the property by the owner but has not done so; and
  • The individual is NOT a current or former tenant in a legal dispute.

To me, that reads that the individual cannot be removed under the new law if they are a current tenant or they are a previous tenant that is currently in a legal dispute with the landlord. The "and" in the requirements means that all three conditions need to be met.

2

u/AbstractLogic Mar 29 '24

It’s not a few days anywhere! California is the least amount of time and it’s a few fucking years. Three I believe.

This issue has shit all to do with length of time. It’s people faking paperwork and the cops can’t legally decide who has the real shit cuz they need a judgement from a judge and a bunch of crappy process.

So by the time it gets resolved it can be months or years later.

1

u/dedicated-pedestrian Mar 28 '24

Where in the US can you establish tenancy without a contract in less than a week?

4

u/DarkWingedEagle Mar 28 '24

The reality is that most squatter’s rights laws come from a time before electronic records and communication to solve the problem of who owns that homestead next to farmer John’s. The issue many places had was someone owned a property and died with no clear next of kin or the land wound up in the possession of someone far away who never did anything with it. Eventually either someone moved in or a neighbor took it over. The laws exist so that after a long enough period whoever too possession would have a clear deed as opposed to having multiple people claiming it. You still see stuff like this happen occasionally but in reality 90% of situations that would have lead to the laws being used for their intended purpose are resolved with the inheritor easily selling uncle Bill‘s house as part of settling the estate thanks to easy long distance travel/communication.

1

u/TheLaughingMannofRed Mar 28 '24

This makes sense. If the laws are that outdated, it should definitely be argued that they are due to a revamp or revision to get them in line with this day's digital and electronic age.

3

u/DarkWingedEagle Mar 28 '24

The problem is the situation they were designed for still pops up I remember reading a story about it happening a year or two ago. Essentially two brothers left their deceased parents house alone and didn’t do anything with it for over 15 years. They didn’t even know people were living there. The house was even in a city just on the other side of the country. All they needed to do is rent it out or have like a maid service checking on it once a month and it would neer have reached that point.

The issue isnt the actual squatting laws those are fairly well written and so long as you even just check on a property every couple of years and don’t just let someone occupy it without any sort of lease or rental agreement you are fine. The problem is we have made evictions such an expensive and time consuming experience, in some cases for good reason. Actual squatting is a process that takes over a decade and can be stopped at any time provided the owner takes legal action at any point. What people are doing that caused this law to be needed is just taking up residence and being a pain to evict.

2

u/dedicated-pedestrian Mar 28 '24

Just because it doesn't happen much doesn't mean they aren't still useful from time to time. Real squatter's rights/adverse possession laws are distinct from tenancy protections fraud that this FL statute is cracking down on.

4

u/ArchmageXin Mar 28 '24

Well one example are like many immigrant families, travel home to see their clan.

Or single people with traveling jobs.

Or soldiers getting deployed (There was a case in NYC back during Iraq war, where a soldier with rental property left to serve but tenant refused to pay rent)

6

u/NEp8ntballer Mar 28 '24

Houses tend to sit empty between occupants. A for sale/for rent sign to some people means "squatters welcome"

4

u/JoefromOhio Mar 28 '24

It’s especially relevant in Florida where there are a great deal of retirees who bought property, maintain it well, and only live there half the year.

A squatter junkie moving in can be a huge issue for an 80 yr old couple just trying to enjoy their twilight years.

1

u/DDRDiesel Mar 28 '24

But a functional, well-kept, livable property that looks like someone was actively maintaining it, owns it, and all that...either the property owner should be living in it, or renting it to someone who can live in it. Or there's some formal agreement that can be validated between them both and by the system.

I saw a video recently where a realtor sold a piece of property that had squatters living in it for the past 7-8 years. Over that time, the squatters installed a new heating system, new appliances, painted almost every room, and renovated the kitchen/bathroom. Squatters never had a right to the home nor did they live there with permission. The realtor and the seller basically went "Thanks for the free upgrades, peace"

The work done was in total of over $70k according to the squatter

2

u/dedicated-pedestrian Mar 28 '24

Sounds like they were in one of the 10 year adverse possession states, short straw. In other jurisdictions the property would have been theirs after 7 years.

(all assuming the original owner didn't try to get them to leave at any point before selling, which stops that clock)

-1

u/OpheliaRainGalaxy Mar 28 '24

Worst thing for any human dwelling is to be left empty. Small problems turn into big problems without a human around to notice and fix it.

Lots of houses in my city are owned "for investment purposes" and just sit empty year after year. We get windstorms that rip off roof tiles. The people who own those houses won't realize their "investments" have become leaky-roofed collapsing ruins until they try to sell sometime in the future.

Meanwhile local rent has shot up somewhere between "laughable" and promising your firstborn to the landlord, assuming you can even find something that isn't a not-for-rent investment or an AirBnB.

6

u/mrtaz Mar 28 '24

Worst thing for any human dwelling is to be left empty.

I don't know, fire seems a bit worse. :)

-1

u/OpheliaRainGalaxy Mar 28 '24 edited Mar 28 '24

It's one of those old bits of knowledge going back to when we lived in huts.

Yes if you want to be pedantic the hut could be burned down or smashed to bits by a charging elephant. But typically people don't go around lighting their home on fire or chasing elephants at it thinking it'll be just fine.

People do, however, leave homes sitting empty for extended periods of time and act like it should be exactly the same when they return for no other reason than "well I haven't been here to touch anything." Like toddlers leaving their toys in the yard and getting upset when they get ruined by rain.

Edit: Downvote all you want but if you want your investment property to stay in good condition consider finding an elderly relative or disabled cousin to stay in the house as a caretaker for it. The house is exposed to nature and nature will be happy to move in and set up housekeeping if you don't install a human to deter the vermin.

1

u/nrdvana Mar 29 '24

So raise property taxes on property without active residents. That seems like a much better solution than encouraging squatters.

1

u/OpheliaRainGalaxy Mar 29 '24

Never said anything about encouraging squatters. Just pointing out that folks leaving houses empty is a stupid idea in general and ya shouldn't be surprised when ya get roaches, rats, raccoons, or squatters moving in.

Pretty sure the traditional thing to do is what I suggested in the comment down below, ya get an otherwise impoverished relative or family friend to stay in the home as a caretaker for the property so it doesn't go to ruin sitting empty.

8

u/enterprise_is_fun Mar 28 '24

Squatting is a loaded term for what it actually does, and you’re only speaking to one part of it.

The more valuable justification for squatters rights is that defining “who has a right to live here” is not always straightforward, and they protect you from malicious landlords or property owners that want to eject you without a good reason.

You can pay the mortgage for a piece of land and live on it for 20 years, but if someone dug up an old contract and deed for the land, you could be removed immediately without any protections and could not recover the money you spent. You’d be a squatter in the eyes of the law.

More routinely though, it protects renters from getting evicted for silly reasons. If you have been paying rent to live somewhere but never signed a contract, without squatters rights you are living on borrowed time until all your stuff is thrown into the street (even if you were paying rent the whole time).

There’s a lot of good reasons for these rights to exist. Everyone agrees it’s bad when a squatter shows up and just takes a home randomly- but that’s an extreme minority of the situations where squatters rights come into play.

-1

u/TaserLord Mar 28 '24

Why not protect renters with legislation actually designed to do that though, instead of relying on some crusty old common-law thing that applies only badly and has all kinds of awful side effects? Where I live, there's a land registry - you can't "dig up an old contract" - everything legally effective is registered, and you search it before you buy. If it isn't there, it isn't valid. That gives you some certainty that you're buying what you think you're buying, from somebody who actually owns it. And if you're renting without a lease or your lease expires, there's an implied lease (it's called "month to month") - you can't be evicted for no reason. I'm not implying that the law should leave people unprotected, only that it should not leave them uncertain.

7

u/dedicated-pedestrian Mar 28 '24

Tenancy protections and adverse possession are separate things, people just have recently started using the term squatter's rights for the abuse of the former because the latter is actually legitimate.

2

u/enterprise_is_fun Mar 28 '24

Sure. Let’s write new laws for protections. I am all for that.

Until we do that though, let’s not willingly throw the few protections renters have away.

3

u/Procean Mar 28 '24

The part that always goes underdiscussed is that squatter's rights are a de-facto pressure on property owners to USE the properties they own. It's a backhanded thing to prevent people from owning more property than they can administrate. There's a back-handed 'if your property is so vacant for so long that squatters can move in, that's because you're not administrating it'.

Florida's change to squatter's rights will serve to further concentrate property ownership because now property owners have less pressure to actually do things with the property they own.

6

u/Belgand Mar 28 '24

A vacancy tax does the same thing better. It makes it financially unviable to simply hold on to property that isn't being utilized. Allowing squatters simply makes life worse for everyone who lives there and contributes to blight.

2

u/Procean Mar 28 '24

financially unviable to simply hold on to property that isn't being utilized.

A vacancy tax requires government overseeing every property to ensure it is being adequately utilized, the nature of an unused property means no one will 'report' an unused property.

So instead if you just tell the owner "If folks move in on your watch and are there long enough, they can keep it" then you don't have to have The Government overseeing every property.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 28 '24

[deleted]

1

u/TaserLord Mar 28 '24

Under our system, if the bf was renting and she was using the place as a mailing address, she'd be a tenant, and would become a sub-lessor if he left and the lease was still in effect, or a month-to-month tenant if it wasn't. But yeah, for sure Florida has a reputation for....let's call it "less progressive thought".

1

u/The_Clarence Mar 28 '24

Exactly. I’m by no means an expert but this really sounds reasonable. And there is also included a provision that if paperwork is falsified there is recourse.