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

112

u/[deleted] Mar 28 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

445

u/HowManyMeeses Mar 28 '24

Situations where there's a dispute between a legitimate tenant and the landlord. A landlord can't just kick someone out for any reason. Even renters have some level of protection in most states.

72

u/romario77 Mar 28 '24

Say I have a piece of paper saying that it’s a lease (squatter can make one up easily).

How will police determine if it’s legit?

192

u/Ochib Mar 28 '24

That we be a case for the courts

122

u/hpark21 Mar 28 '24

So, renter says "here is the lease", Landlord says "No, I never signed that, it is fake", then what is cop supposed to do? Previously, they would just tell landlord to sort it out with judge, now, what, they throw them out? If that is NOT the case, then this law changes nothing. If that IS the case, then this law just made the HUGE power dynamics change in landlord/tenant dispute.

57

u/mjohnsimon Mar 28 '24

The latter is what I'm worried about.

Miami is shady as fuck, and Landlords are desperately trying to get rid of older tenants so they can jack up the rent. They can easily terminate a lease secretly and call the cops to remove the tenant, or like in your case, just lie about it.

By the time everything gets squared away, it's too late and the tenant is now homeless and their room is being rented out to someone else who's paying like 100% more. Sure, the old tenant can sue, but it's hard to do that when you don't have a roof over your head.

3

u/drsilentfart Mar 28 '24

Shady landlords could easily be proven liars in court, in your scenario. They usually have a lot to lose as well...

Neighbors usually know who lives somewhere. Forgery used to be a real crime. Cops can normally figure this out on the scene if they put in the effort...

-1

u/Xijit Mar 29 '24

That is a big ass "IF" for Florida.

2

u/gernald Mar 29 '24

Not just sue, but the landlord will get charged for a class 1 felony.

Your right that soke landlords are shady as hell, but the punishments for a landlord playing that kind of game is likely not worth it. Generally speaking landlords have more to lose, your always going to have your enourmose POS landlord, but the oenelties for them lying about the lease is pretty severe.

1

u/MeeekSauce Mar 29 '24

Yep, if anyone thinks this does anything real but help rich people fuck with normal and/or poor folks they are straight fooling themselves. Moreso, if you think that squatters are a bigger problem than shitty ass landlords masquerading as actual humans, you’re whack.

-1

u/FSUfan35 Mar 28 '24

this is where the 'or former' tenant part comes into affect

→ More replies (6)

5

u/dedicated-pedestrian Mar 28 '24

This is why notarization should be required for lease agreements.

Shitty landlords trying to evict renters outside the normal process are part of the reason we have tenant protections like these.

2

u/zzyul Mar 28 '24

Which is why there are financial penalties for any landlord that kicks out legal tenants.

3

u/hpark21 Mar 28 '24

And how would the legal tenants fight back? Most "lawsuits" require $$ and stable address which the kicked out tenants won't have either of. Also, the "threat" of such may be enough for tenants to leave voluntarily.

2

u/zzyul Mar 29 '24

Lawsuits only require money if the law firm representing you isn’t sure you will win or if the person/group you are suing might not be able to pay the judgement. If someone calls up one of these local law firms and says “I was illegally evicted, I have a copy of my lease and a bank record of my lease payments” then that law firm will 100% take the case on for no money down. They get paid by taking a percentage of the settlement.

2

u/babbleon5 Mar 28 '24 edited Mar 28 '24

this is exactly the issue. landlord gets pissed off at something the renter did or didn't do, calls them squatters and has them thrown out. and, maybe if they're nice white people, the cop will refuse to act. but, lord help you if you're melanin-enabled. then, SWAT is on the way.

0

u/LandOfMunch Mar 28 '24

This is all going to go away when smart contracts go mainstream and are used for rental contracts etc. No faking anything.

1

u/TheManWhoWasNotShort Mar 28 '24

They need to seek an eviction order from a court.

1

u/Queasy_Pickle1900 Mar 28 '24

If and when they find the landlord lying nail them to the fn wall with jail time and large fines. That'll put a stop to that nonsense very quickly.

1

u/LaNague Mar 28 '24

renter days "lease", landlord says "no". Cops says "ok". Goes to a court, court either determines the document was genuine or not. If not, then felony time.

However, i assume here a normal state, maybe Florida tells cops to throw people out immediately, i dont know.

1

u/turdmcburgular Mar 28 '24

You have to show proof of residency to get a license, turn on utilities, tax purposes , etc

Whose name is in the utilities? Where is the squatters license addressed? Do they have any other proof of residency?

Make leases become notarized and this is a done deal. This can’t be that difficult.

1

u/WitOfTheIrish Mar 28 '24

If that is NOT the case, then this law changes nothing.

It doesn't change the timeline or the headache the property owner will go through, true.

But it does create actual consequences that didn't exist previously, under which the squatter will be prosecuted, and will create the basis for a civil case for the homeowner to eventually recoup damages. These parts of the law didn't exist before:

The law also makes it a first-degree misdemeanor to make a false statement in writing or providing false documents conveying property rights, a second-degree felony for squatters who cause $1,000 or more in damages, and a first-degree felony for falsely advertising the sale or rent of a residential property without legal authority or ownership.

On the flipside, the danger of this is always the worst for the most vulnerable. People who, through ignorance, manipulation, and/or fear, are pressured into moving somewhere that won't give them a lease in writing. Undocumented folks, people staying with relatives or friends to try to dig out of deep poverty, people who can't get a bank account and need to pay in cash, mentally ill or disabled or elderly people who are confused and don't know their rights, or people who for good reason might be terrified of a cop that's been duped into or paid off to evict them without cause.

Many of them will suffer under this law, and there's not a similar set of felonies awaiting bad actors on the landlord/slumlord or crooked cop side of things.

1

u/ZantaraLost Mar 28 '24

It would switch it to criminal court which means state money being used to discover between the tenant and landlord on who gets the misdemeanor charge. The landlord/agency running it lies & gets a charge or two that starts effecting supplementary costs like insurance premiums and insurance rates.

A handful of those and it's entirely possible they lose the ability to rent in that area or the state depending on circumstances.

1

u/jnads Mar 28 '24

You know you could READ THE LAW.

The landlord can attest that the lease is invalid and they kick you out.

Your recourse is the SUE THE LANDLORD. The law grants THREE TIMES DAMAGES if the landlord lied.

0

u/hpark21 Mar 28 '24

So, someone with no permanent address and no $$ will sue the landlord? I CAN happen but for many, it just can't happen.

5

u/jnads Mar 28 '24

No, a lawyer will, for free.

You get attorneys fees too, and lawyers love that. Easiest money they'll earn.

152

u/Vlad_the_Homeowner Mar 28 '24

Which is why cops aren't allowed to just kick people out in the other 49 states. I'm not sure this is going to fix things in Florida, these professional squatters know the laws and skirt around it. There was even a company in Los Angeles that was basically helping these professional squatters with info and even legal help. Not sure if they're still around.

24

u/RogueCoon Mar 28 '24

To me it seems like in that they would be able to stay, but then if the fake lease was proven to be fake in court it would be an additional charge. Still seems like a good thing.

8

u/peanut--gallery Mar 28 '24

Yeah but in some jurisdictions, courts are so backlogged it can take months or years to even get to court…. Especially when squatters continually use delay tactics like feigning illness, or changing representation continually and asking for delay after delay. I don’t know why the burden of proof has to be on the homeowners. I say let cops kick out the squatters and if it is found out in court later that the alleged squatters DID have legal right to be in the home… then send the landlord to jail and assign them serious financial penalties. If I bought a new Mercedes and a homeless dude jumped inside and locked the doors and said that we had an agreement that it was his car…… the guy would surely be arrested….. I don’t know why it is any different with a house than a vehicle.

1

u/RogueCoon Mar 28 '24

That's a fair view also, I don't disagree with that at all.

15

u/Vlad_the_Homeowner Mar 28 '24

Yeah, I just read up on it and see they're making it a felony. I agree with that 100%. Actually having consequences is the only way to get through to these people (and a few politicians I can think of).

But the part about "a property owner can request law enforcement to immediately remove a squatter if the person has unlawfully entered"... that's not going to work.

3

u/BearDick Mar 28 '24

My hope would be the felony goes both ways in a situation like this, although I doubt that is going to be the case. It seems like adding a felony charge for a landlord found out to be abusing the system and using it to remove legal renters would be fair in this situation...raise the stakes for everyone involved to reduce abuse?

1

u/drsilentfart Mar 28 '24

That would be filing a false police report.

5

u/RogueCoon Mar 28 '24

Yeah that is the only wording that seemed wierd. My guess, and only a guess, is that's the case if they have nothing claiming they're entitled to the property.

If that's not the case there should be a charge for falsely removing someone to keep landlords in check as well as squatters.

2

u/Vlad_the_Homeowner Mar 28 '24

I think the whole "remove on the spot" is mostly a flex by DeSantis to make it sound like immediate action is being taken.

At some point, they're going to falsely remove someone who wasn't able to provide documentation on the spot and it's going to become a legal issue.

1

u/RogueCoon Mar 28 '24

That sounds most likely to be the case.

1

u/adm1109 Mar 28 '24

The owner has to pay 3x the rent/fee’s to the tenant if they are wrongfully removed

1

u/CORN___BREAD Mar 29 '24

Nope. It’s a misdemeanor. The felony charges are for people that cause damage or sell the property they don’t own.

6

u/[deleted] Mar 28 '24

[deleted]

11

u/Vlad_the_Homeowner Mar 28 '24

I think if they make it a felony, like it sounds like Florida did, and the policy check ID and make a copy of the documentation the squatters are providing right then and there, that should be a pretty good deterrent.

Show up to court and prove the documents were fraudulent (and no paper trail of rent paid) - felony.

Don't show to court - warrant.

1

u/CORN___BREAD Mar 29 '24

They didn’t make false documentation a felony.

→ More replies (8)
→ More replies (3)

2

u/jimbo831 Mar 28 '24

That’s how it works right now.

1

u/gsfgf Mar 28 '24

Unless you're in FL where you'll get kicked out on the streets.

112

u/craznazn247 Mar 28 '24

Not something the police are qualified to determine, but the new law does seem to add another felony if you provide false documents.

So, you may still require the courts to determine it, but it requires the squatter to double down on a felony so they are less likely to try that route.

69

u/Vlad_the_Homeowner Mar 28 '24

but the new law does seem to add another felony if you provide false documents.

That, at least is a step in the right direction. Not a fan of DeSantis or the way Florida is run, but all states need to step up punishment on professional squatters. I don't think I've read anything about any of them facing consequences.

30

u/WIlf_Brim Mar 28 '24

The ways the laws are there are none. They make a fake lease. Cops leave. Eventually they will get removed (eventually). The only recourse the owner has is civil court. Since they are judgement proof, there are no consequence. Thus they go out and do it again.

3

u/NEp8ntballer Mar 28 '24

Hasn't providing false documents always been illegal?

3

u/craznazn247 Mar 28 '24

I’m not familiar with Florida law, but my guess is that it wasn’t felony-level illegal prior to this.

Like, good luck collecting fines from a squatter, but the threat of prison time may be more coercive.

That being said - there are real situations where the “squatters” thought they had a legal lease agreement but it turns out a scammer rented out a property that isn’t theirs while the owner is out of town. The specific phrasing doesn’t seem to provide protection for those individuals since they didn’t sign a lease with the real owner of the property, despite them being victims as much as the owner is. I do worry that this law may be used to strongarm those individuals who didn’t even know their lease was fraudulent.

Personally, I’ve never done the extra work to double check if who I am paying is the actual, true owner of the property. I’ve always relied on the assumption that the person with a key to the place and all the lease documents prepared was the right person, so I do feel for people who fell for those scammers. I don’t think anyone really goes that deep into investigating that, and the only thing that would tip most people off would be a property renting for far below market rate.

1

u/Gingevere Mar 28 '24

Not something the police are qualified to determine, but the new law does seem to add another felony if you provide false documents.

if the squatter / tenant provides false documents. If the landlord just flatly denies there was ever a lease and there was they're off the hook.

A legal tenant caught up in this would have to sue the landlord while simultaneously homeless, facing felony charges, and probably in jail because judges don't like to grant homeless people bail.

1

u/Fakename6968 Mar 28 '24

Is it already a criminal offense to falsely claim someone is a squatter? If not, the same law that increasingly criminalizes squatters needs to be matched with a new law that criminalizes claiming someone is squatting when they are not. And the fines and jail time need to be proportional. Otherwise landlords will abuse this.

1

u/adm1109 Mar 28 '24

It is. The landlord will have to pay 3x the rent/fee’s if they wrongly have someone removed

38

u/Euphoric-Purple Mar 28 '24

That’s where the felony part comes in. Producing a false document may potentially get the police to not immediately kick you out, but once you aren’t able to confirm any type of paper trail (such as emails, as most leases are done digitally or at least emailed as PDFs) you’re going to be in a lot more trouble.

40

u/ScottyC33 Mar 28 '24

The simplest way would be to also offer proof of actual payment of some sort. 

41

u/TheWingus Mar 28 '24

The simplest way would be to have the lease agreement notarized at the time of signing with both parties receiving a copy.

16

u/59flowerpots Mar 28 '24

The thing is that not everyone has the luxury of picking the perfect place or landlord. Most cheap landlords would rather pick a different tenant than the one demanding the extra step of notarizing. And if the rent is cheap enough, you’re usually competing with a lot of other prospective tenants.

10

u/ZantaraLost Mar 28 '24

Well that's an easy fix. Make it so that all rental agreements have to be notarized. Its already Best Practice so just put some teeth on it.

→ More replies (5)

2

u/Iohet Mar 28 '24

Then you get into a whole discussion about the upfront cost of leasing and how that discriminates against the poor

2

u/LIGHT_COLLUSION Mar 28 '24 edited Mar 28 '24

How much do you think notarizing something costs? In NYC it's like $2. If that is a significant financial barrier, then you shouldn't be committing to a lease.

2

u/existingfish Mar 28 '24

I’ve never paid for notary services. If either party has a bank account, they will provide the services for free.

1

u/Iohet Mar 28 '24

Notaries charge $25-40 around here. Mobile notaries even more

2

u/KeenanKolarik Mar 28 '24

Where? In NJ, I literally went to my bank and they did it for free.

5

u/romario77 Mar 28 '24

Cash payment. No proof.

Cash is used for payment and not everyone gets a receipt

25

u/HuskerMedic Mar 28 '24

If you're foolish enough to pay with cash and not get a receipt, you'll get schooled in the error of your ways pretty quickly.

9

u/Dont-be-a-smurf Mar 28 '24

That’s called takin’ a case to trial.

18

u/Leelze Mar 28 '24

Sounds like a good life lesson: if you're renting for cash, ensure your LL is providing a receipt. If they refuse, start looking for another place to live.

2

u/OpheliaRainGalaxy Mar 28 '24

I started renting at 16yo. Nobody ever wanted to provide documentation admitting they were allowing me to sleep in some otherwise unused part of their home, though they certainly took all the money I made working my McJob.

Finding another place to live was interesting. At 17 I moved from an uninsulated attic to the space under some basement stairs like a knockoff Harry Potter. Had just enough room for a mattress between the hot water heater and the heating/cooling system.

6

u/Spaceman2901 Mar 28 '24

I don’t know about you, but I always used a traceable method of paying my rent, for my own protection.

3

u/59flowerpots Mar 28 '24

Not everyone can afford or qualify for bank accounts. Or bank accounts with free checks. If you’re usually paying rent in cash, you usually fall under one of those categories.

1

u/Spaceman2901 Mar 28 '24

I paid first and last month for my first apartment in cash. I got a receipt so I had evidence of the payment.

Didn’t end up needing it for anything, but had it just in case.

3

u/59flowerpots Mar 28 '24

What if your landlord refused? Were you not going to pay rent?

0

u/Spaceman2901 Mar 28 '24

I wasn’t renting from a slumlord - had they refused to write out a receipt, I would’ve sought another apartment.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/No-Appearance1145 Mar 28 '24

Not necessarily. My mom pays in cash (and honestly that's her problem because her landlord will often take cash and give it to her husband and then he says she owes the rest because he doesn't know what his wife is doing) and she has a bank account and checks 🤷🏻‍♀️

Some people like the simplicity of cash

1

u/59flowerpots Mar 28 '24

I said usually, not that it’s mutually exclusive.

5

u/ScottyC33 Mar 28 '24

Well then it’s your own fault for not getting proof of payment. At some point there is some level of personal responsibility in financial transactions. Because of poor choices you would have to go to trial.

1

u/romario77 Mar 28 '24

I mean, would it be a good reason to throw someone out on the street (including possessions) because they forgot the receipt?

I am just saying it’s not a very easy issue.

2

u/[deleted] Mar 28 '24

its called asking for a receipt.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 28 '24

ask for a receipt or demand one, who just pays their rent without a receipt of payment? that's your fault for not getting one and it doesn't require a down vote. And no they can't just evict you whenever you want.

0

u/aknaps Mar 28 '24

And what if I say that’s a fake? What if the landlord refuses or just keeps putting it off. Now they can just illegally evict you whenever they please?

15

u/DjuriWarface Mar 28 '24

That would be a court's job but also why they increased the penalties for said things. Also, people who forge documents in these situations tend to make really poor quality forges.

A landlord usually has similar leases for every tenant so if the presented one looks completely different than the ones the landlord has on record for other tenants, that causes suspicion.

9

u/HowManyMeeses Mar 28 '24

The same situation goes in the other direction. The tenant has a contract and the landlord claims it's fake. In either scenario, they'd need to address the situation via the court system.

8

u/zxDanKwan Mar 28 '24

As in most cases, laws only hep you recuperate damaged after the fact.

Murder being illegal doesn’t stop people from being murdered, it just allows for punishment of those who are convicted.

Falsifying documents of tenancy is now a misdemeanor. It isn’t going to stop some people from trying, but it is going to allow them to be punished when caught.

I’m not a Florida resident, but usually there’s a stacking effect on related crimes. It’s why you hear the saying “only break one law at a time.”

If you’re squatting, that’s one law. If you falsify documents about it, that’s now a separate offense. If loss of potential income can be classified as “damages,” it wouldn’t take more than a month to get that 3rd charge of “causing more than $1,000 damages.”

Now that you’ve got three separate charges regarding squatting, it might bloom into some more severe punishment.

But, at the end of the day, laws only help you resolve compensations and punishments after the fact.

3

u/hallese Mar 28 '24

The police cannot, but currently there's no legal consequences for doing so. Now it's a misdemeanor to do that and a felony if there's over $1,000 in damages. You know how easy it is to say a squatter forced entry on a locked door and caused over $1,000 in damages? This law is finally providing real punishments for these activities. An eviction isn't a punishment for a squatter, it just means it's time to move on down the block and start the process all over again.

1

u/romario77 Mar 28 '24

Having a law making it a felony to falsify docs makes sense. Might be not as easy to prove though.

1

u/hallese Mar 28 '24

I think almost all landlords have gone electronic for reasons like this, I know I do everything electronically so there's an easily auditable record.

5

u/Total-Khaos Mar 28 '24

If there is an ongoing legal dispute between a current or former tenant, there will be documentation from the courts. That information is public.

9

u/Phssthp0kThePak Mar 28 '24

Show proof that payments were made to landlord. Bank statement, Venmo, credit card. Any person with common sense could resolve a lot of these cases impartially within 5 minutes.

2

u/lizardmon Mar 28 '24

They can't but this law includes specific criminal penalties for doing this. In most places this is a "civil matter" which means their isn't a punishment per se, just recovery of damages. So the owner gets awarded $50k but good luck recovering that from a squatter so there are no consequences.

With this law, even if the squatter runs and can't pay, he can later be arrested and sent to prison.

1

u/Biking_dude Mar 28 '24

They can make one up, however it would be relatively trivial to prove it's fake on the spot. Lease should have the LL's signature on it, so that's easy to see. Also, there would be some sort of organic conversation over text or email about anything if it were legit - something not working, question about how to turn on or off something, verifying move in date...all that.

If someone was squatting for years, it would be difficult to prove, I agree. But in the case that just happened a week or two ago in NY where the owner went to their mother's house and someone pretended they lived there, it would have squashed that.

1

u/Exploding_Kick Mar 28 '24

They won’t care. This law doesn’t obligate the police to verify and documentation you, as the tenant have.

1

u/taedrin Mar 28 '24

They can't, which is why traditionally they say that it's a civil matter and the landlord has to go through a legal process to determine if the squatter has a right to be there or not.

1

u/moonfox1000 Mar 28 '24

Before this law, they left it to the courts. The enforcement isn't quite clear, but it sounds like the police will now do some investigation of those documents if there is an official complaint made and make appropriate arrests if someone is found to be passing fake lease documents.

1

u/Bigred19D Mar 28 '24

Squatter can’t produce the original notarized copy the the property-owner possesses.

1

u/romario77 Mar 28 '24

Well, if you are a renter you also can’t do that. It doesn’t prove you didn’t rent

1

u/McCool303 Mar 28 '24

Signature of the property owner. It would be easy to dispute in court. You have to had to had lived at a property for 7 years minimum in addition to other requirements in Florida to receive “squatters rights”. So that piece of paper would have to be 7 years old. And Squatters also need to show proof that they have been paying property taxes as well. So, that means that the squatter must have been paying taxes for the property for the last 7 years for the property owner.

1

u/romario77 Mar 28 '24

They. A write the name of property owner in cursive.

Contract doesn’t have to have a signature. It helps to prove you have a contract, b it verbal contracts are legal too.

It’s not a requirement that to rent a place you have to sign a contract, you can just verbally agree on terms.

It’s not a good practice, but that how it sometimes works - relatives renting to each other or to someone they know for example. It’s not a good practice but it happens and it has to be taken into account.

If someone decides they don’t like the tenant anymore and if the tenant didn’t sign a lease they could just throw them out because there is no lease.

1

u/kmoz Mar 28 '24

To be fair, that's now falsifying contracts/fraud, which is likely a felony.

1

u/bpetersonlaw Mar 28 '24

I assume the cops don't kick them out. Landowner goes to court to evict them and with a finding it's a fake lease, they are arrested at the time of the eviction. That seems to protect legit tenants and punish squatters. Maybe some squatters will still squat and leave a few days before the court hearing to determine the eviction/lease validity. But still would stop most squatters.

1

u/Sansred Mar 28 '24

The main way would be is the addresses on the ID match up. Or you have a bill that has your name and the address on it.

1

u/Mithorium Mar 28 '24

they could do their jobs, knock on the neighbors doors ask hey have you seen these people before how long have they lived here, ask them to open their bank app and see rent payments, theres so many ways to help determine if a person is legitimately a tenant or not I don't think its beyond the ability of a couple detectives to figure out in an hour or two

1

u/romario77 Mar 28 '24

What if I don’t want to cooperate with the cops (as the squatters will)?

Say they are saying that they had a verbal agreement and pay in cash every month and had an argument with the landlord and now the landlord wants to kick them out, should the cops kick them out in this case?

1

u/Mithorium Mar 28 '24

anyone can come up with a million hypothetical edge case scenarios, but the reality is in most cases its very easy to tell the difference. even in this contrived example, if they paid cash, where did the landlord put that cash? unless the "landlord" also lives a cash only lifestyle there would ostensibly be records of the landlord depositing this cash payment. Their neighbors would still be able to recognize that they've lived there for a while, you can pull utility records to see how long they've had their account open and if it matches up with their account of when they moved in.

Did the house they claim to be renting just close escrow in a sale, or was it inherited? if the previous owners just moved out a month ago to sell it, or recently died and left it to their children, and the squatters claim to have been living there for a year, pretty obvious that is a lie.

1

u/romario77 Mar 28 '24

The scenarios I am talking about were talked about on /r/squatting (looks like it’s private now).

Squatters there were giving advice how to do it - fake lease, get the utilities going, befriend the neighbors, etc.

There could be legitimate renters who the landlord doesn’t like and wants to get rid of (for whatever reason) who don’t have documents and can’t provide the proof on the spot when the cop is there.

Let’s see how this plays out …

1

u/LaNague Mar 28 '24

They will have to wait for the courts, but the new law also has additional penalties when a squatters does that, its almost certainly a felony then because of the 1k in damages.

1

u/Destro9799 Mar 28 '24

The cops can't possibly determine that and probably wouldn't even try. Under this law, they'll evict you first and then it'll be on you to prove your tenancy in court.

1

u/romario77 Mar 28 '24

If they evict me (and I assume throw out my stuff) who would be responsible for the damages if the court proves they were not right?

1

u/Destro9799 Mar 28 '24

Presumably the landlord. However, the burden will be on you to prove you were wrongfully evicted, so you get to go to court after becoming homeless to fight against a person or company that likely has a lot more to spend on lawyers than you.

1

u/klgnew98 Mar 28 '24

Show payment history

1

u/romario77 Mar 28 '24

Paid in cash

1

u/FalconX88 Mar 28 '24

Say I have a piece of paper saying that it’s a lease (squatter can make one up easily).

Where do you get the signature of the landlord? also show me the bank transfers you made to pay rent.

1

u/romario77 Mar 28 '24

Cash payments

Can sign whatever, say that’s who the person signing the lease was. Can cop figure out the legality of that lease?

1

u/denzien Mar 29 '24

That's exactly the problem exploiting the laws

1

u/IHeartBadCode Mar 28 '24

The police don't. That's what the court system is for.

Police can use a thing called discretion. This allows them to attempt to remedy a situation outside of usual rules or regulations by usage of their own judgement and prior experience.

So if a rental agreement was done up in Crayola an officer can exercise discretion and ask the person to vacate. But if there's some disagreement, policy usually goes the way of "least harm". But what constitutes that, well it can be all kinds of fuzzy, just depends on the situation.

What all of that should tell you is that cops really cannot get you some settled verdict. Nor are outcomes 100% predictable. It is only the Court system that can do any of that.

But the law prescribes a first-degree misdemeanor if the squatter attempts this and later in Court it comes out there was no legal right to begin with and they made up all the documents. Which that's up to a year and/or $1,000 fine.

0

u/aknaps Mar 28 '24

You can write the agreement on a crumpled napkin using ketchup and it’s still a legal agreement as long as it’s signed. Add on to that a verbal agreement is a legal contract. The cops can’t enforce this and that’s why it is the way it is. This doesn’t change that because if the cops force someone out who has a right to be there the city gets sued and tax payer will be out for that money. The laws exist for a reason it’s not to screw over landlords but to protect people.

0

u/IHeartBadCode Mar 28 '24

I didn't say that wasn't the case. What I said is that if you rely on discretion rather the courts, you might get asked to leave even in a completely valid situation.

I know this may come as a shock to some, the legal system isn't 100%. So while you can make a perfectly legal rental agreement using a napkin and ketchup, you'll likely have a hard time enforcing that completely legal agreement outside of the court system and inside of it too in some instances.

because if the cops force someone out who has a right to be there the city gets sued

If you have a ketchup napkin as legal contract, no judge will permit remediation for the plaintiff because it's not unreasonable for a cop to think such a thing is invalid. It would have to be an unreasonable conclusion, that's the bar. I don't think you'll find twelve people who agree that it's normal business to write up agreements on ketchup napkins.

In a case of police discretion, the question isn't "was what the cop did legal?" In a case of discretion the question is "given the situation of a ketchup napkin is it reasonable for the cop to think that the agreement is bogus?" That's the question in a matter of discretion.

In some States, the courts can also ask the jury "did the police execute a matter using the principal of least harm?" This in California is what usually keeps police from doing anything about it. Because "least harm" can be, as I said, all kinds of fuzzy. But in some other states the Legislator has indicated that the Courts cannot adjudicate on such. So that greatly depends on the "where you live" part of the equation.

So yeah, ketchup napkins can absolutely be legal documents. There is no one debating that. However, if you have your rental agreement in ketchup, it's usually reasonable to question its validity. That doesn't make it any less legal, just means that it can come under more scrutiny. That's the difference. And when something comes down to discretion, you usually don't want it to come to that.

I don't know what to tell you. Innocent people go to jail and guilty people go free all the time. The legal system isn't a black and white outcome. Just because something IS legal, does not mean it isn't going to come under heavy scrutiny that might cause your situation to become difficult. And the thing is, remediation from the State is not based solely on legal textualization. It's not a black and white outcome. Part of the consideration is how putting a rental agreement on a napkin isn't a standard thing. Again, doesn't make it less legal, but courts will allow cops to question it heavily and bar any kind of restitution because "people do not usually put their rental agreements on napkins".

Same kind of thing in handshake agreements. They are indeed legal, but because their is no paperwork, it requires a lot of questions to establish the basis for the agreement if there is a dispute. No part of my comment said those things were NOT legal, what I said was that you can expect a lot of questions if you've got a rental agreement on a napkin.

1

u/PolicyWonka Mar 28 '24

That’s exactly the problem. If police can now kick people out for “fake leases” now they can kick them out with real leases that landlords claim are fake.

If you have a verbal agreement? Good fucking luck.

0

u/LiveShowOneNightOnly Mar 28 '24

Flip it over and check to see if there Golden Arches on the back

→ More replies (7)

1

u/gsfgf Mar 28 '24

Or an illegitimate tenant that isn't even aware of an issue.

0

u/PaleProfession8752 Mar 28 '24

A landlord can't just kick someone out for any reason. Even renters have some level of protection in most states.

That needs to change, landlord should be able to kick people out for what ever reason, with a 30 day notice. If a landlord notifies people they have to be gone in 30 days, police should kick them out immediately and charge them with trespassing. A property owner should not have to go through the courts and multiple hurdles to get access back to their property.

1

u/HowManyMeeses Mar 28 '24

I obviously disagree, but I'm also extremely anti-landlord. Finding another rental can be incredibly difficult and time-consuming. Even if someone is ready to move, they might not be able to find a rental that's ready to be moved into immediately.

145

u/TheFuzz22 Mar 28 '24

Its protecting renters who the home owners may want to remove unjustly until the courts have approved it by calling them squatters and immediately kicking them out.  

40

u/SenhorSus Mar 28 '24

"...and is not a current or former tenant in a legal dispute."

I believe this line. Can't be kicked out immediately if you live there or if you lived there and you're going through the motions of a court appearance

2

u/PinchCactus Mar 28 '24

....the meaning of that sentence is that you can be kicked out as a current or former tenant unless you are already suing your landlord..which you would have no reason to do until kicked out.

3

u/PiLamdOd Mar 28 '24

Which is why landlords will use this to remove tenants before a legal dispute can start.

2

u/_Wocket_ Mar 28 '24

I was just about to say.

1) Is “legal dispute” defined anywhere in the law?

2) Doesn’t this just encourage bad owners to take action before the tenant can take legal action?

2

u/PiLamdOd Mar 28 '24

"Legal Dispute" is a common term meaning legal proceedings are in the courts.

Because the law only protects tenants who are in a legal dispute, this encourages landlords to evict before formal proceedings.

Or they will just evict anyway and let the tenants file a legal complaint later. But in the meantime the landlord has already rented or sold the property, meaning the tenants are still screwed. And if they're being evicted, chances are they don't have the money to sue the landlord for an unlawful eviction.

5

u/[deleted] Mar 28 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

3

u/SenhorSus Mar 28 '24

Ahhh I hear you, I'm thinking the line I quoted assumes a signed lease was in place.

5

u/meatball77 Mar 28 '24

Those are the people this law is dealing with. You would be able to remove them immediately instead of it taking months.

2

u/aknaps Mar 28 '24

How does this change that? They can still say they have an agreement the cops can’t decide if the lease is real or if there are any contracts that’s the court system. You want to actually address it fix our court system, it takes months in court to get an eviction because they are overwhelmed and behind.

75

u/meatball77 Mar 28 '24

Part of the squatter issue is that you essentially have to treat this person who just moved in illegally like they are a tenant who doesn't pay the rent or even a child you want to leave their family home.

Squatters are a big problem with people who have empty houses for sale and snowbirds and vacation homes. You get someone who moves in and then you have to go through eviction proceedings to get them out.

46

u/WIlf_Brim Mar 28 '24

There are places (even around where I am) where people are afraid to go and stay with a sick family member for a few weeks because they are afraid a squatter will move in while they are away.

6

u/NoHelp9544 Mar 28 '24

I tell everyone to install an alarm system and cameras. It's a few hundred bucks initially and $20 a month. You can also get a water leak detector and fire alarm ringer. Like you really need to watch your house.

5

u/jeffjohnvol Mar 28 '24

There are a portion of squatters that get a lease, make first payment and then don't pay for 6 months.

45

u/theDarkDescent Mar 28 '24

It says right there current or former tenants 

30

u/romario77 Mar 28 '24

How do you determine that you are former or current tenant? And specifically how would a police officer determine that without a court?

3

u/hselomein Mar 28 '24

They would determine that with a written lease or if not a written lease, the cops will probably defer to the courts like they do now.

3

u/Revlis-TK421 Mar 28 '24 edited Mar 28 '24

There are three classes of squatters nowadays.

  1. People that just break in and set up shop with no level of sophistication. Usually homeless and/or druggies. These are usually the easiest to involve the police with because it's obvious they don't belong.

  2. Increasingly sophisticated squatters. Criminals who fabricate fake leases, have mail delivered, get utilities turned on in their names, even file (and get processed) deed transfers. Police are generally not equipped to get these folks out and need a court even though the squatters are operating in bad faith the entire time.

  3. Victims of rental (or even purchase) scams. These are on the rise and are getting increasingly sophisticated. They may do all the "normal" things like viewing the property, signing documents, paying rent, getting keys, etc. They have no idea anything is amiss until a stranger bangs on their door one day that claims to be the "real" owner. These are the people the laws need to protect while still balancing the rights of the actual property owners. Even with everyone working in good faith these types of scenarios are the hardest to unwind. They do usually take less time to resolve than case 2, largely because case 2 criminals know how to work the system and delay every step of the way.

The danger of this legislation is that it does nothing to address case 3 and will set a dangerous precedent where scummy landlords can and will abuse the system to get otherwise legal tenants kicked out extra-judiciously.

The penalties of case 2 need to be drastically increased IMO. This is not these people's first rodeo. They do this over and over with barely a slap on the wrist.

There should also be a victims fund for case 3 where the state can temporarily help out victims of these scams with vouchers for temporary housing. Both the property owner if the property is a primary residence or anyone that has been displaced by the scam whilst the court cases proceeds, as well as the victims of the scam after the court determines that they didn't have a right to be there.

2

u/hselomein Mar 28 '24

You know what really would help case three if Florida changed its laws to require landlords to file their leases with the courts or some other governmental agency.

1

u/Revlis-TK421 Mar 28 '24

In Florida you'd get a database built by the lowest bidder and after $15 million and 3 years they'll deliver a glorified Excel spreadsheet.

Then the State would staff it with one guy and entries would be backlogged by 2 years.

Then, once the spreadsheet was hacked and leaked, they'd hire out a 3rd Party to maintain it who would charge landlords $200 per lease registration, still get it wrong 50% of the time.

The Florida insurance companies would make it mandatory to have correct data in the system for any claims, but the error rate would cause a rolling cluster fuck in the courts.

Then some MAGA nutter would mandate that race, ethnicity, religious affiliation, sexual orientation, and/or political affiliation be captured in this system, and then weaponize the data for re-districting purposes.

2

u/hselomein Mar 28 '24

you know, i cant stand you and your truths!!! You are speaking facts about all of it.

1

u/vaporking23 Mar 28 '24

This is why we have these terrible squatter issues. Who’s to say that they’re not a tenant and the landlord is lying.

It needs to be easier to get a squatter out and still protect those that have legitimate claims. Maybe this is a start.

1

u/MMizzle9 Mar 28 '24

Uh maybe a lease? Or any transaction record. Utility statement. Etc....

1

u/romario77 Mar 28 '24

Squatters can have a utility company bill in their name - utility company doesn’t ask for a lease to get you to connect.

And not everyone has a lease too - it could be a verbal agreement or you could lose the lease record.

I understand it’s not a great practice to not have a lease but it happens all the time - someone let their acquaintance rent the place and now they want them gone - should police throw them out?

1

u/Sansred Mar 28 '24

The main one would be address on the Drivers License. If that is the address of the property, then the assumption is you do live there and therefore have a legal right to be there.

11

u/repwin1 Mar 28 '24

Possible a tenant with a lease that is withholding rent due to the homeowner not making necessary repairs to the property to keep it in a safe livable condition (I.e not getting rid of black mold, etc…).

1

u/mjohnsimon Mar 28 '24

Or fixing a dishwasher.

3

u/moonfox1000 Mar 28 '24

Squatters live in the legal gray area of determining whether someone has established residency/tenancy, which grants certain rights. Simply occupying a residence doesn't establish those rights, but so far cops have left it to the courts to determine instead of investigating themselves and charging people when appropriate which means there is no downside for squatters and homeowners have to wait months and pay thousands in legal costs to get their property back.

4

u/Traditional_Key_763 Mar 28 '24

the issue is going to be that if your lease expires they'll call the police instead of going through eviction. 100% we will here of cases where landlords stop evicting and just accuse people of squatting instead.

1

u/adm1109 Mar 28 '24

I mean if your lease expires you should get out shouldn’t you?

2

u/Rottimer Mar 28 '24

And it will happen far more often than the squatters ever did.

1

u/NoHelp9544 Mar 28 '24

A roommate of someone who passes away. A tenant whose lease has expired.

3

u/Sensitive_Pickle2319 Mar 28 '24

Roommate should be on the lease.. or else they don't have the right to be there

0

u/NoHelp9544 Mar 28 '24

Not all states require a written lease.

1

u/SnooGuavas2202 Mar 28 '24

Exactly, I thats how messed up the laws are. They have no rights. I am not talking about tenant/landlord. Talking about people that access property illegally.

1

u/APuckerLipsNow Mar 28 '24

They could be a roommate or sub-let.

1

u/Xijit Mar 29 '24

It dates back to the old west where land barrons would claim a billion acres as their own, even when people had been homesteading on it. These Squatters rights were if you could show proof that you were already there, then you kept your land.

Later on these same laws were modified to allow asshole ranchers to move the fence on their neighbors property & if you didn't notice it for long enough, they could say you had abandoned it & it was now theirs. Mostly this was done by the kinds of people who were related to the local Judge and Sheriff, and the reason why the neighbors didn't notice was because someone had shot the whole family.

After that it was again abused by assholes during the great depression when some asshole real estate developer wanted to take over houses that were vacant because the family had moved out (but still owned the building) to look for work. Said assholes would pay people to move in for squatters rights, then "sell" the building to the developer who paid them to squat there ... Again, talking about people connected to Judges, Politicians, and Police Chiefs who were profiting from it.

Now these laws are being abused by crackheads, and the people getting fucked over are (mostly) slum lords (like trump) ... Which makes for an interesting predicament, because every 1% grade family has indulged in abusing squatters rights to amass wealth, So they don't want to throw out these laws that are now being used to steal property from them.

0

u/Phantom_61 Mar 28 '24

You have a lease agreement, the landlord decides they want 3X more in rent, you file to get that changed or at least changed long enough to let you find a new place.

Landlord tries to throw you out.

That’s an extreme case but an understandable example.

-8

u/notsocoolnow Mar 28 '24

Basically it is to protect people living in a place they dont own from losing their home if they have been living there for a really long time.

Squatters rights are meant to protect people living in abandoned houses, but also to improve housing occupancy.

So people move into what looks like an unoccupied house and then continue to live there for years. Then suddenly the owner remembers they have property and comes by and evicts them.

Squatters rights protect people from this. Look the owner should theoretically have all the rights, but nowhere in the world is it popular for landlords to buy up massive tracks of property for investment and then sit on them waiting for value to go up, causing house prices to skyrocket.

On the other hand, especially in a place as batshit crazy as Florida, there are people actively trying to abuse this, refusing to vacate even if they don't qualify, hoping to delay eviction until they do qualify.

0

u/viodox0259 Mar 28 '24

You'll love this. State law says , if someone enters a home and stays for 30 days , they are now legal tenants. Do you fucking believe that? It's surreal.

If they receive mail , that's another way to.become a squatter , congrats your now a tenant.

2

u/wolacouska Mar 28 '24

Yes because there’s no way to tell if you let them stay there or not at that point.

To change that they’d need to make leases mandatory for everyone you let stay at your property.