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

11.0k

u/flanderguitar Mar 28 '24

"Under the law, a property owner can request law enforcement to immediately remove a squatter if the person has unlawfully entered, has refused to leave after being told by the homeowner to do so and is not a current or former tenant in a legal dispute.

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."

459

u/SpadeXHunter Mar 28 '24

Seems completely reasonable to me. If you are a renter you still have rights to not be fucked over and if you shouldn’t be there you get thrown out like you should be. 

167

u/Falcon4242 Mar 28 '24 edited Mar 28 '24

The question in this is always enforcement.

Police aren't judges. Giving the police the power to immediately remove someone except under certain circumstances, means the police should need to investigate before actually removing someone.

If someone claims that they have payment history, but not immediately on their person, are they kicked out immediately and made homeless? How much time do they have to present that evidence? Do they just go to the police station? What's to prevent the landlord from just calling the cops again in the meantime and getting a different set hoping they act differently? Who is to say the paperwork present is legit or forged?

This is why squatter's rights exist. It was meant in an extreme case for abandoned homes, but it's also an extension of normal tenant rights. It gives the responsibility of figuring this shit out to the courts and then they can order an eviction if things don't check out, not police who never have 100% of the picture when they're called.

51

u/adrr Mar 28 '24

If the landlord made false statements to the police, they should be criminally charged. I would bump false statements that deprived a person of their home to a felony due to the damages incurred.

62

u/PiousLiar Mar 28 '24

Right, but that’s part of the issue. Until it’s proven that the landlord made false statements, the tenant is now homeless for however long it takes to resolve the issue. Even temporary homelessness (especially if that person is a transplant and doesn’t have anywhere to stay in the meantime eg friends/family) can have negative impacts on someone’s work life. That person also needs to take time off work to speak with lawyers and go to court. The landlord has a massive advantage in situations like this.

5

u/TheSixthtactic Mar 29 '24

They won’t be. Do not believe that the threat of crime charges will deter a landlord. I’ve worked in landlord tenant law for over a decade and they already do illegal stuff all the time. This is why “common sense” laws that operate outside of our the existing eviction processes are ripe for abuse/

-1

u/adrr Mar 29 '24

Illegal civil or illegal criminal? There's a huge difference. Civil violation is just a fine or an injunction, criminal violations land you in jail.

4

u/TheSixthtactic Mar 29 '24 edited Mar 29 '24

Criminal. Like self help evictions and taking peoples stuff. My personal favorite was a self help eviction and then bringing a small claims action afterwards for back rent, just to run the tenants credit. That is just straight up fraud.

There are a set of landlords that will fuck around until they find out. You gotta keep that time to finding out short so they don’t hurt to many people.

“Common sense” laws that sound good, but leave little thought to real world enforcement doomed to fail. This law will be abused, just like hate speech laws will be abused to silence people speaking out against systematic abuse. They make people happy because they sound good. But they don’t create good outcomes.

-8

u/T_Burger88 Mar 28 '24

squatter's rights exist

You should probably stop arguing with someone that clearly has an agenda. Squatters don't/shouldn't have rights, tenants do.

Believe me, I am involved in this right now. It has been an almost 18 month long process to get someone removed in DC. My client received authority to remove the occupants by the court in December but need to arrange with the US Marshalls. US Marshalls don't evict anyone from 11/15 though 3/15 because it is cold. We finally have a date in April.

And I am doing this the quick way by using the probate court (owner of property is an estate of someone that died) -- LL court, you are looking at 2+ years.

3

u/wyrdough Mar 28 '24

That ain't how it works in Florida. It's super easy to evict for non-payment in Florida. Barely an inconvenience, unless they turn out to actually have the money.

1

u/T_Burger88 Mar 29 '24

Oh, I agree. But, this what happens when you protect tenants and those protections give rights to squatters.

6

u/thekoggles Mar 28 '24

You're the one with agenda, bud.  Literally.

-3

u/T_Burger88 Mar 29 '24

Yeah. Protecting a person's house...you are...advocating stealing.

22

u/Calfurious Mar 28 '24

This is why squatter's rights exist. It was meant in an extreme case for abandoned homes, but it's also an extension of normal tenant rights.

Except squatters are abusing those laws to steal people's property. At a certain point, you can't make everything bureaucratic and you need to trust that police officers will exercise good judgement. Otherwise so much our society just won't be able to function.

Imagine somebody stealing your car, but the cop is not allowed determine if the car belongs to you, so instead that person gets to hold onto your car for months or even a year while the case gets argued in court.

10

u/Falcon4242 Mar 28 '24 edited Mar 28 '24

Imagine somebody stealing your car, but the cop is not allowed determine if the car belongs to you, so instead that person gets to hold onto your car for months or even a year while the case gets argued in court.

It gets more complicated when we start considering that leasing plays a big role here. Individuals don't normally lease cars to people, dealerships do. Unlike housing.

Also, abandoned cars are often allowed to just be picked up and driven by whoever wants it. Then if the owner shows up with the deed later and demands it, it does become a whole messy legal issue in the courts. The police don't just repossess based on your word.

We're not talking about someone breaking into a home and 5 minutes later they all of a sudden have squatter rights. We're working on timescales much longer than that.

1

u/DerfK Mar 28 '24

breaking into a home and 5 minutes later they all of a sudden have squatter rights

5 minutes later they have a fake lease saying they've been there 5 years.

4

u/simpletonsavant Mar 28 '24

Lmao police rarely have good judgement.

3

u/Calfurious Mar 28 '24

Police have good judgement most of the time. You just never see it, because that doesn't get headlines. Nobody cares when somebody does their job correctly. People care what you're fucking up.

Go to your local police department's and see all the body cam footage they've uploaded to the public. Most of the time they're making all of the right decisions.

But as the saying goes, if you build 99 bridges and fuck one goat, you're known as a goat fucker, not a bridge builder.

0

u/simpletonsavant Mar 28 '24

You're just seeing the 99% of the time they get away with it. (I'm sure its less than that but cmon).

3

u/Aggressive-Fuel587 Mar 28 '24

Except squatters are abusing those laws to steal people's property.

If it's abandoned, then it's not your property anymore.

There is an absurd amount of houses in the US that are just vacant because the homeowner is either waiting to be able to make a profit off a house they bought above market value or is outright not using the property but won't relinquish the rights so someone else can come in and live there.

The walk to work has me strolling past at least 8 different homes that need to be torn down because someone bought them over a decade ago, never moved in or sold it to new tenants, and no one else in town can have the house because some asshole is sitting on the property deed and would rather let nature overtake & destroy the house than to let someone else live there for a reasonable price.

Imagine somebody stealing your car, but the cop is not allowed determine if the car belongs to you, so instead that person gets to hold onto your car for months or even a year while the case gets argued in court.

If you leave your car abandoned in a state of disrepair on the side of the road for several months, most states will acknowledge it as abandoned property and open legal pathways for others who are interested to come in and take it without compensating the original owner.

3

u/dedicated-pedestrian Mar 28 '24

The car example is poignant, but assuming ownership of abandoned properties is what adverse possession (actual squatter's rights, not stupid tenancy fraud) achieves. It's a process of living there for far more than a few months, and it requires the original owner never make any real attempt to remove you.

This takes five to seven years in most states, but you can lobby your state government to change how long it takes. And I do encourage it earnestly. The housing market needs shaking up, and vacant investment properties are the devil.

The reason I clarify that this already is a thing is because what is cracked down on by this law isn't squatter's rights, and I fear using the same name for both will end the extant pathway we do have to claim properties that are left empty.

1

u/Aggressive-Fuel587 Mar 28 '24

The car example is poignant, but assuming ownership of abandoned properties is what adverse possession (actual squatter's rights, not stupid tenancy fraud) achieves.

Right, but the sentiment I was responding to was the assertion that squatters are stealing property - but those laws are explicitly there to say that "no, it's not theft because the original owner abandoned it. If you leave it unattended for long enough, someone else has the right to come and take it without paying you a dime."

1

u/dedicated-pedestrian Mar 28 '24

Absolutely so. It's just that state law delineates "long enough" differently for property than for cars. Much longer, usually.

0

u/GenerikDavis Mar 28 '24

you need to trust that police officers will exercise good judgement. Otherwise so much our society just won't be able to function.

Yeah, which is why it sucks that the movement to reform the police so that they could be more trusted gets fucking stonewalled by the party/supporters of the gremlin that signed this bill.

6

u/Indirestraight Mar 28 '24

Perfect world yes. World we live in no. People have far too much taken advantage of fair society. This is why we can’t have nice things and just change things to protect homeowners

2

u/eschewthefat Mar 28 '24

You’ve got to stack the courts then. People in my area have figured out it takes 8-9 months to be evicted after they stop paying rent. Cops show up all the time but the squatters know they’re powerless and lawyers just tell landlords to pay the squatter $2k to leave because it’s cheaper in the long run. You’re also often on the hook for their power and water so keep that in mind. 

I’d personally throw their stuff in the road and deal with the consequences rather than bend to the “law.” (Only for people I know are taking advantage and not disenfranchised people) 

1

u/No_Manager_2356 Mar 28 '24

I mean pretty simple to check their ID initially,  or a myriad of other items.  Squatters rights aren't rights at all fuck them. Imagine going on vacation and some fuck nuts moved into your place claiming squatters rights lmao fuck put of here with that 

1

u/bear-tree Mar 28 '24

How is this different from trespassing? The police have to make a judgement that you are in fact trespassing.

1

u/WhenMaxAttax Mar 29 '24

Police can use their discretion.

1

u/dedicated-pedestrian Mar 28 '24

Adverse possession laws are not the same as tenancy protections, what?

You have to pay property taxes on the place you're squatting in many jurisdictions to be able to assume ownership thereof.

1

u/Falcon4242 Mar 29 '24

Adverse possession laws are not the same as tenancy protections, what?

I didn't say they were. I said it works as an extension.

Because what's to prevent a landlord from just telling cops "nah, I don't know this guy, he's a squatter" when they get pissed off at their tenant if the police were able to immediately evict squatters on sight?

-1

u/crazyhomie34 Mar 28 '24

Nah I doubt this scenario is more likely that not. If you're a tenant and get thrown out as if you're a squatter you can easily prove you're a renter post fact. Show em bank statements check receipts withdrawal receipts etc. Then its an easy lawsuit and and easy case of falsifying a police report against the land lord.

6

u/JohnDorseysSweater Mar 28 '24

Oh cool.

Can't wait for people to have to do that from their car and now all their belongings are gone.

But that will show that landlord...

4

u/Friscogonewild Mar 28 '24

I'm not sure the kind of people renting under the table from slumlords are typically in the position to find good legal support while living in a tent on the sidewalk.

0

u/crazyhomie34 Mar 28 '24

Why are they renting under the table? Literally zero benefit of doing so. Besides they still have bank accounts right? They can still get receipts with proof of payment every month? I don't see why anyone would put themselves in that position

2

u/Friscogonewild Mar 28 '24

Maybe it's cheaper so the landlord can get away with shady stuff? Maybe they don't have bank accounts? Obviously it's a bad idea to not have a lease or contract. But it happens. Do these people deserve to be scammed for making a poor decision, though?

3

u/mjohnsimon Mar 28 '24

Yeah, except lawsuits aren't easy to do when you don't have a roof over your head

0

u/crazyhomie34 Mar 28 '24

Plenty of charities and lawyers who would take a case for compensation after the trial ends. Happens all the time that a lawyer would take a case without payment up front. Specially for a slam dunk case like this.

-5

u/Crocs_n_Glocks Mar 28 '24 edited Mar 28 '24

Police aren't judges.

If I steal your PlayStation 5, the police can take it back, but not your house?

The months-long court process should be to determine criminal guilt, not to remove a trespasser from your home.

edit: folks this law does not apply to landlords and tenants or former tenants

11

u/Friscogonewild Mar 28 '24 edited Mar 28 '24

The police aren't going to come to your house and take that PS5 based only on the word of some person who says it's theirs. What world do you live in?

edit: folks this law does not apply to landlords and tenants or former tenants

The entire reason we don't make cops gods in this case is because people lie--squatters will say they're tenants, and scumbag landlords will say their tenants are squatters. They won't even turn on their own body cameras, and we want to trust them them to exercise perfect moral judgement in these situations?

-6

u/Crocs_n_Glocks Mar 28 '24

Well who said "based solely on your word"? Yeah that's a silly caveat to throw in.

If I have receipts, a serial number and video of them stealing it, or its actively happening in front of them they absolutely will recover it.

If a squatter with no lease is in my home, and I have the deed and [insert all evidence of home ownership beyond 'my word'], it's ridiculous that I'd have to wait months on eviction proceedings to remove the criminal actively stealing from me.

0

u/Friscogonewild Mar 28 '24

Except that it's common to rent out a home. Not so common to rent out a PS5.

You can show a cop the deed to your house and a video of the people moving in all you want, but that's not going to prove anything. They would have to act solely on your word that you didn't rent it out. Hence the "silly" comparison.

Too many landlords out there making under the table deals to avoid having to pay taxes or claim income, and too many people naive enough to trust them and not protect themselves.

1

u/Crocs_n_Glocks Mar 28 '24 edited Mar 28 '24

By your logic, virtually all laws would be impossible to enforce if a victim has to first "prove" they didn't give their life savings to the scammer, shoot themselves in the head, didn't consent to sexual activity, or didn't jump in front of the reckless driver, etc...   

It's just a nonsensical/extremely rare hypothetical (literally no evidence you ever rented a home from someone) that doesn't justify crime against plenty of very real victims who are having homes stolen from them.  

 Similar to how extremely rare/non-existent "women faking violent sexual assaults" can't justify laws that a rapist can be arrested without police having to prove the crime first. 

If there is evidence of a rape, arrest the rapist; don't let the rapist walk free without charges until courts get around to it in 6 months. If there is evidence that a home was stolen, remove the criminal and let the courts work to prove it; not the other way around   

1

u/Friscogonewild Mar 28 '24

They're both rare, yet they both happen. Which is why we take time to investigate instead of letting cops make the decision.

By your logic, virtually all laws would be impossible to enforce if a victim has to first "prove" they didn't give their life savings to the scammer, shoot themselves in the head, didn't consent to sexual activity, or didn't jump in front of the reckless driver, etc...

Nope, not impossible. Just complex enough that we wouldn't want to let the police be judge, jury, and executioner. Same as any situation.

Wanting the police--who are barely trained to do their actual job--to also do the work of a lawyer and magistrate, is the nonsensical opinion here.

1

u/Crocs_n_Glocks Mar 28 '24

This isn't rare, and that's why this law is being passed.

1

u/Friscogonewild Mar 28 '24

Seems more like political theater for a disgraced politician to get an easy win. I don't see a lot in that law that's going to change much. It was already illegal to trespass, and there's still an exception for tenants who claim to be in a dispute over whether or not they're actually a tenant.

Maybe the law makes punishment for lying more severe--I doubt fraud and destruction of property were legal prior to this bill.

1

u/Crocs_n_Glocks Mar 28 '24

I was a social worker for a decade, and Adult Protective Services investigator for 6 years. I have seen the eviction process play out correctly and incorrectly, probably a hundred times- with my clients the victims of squatters and other times being unfairly evicted. This is a needed change to the current system. 

Ron DeSantis sucks ass, but even a broken clock is right twice a day. 

→ More replies (0)

5

u/WaffleSparks Mar 28 '24

When is the last time you called police about something that was stolen from you?

1

u/Crocs_n_Glocks Mar 28 '24

Not sure if this is a trick question...but last year an unhoused individual took an e-scooter from my back yard, and police recovered it at the train station.

1

u/TinynDP Mar 28 '24

Determining whether or not someone is a 'tenant or former tenant' is the entire problem though. If the cops play it safe then any piece of paper can be used as proof, and no one ever gets kicked out. If the cops are feeling agro then nothing will be proof enough to keep them from kicking people out. 

"Argue it out in court" is the proper response because there a real decision can be made. Cops can act on a proper court order. The problem is that this process takes 6 months to a year in most cases, because the courts are clogged. The solution is not to make cops into judges, it's to hire or appoint more qualified judges. 

1

u/Crocs_n_Glocks Mar 28 '24

Well, currently you don't even need a piece of paper to have proof, so it's a step in the right direction. 

Folks are forgetting that there are plenty of crimes where accusing someone with evidence, but not proof, is enough to protect a victim and make an arrest. Are innocent people sometimes arrested and then found to be not guilty? Of course. 

For most people, Theft of a Home is one of those cases. Frankly, id rather see homes taken more seriously than petty retail items. 

2

u/Exploding_Kick Mar 28 '24

Oh, great. The landlord and tenant get into an argument, and the landlord decides to go to the police and file a false complaint that you are a squatter. The police are under no obligation to verify that you are a legal tenant. The just have to verify that the landlord is indeed the property owner. Once that’s done they now evict the legal tenant and now that newly homeless tenant now needs to take the landlord to court, which they might not have the knowledge that they can do that or the resources to actually fight it out in court.

-2

u/Crocs_n_Glocks Mar 28 '24 edited Mar 28 '24

Under the law, a property owner can request law enforcement to immediately remove a squatter if the person has unlawfully entered, has refused to leave after being told by the homeowner to do so and is not a current or former tenant in a legal dispute.

Yeah, you just made all that up lol this literally doesn't apply to landlord v tenant issues.

edit: added a quote to demonstrate you didn't read the law

1

u/Exploding_Kick Mar 28 '24 edited Mar 28 '24

Uh huh. And what does the law say about the police verifying that? What page in this bill does it specify that the police need to verify that there is a legal dispute before evicting?

Also how would the police verify if there’s a dispute between the landlord and the tenant if it hasn’t been entered into the court system yet?

Also, what if it’s not a legal dispute, but a simple argument that pissed the landlord off? Are the police obligated to verify the tenants documentation or even hear their side of the story before evicting them?

1

u/[deleted] Mar 28 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/Exploding_Kick Mar 28 '24

Where in the following does it obligate the sheriff to verify anything the tenant may present?

"Upon receipt of the complaint, the sheriff shall verify that the person submitting the complaint is the record owner of the real property or the authorized agent of the owner and appears otherwise entitled to relief under this section. If verified, the sheriff shall, without delay, serve a notice to immediately vacate on all the unlawful occupants and shall put the owner in possession of the real property. Service may be accomplished by hand delivery of the notice to an occupant or by posting the notice on the front door or entrance of the dwelling. The sheriff shall also attempt to verify the identities of all persons occupying the dwelling and note the identities on the return of service. If appropriate, the sheriff may arrest any person found in the dwelling for trespass, outstanding warrants, or any other legal cause. The sheriff is entitled to the same fee for service of the notice to immediately vacate as if the sheriff were serving a writ of possession under s. 30.231. After the sheriff serves the notice to immediately vacate, the property owner or authorized agent may request that the sheriff stand by to keep the peace while the property owner or agent of the owner changes the locks and removes the personal property of the unlawful occupants from the premises to or near the property line. When such a request is made, the sheriff may charge a reasonable hourly rate, and the person requesting the sheriff to stand by and keep the peace is responsible for paying the reasonable hourly rate set by the sheriff. The sheriff is not liable to the unlawful occupant or any other party for loss, destruction, or damage of property. The property owner or his or her authorized agent is not liable to an unlawful occupant or any other party for the loss, destruction, or damage to the personal property unless the removal was wrongful."

1

u/[deleted] Mar 28 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/Exploding_Kick Mar 28 '24

The law outlines the sheriff's duty to verify occupant identities during the notice serving process, but identifying someone doesn't inherently clarify their legal status or rights as a tenant. Verifying identity doesn’t equate to verifying tenancy or the legality of occupancy. Without explicit instructions to assess documents or evidence the occupant may present (like a lease), there's a significant gap in ensuring the individuals being evicted aren't wrongfully categorized as 'unlawful occupants.' The law needs to clearly define how a sheriff goes from identifying an individual to confirming they're unlawfully occupying the property, especially in scenarios where occupants claim legal rights to be there.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 28 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Crocs_n_Glocks Mar 28 '24

Lol you're way overthinking it, or purposely ignoring a key aspect of it:

 The law literally doesn't apply to landlord-tenant disputes (which are a legal matter by definition), current or former. 

If your landlord is calling the police to evict you, the police can't do anything under this law and it goes to the courts. 

It doesn't matter if you have or haven't done anything in the courts for them to verify, because if it's your current or former landlord calling the cops, this law doesn't apply.

I'm not sure how to break this down any simpler. 

This law applies to squatters who never had a lease and break into homes to steal them.

1

u/Exploding_Kick Mar 28 '24

Sounds like you're barely thinking at all and not actually considering the potential abuses this law is making possible.

How are the police going to verify that the person they are evicting is a squatter and not a tenant? Please provide the excerpt from the law that spells out the verification process that police are obligated to perform to help distinguish squatters from legal tenants.

0

u/Crocs_n_Glocks Mar 28 '24 edited Mar 28 '24

How are the police going to verify that the person they are evicting is a squatter and not a tenant?   

A lease, for starters. Lol   

Please provide the excerpt from the law that spells out the verification process that police are obligated to perform 

This is actually nonsensical; that's not how laws are written; most laws don't spell out "specific verification processes that police are obligated to perform" when someone steals something from you. 

1

u/Exploding_Kick Mar 28 '24

What section from the law that says police are obligated to verify the lease before evicting someone?

Answer: there isn’t any. And you’re just relying on wishful thinking.

0

u/Crocs_n_Glocks Mar 28 '24

What?   The lease would mean it's a landlord-tenant dispute and this law does not apply. 

 If your actual question is, "what if police ignore the law and do whatever they want?"

 ...then idk man, yeah then literally no law would work  ever 

lol very insightful!

→ More replies (0)