Ethan Xu (10) | STAFF REPORTER
Imagine you’re a single mother of 3, who after a long year of hard work is finally able to go on Christmas vacation. The vacation, of course, is wonderful, you’re enjoying yourself on the beach or wherever for the best week of your life. Now imagine returning to your home only to find another family of 2 living there. They’ve broken in unannounced and have been living in your house for the past few days. “Fine, I’ll just kick them out,” you think, but it’s not that simple. Meet squatter’s rights, more professionally known as adverse possession. Squatter’s rights in general have been a very controversial topic: to have or not to have.
What are squatter’s rights, anyways? The history behind adverse possession dates back hundreds of years, back to a time where people owned large plots of land but all the records were on paper. It was implemented so that a property owner would have the legal right to recover their property from unwanted/unwelcome individuals through ejectment or other legal actions. However, as time progressed, the law changed with courts ruling that the property owner only has a certain window of time in which they can evict the squatter. Furthermore, it was also ruled that if the property owner does not exercise their right, then they lose the right and a new title is granted to the adverse possessor. This new title, in short, pretty much decrees that the adverse possessor is now the property owner.
But where’s the benefit in all this? There is none. Think back to the original example of a single mother: this is based on a true story. An old lady went out to live with her partner, and when her partner died she returned to her building, only to find it ransacked and filled with delinquents. In France, the time window you have to evict someone is 48 hours, but luckily she was able to win over a court case. However, just winning a court case isn’t enough. Even after winning the lengthy battle, she still wasn’t able to live in her home just yet because it had been left in such an unlivable condition. This is one of the major downsides to squatter’s rights. Even if you do catch squatters within the time frame, the court cases will take long amounts of time, in which the original family isn’t even allowed to live inside the house. Furthermore, squatters tend to want to milk the process for as long as they can.
But what about if the property is being unused? A good example of this is in the case where a property is inherited, but never looked at. Let’s say Bob inherits a house from his dead grandma and consistently pays the bills, but in 10 full years never goes to see it once. Let’s assume then that Joe and his family move into the house, and do renovations and everything. Joe can eventually argue adverse possession and gain full ownership of the house. This in itself is pretty positive, Joe is able to care for an otherwise abandoned and relatively old property, maintaining and ensuring that the house doesn’t crumble while also gaining shelter for his family. However, this is a rare positive amidst the sea of negative squatter rights cases. Countless cases find owners losing their houses while they’re away on vacation, or when they’re away for a decent amount of time, solely because these time frames have been made incredibly short.
Overall, the idea behind adverse possession is a good idea, but unfortunately is no longer applicable within our current modern day society. There will never be a way to securely prevent loopholes, especially when one of the biggest flaws in itself is just the length to deal with squatters. Even if you make it within the time window, it is still a lengthy court battle that squatters tend to milk for as long as they can. Adverse possession is also applied in many situations that it wasn’t even meant to be applied to. For example, Airbnb owner Sascha Jovanovic was locked in a legal battle with a tenant that refused to leave. Moreover, the tenant refused to leave unless she was paid $100,000 in relocation fees, and before the court is mentioned, the court ruled that Sascha has no reasonable reason TO evict her. This situation has caused significant damage to Sascha and his family, as he now also fears simply walking to his car.
All in all, adverse possession was a great idea back then, but unfortunately it’s unable to keep up with the times.
