HardOCP News
[H] News
- Joined
- Dec 31, 1969
- Messages
- 0
Couldn't have happened to a nicer guy. No reason was given but, if I was Kickstarter, I would have listed "10/10 would suspend again." 
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Kickstarter Suspends Alleged AirBNB Squatters 2nd Campaign
- Thread starter HardOCP News
- Start date
sfsuphysics
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2007
- Messages
- 15,994
This is why people need to be very much in touch with the laws in the area regarding tenant laws.
Although 44 days for an "AirBNB" sounds like someone who simply had a house who wanted to maximize profits on it without be held to renters rules.... looks like it backfired on him.
Although 44 days for an "AirBNB" sounds like someone who simply had a house who wanted to maximize profits on it without be held to renters rules.... looks like it backfired on him.
Home owner should call his bluff and let him try to sue her. No way this kid really wants to get caught up in the legal system. I'm sure the judge will penalize her $0.01 and in the meantime fine him $100,000 for jaywalking across the parking lot on his way into the courthouse.
S
shade91
Guest
She'd have been better off not alerting the media to this, paying a pair of goons $50 to beat he living shit out of them, and promised them the squatters possessions as a bonus.
Huh? I don't know those goons. What? That guy never had tenancy. He doesn't even have any possessions! Case closed problem solved.
Huh? I don't know those goons. What? That guy never had tenancy. He doesn't even have any possessions! Case closed problem solved.
Um, NOT! In California, anything past 31 days is officially "rented". It sounds more like a case, like you said, people need to know the law better.
Example: Go to any hotel and you will note that the max they will let you stay is 10 days on a single bill or 21 days max in total. Try it. I used to travel for work to England, UK a lot; Sometimes for months on end... My first 21 days would be at a Renaissance Inn, sometimes in a new room after the 10th day. After 21, they boot you out and force you to go elsewhere.
I asked a Marriott hotel manager at the bar one night about this practice and she said their policy was 21 days because sometimes it took several more days to get them out of the room. Allowing them to 31 means they'd be stuck with them for 3-6 months while the courts got involved.
Didn't this just happen a few months ago after a homeowner came back from Iraq?
http://thisainthell.us/blog/?p=44635
and the "civil" help he got resulted in this:
http://rokdrop.com/2014/04/25/police-refuse-to-remove-ex-con-squatters-from-soldiers-home/
ShamisOMally
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2010
- Messages
- 1,480
Yeah it happened after a homeowner came back from Iraq, a squatter was living in his home and refused to leave, till it got put on the news.
And of course they wouldn't leave, forcing the homeowner to spend money on the process to kick them out.
But it didn't even come to that, the local biker gangs and former vietnam veterans heard about it and paid him a visit, who "encourged" him to leave stating it was a "Bad neighborhood and really really really bad things happen here from time to time"
Squatters complained to the police about being "Threatened" etc, when no such threat took place (Legally anyways) and they ran out of there in the middle of the night after the biker gang came back and stayed out front of the house for a few hours to intimidate them, leaving their dogs behind.
Worse was the fuckers sold off everything in the house, plus trashed the place
And of course they wouldn't leave, forcing the homeowner to spend money on the process to kick them out.
But it didn't even come to that, the local biker gangs and former vietnam veterans heard about it and paid him a visit, who "encourged" him to leave stating it was a "Bad neighborhood and really really really bad things happen here from time to time"
Squatters complained to the police about being "Threatened" etc, when no such threat took place (Legally anyways) and they ran out of there in the middle of the night after the biker gang came back and stayed out front of the house for a few hours to intimidate them, leaving their dogs behind.
Worse was the fuckers sold off everything in the house, plus trashed the place
D
Deleted member 184142
Guest
I never heard of this, but if it is true....When did this become ok? That is not a squatter, that's a fucking thief who broke into my home and was stealing shit, unless I am misunderstanding, I would have shot their ass if I came home and found someone else in my place, end of story.
It's not ok, just a loophole in our justice system. Since neither side can prove or disprove any agreement on the spot, it becomes a civil case, which is why the police were "unable" to evict the squatters. It gets tied up for months or years in the court system. The squatters know this and will stay up until the pressure on them to leave boils over. In this case it took local TV news and some war vets to pressure them out.
Trepidati0n
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2004
- Messages
- 9,269
There isn't...furthermore, said person could forge a document looking like he had a rental agreement. However, said person would have a hard time proving his case in any way, shape, or form which probably is the reason it hasn't been used more often.
The reason why squatters win is they get "time" on their side which opens up the legal path of stupidity. This is why you have people watch your home and check it daily. Without time, squatters can't get their thing going.
Where I live, a gun is a far more effective tool for dealing with squatters.
sfsuphysics
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2007
- Messages
- 15,994
S
shade91
Guest
Did you bother to read the the articles? He never got civil help. His "friend" never watched the house. I'm advocating they use an illegal self-help method and then shut their damn mouth about having used it. That and the article seem to have nothing to do with one another.
the whole deal with "squatters' rights" is that common law has typically favored land use rather than disuse. So once someone takes adverse possession of land, and maintains it and uses it for a suitable time, they may be able to lay claim to that property. These rights aren't intended to reward the squatter so much as punish the landholder for not taking care of his or her property. Some people are going to be thinking that it's the "owner's" land so he or she can do, or not do, whatever one wants with it. But that's not exactly how our property holding works in the US and it's not been that way historically so even if it feels against the senses that's what we're dealing with here.
Did you read the comments section?
S
shade91
Guest
No.. who the heck posts an article and expects the reader to figure out you were referencing the comments section?
sfsuphysics
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2007
- Messages
- 15,994
And that in no way applies to the situation mentioned here, squatter's rights have a much longer time frame before they become an issue. This is simply a matter of a landowner who decided it was a good thing to rent for more than 30 days, as a result it became a tenant as per rental laws (not squatters) and yeah even a renter who refuses to pay has some recourse to stay without paying, there are legal outs for the landowner too it's just that it can get to be a pain in the ass. Especially if there's someone who knows how to work the system, as there was in a story I read a few years ago about how a live-in nanny refused to do any more work then claimed elderly abuse, and all sorts of great things... yeah she'd done this a few times and knew how to work the system.