Felons use adverse possession on soldier

[DON SVO]

That solider needs to hire some of his buddies and then be somewhere else with an airtight alibi while his buddies administer a serious ass whipping to those two people. That should get their attention, and then they will be advised to move the hell out immediately and quietly, relinquish any claim to the house that they may have, and not damage a thing in the house as they leave. Any violation of those terms would result in ongoing ass beatings and trips to the hospital.

Some people have no honor or decency and need ass whippings. Stealing a house from a deployed soldier is an example of that.

Buddies went over to visit friend, thought the Mexicans were burglarizing the place and felt compelled to beat them retarded and call the police.

[line-em-up]

I would break in to my OWN house when they weren't there. Then, when they come back, shoot their asses and claim I thought it was an intruder and I was just defending my property.

[racrguy]

PARTY AT THE HOUSE

Everyone gets there, the squatters get tossed out by "guests" and a few other "guests" change the locks.

Problem solved.

Your sig is horrifyingly mesmerizing.

[Forever_frost]

Or, have someone leave a few boxes of batteries, cough medicine and gatorade bottles around and call the police anonymously and report a meth production facility.

[trblshooter]

Squared away folks right here

[Sean88gt]

Little early to claim they have adversely possessed the land. I also think the deputy is wrong, but a judge should be able to get them out.

[lowthreeohz]

Someone needs to rid the earth of those POS people. If we were closer I'd be game for a GTFOGTG

[46Tbird]

Just call the cops and report a robbery in progress. They knock the door in and arrest the criminals. You walk in, fix the door frame and replace the locks, and keep their shit. Everybody wins.

[Jose]

Just call the cops and report a robbery in progress. They knock the door in and arrest the criminals. You walk in, fix the door frame and replace the locks, and keep their shit. Everybody wins.

They will probably show up and shoot there dog and leave having done nothing else

[Captain Crawfish]

The owner should make Julio understand since be obviously doesn't get it.

[Chili]

Not really sure this is an Adverse Possession issue. At least based on the story, I don't see anything where they are trying to claim ownership. Just claiming that they were allowed / invited to stay there. If that is all, it seems like the owner just needs to follow the standard eviction process.

Not that they should have to do that either, but seems like a much simpler resolution to fighting actual claims of ownership.

[Sean88gt]

Not really sure this is an Adverse Possession issue. At least based on the story, I don't see anything where they are trying to claim ownership. Just claiming that they were allowed / invited to stay there. If that is all, it seems like the owner just needs to follow the standard eviction process.

Not that they should have to do that either, but seems like a much simpler resolution to fighting actual claims of ownership.

It really isn't. The scumbags entered with permission to repair, not occupy. They claim they had permission from the friend, but it doesn't matter because the friend has no ownership rights. And as I mentioned earlier, the time component isn't close to being met.

[Jose]

It really isn't. The scumbags entered with permission to repair, not occupy. They claim they had permission from the friend, but it doesn't matter because the friend has no ownership rights. And as I mentioned earlier, the time component isn't close to being met.

Definitely whatever laws that are in place are screwed up. A verbal agreement IMO shouldn't work in this circumstance and is protecting the wrong people.

[Sean88gt]

Definitely whatever laws that are in place are screwed up. A verbal agreement IMO shouldn't work in this circumstance and is protecting the wrong people.

Read up on adverse possession. Some of the cases will blow your mind. The gov't essentially believes that if A owns it, but B is using it and meets the terms, then society benefits, plus A had time to object and if they didn't - then silence constitutes acceptance.

[inline 6]

Does the fact that he is a soldier make this any less or more of a terrible shit head thing to do? Am I supposed to be extra outraged because he is a soldier?