List found in home shows squatters may have a plan
PORTLAND, Ore. - New information has surfaced about some serial squatters who were kicked out of a home in North Portland this past week.
It's a story we've been following closely. You can read our previous coverage for background:
- Moving day for squatters, but where will they go next?
- Alleged squatters leave home then bolt from questions
What was inside that home might narrow down the squatters' next move - a list of several addresses with notes about auction dates and how many bedrooms and bathrooms each home has.
We contacted several of the homeowners on the list and almost all of them were surprised, especially the ones who say they aren't even close to foreclosure.
One of the homeowners told us that Portland police sent her a letter telling her about the situation. She said police cautioned her to keep her house secure by keeping windows and doors locked, and being aware.
How dare those dirty poor people want to live under a roof? Those houses should remain empty as God wants them to be!
Â
The banks need those houses; they really care about them! There just aren't enough houses sitting empty!
Â
Those awful pale kids and their menacing hoodies. The police should just round up any young people who wear hooded sweatshirts and have the intelligence to know when a house is fin foreclosure. For the love of God will someone please think of the poor houses that just want to be empty!
How dare those dirty poor people want to live under a roof? Those houses should remain empty as God wants them to be! The banks need those houses; they really care about them! There just aren't enough houses sitting empty! Those awful pale kids and their menacing hoodies. The police should just round up any young people who wear hooded sweatshirts and have the intelligence to know when a house is fin foreclosure. For the love of God will someone please think of the poor houses that just want to be empty!
It's apparent that you haven't read the story leading up to this one. Too Scared to learn to read, Gramma?
I still can't believe these people unlawfully evicted a lady from her home, moved in and caused significant damage to it and no one was arrested?!?!? Is it just me or is there something grossly wrong with this? It seems like it's perfectly legal to steal someones house! Yea, they were evicted but they were just sent out on the streets to do this again without any fear of consequences.....
This comment has been deleted
 @archangels007 As long as we condone illegal immigration as a society, can we really ask these people to follow the law?
Here is a thought, Occupy and now this, weather we like them or not, they have caused us to do one thing in common, to seek out laws and such that we other wise would not know about unless it was brought to our attention.
How ever I must remain adamant about what is called " Ambush Journalism" a tactic used by the poperotzie and found ill favorable with in the profession.
 All it does when a person does that is insight anger and does not do the story justice. it also makes the News media look like stalkers.
Â
Now there is a difference between investigating and trapping as well as stalking.
KATU you came on the near verge of Breaking the law. If I ever catch a news crew Breaking the law who ever they are I will report it.
Â
Following a vehicle can lead to dangerous Circumstances no matter how prepared on thinks things can go wrong.
all the person has to do is say there life is endanger and defend them selves in what ever way is necessary to evade you and if you cause a wreck and bring harm to an innocent life because you were after a story and you wanted to know where there were off to, then I hope you can live with that because frankly, I have no sympathy for those involved in creating unsafe conditions where the parties wind up harming and innocent person. And need I remind you of the Helicopter accident that occurred a few years ago? Yes, get the story, but don't get in a manner in which we will be reading about a 22 ton truck slams into a car and then injures some bystander.
Now as for the individuals. there names and faces are no of great importance, They are only the small fry.
There is a larger entity at work here. And I can't help but feel that there is more to this story then meets the eye. If KATU is not willing to start sharing the facts, then it is up to us as viewers to start showing it by decreasing there ratings. Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â
@lee986321 I'm thinkin' you need a med tuneup
I should get on that list and hope the come to my house.
i'll show my compassion and put a roof over her head for 2 weeks, the dudes can get lost.  i know,,,i know,,,,your thinking, "now THERE is a kind person"
Also has any one heard of mortgage in commons??
Â
@cptmac11
"Description
This section is from thebook"Popular Law Library Vol7 Equity Jurisprudence, Trusts, Equity Pleading", by Albert H. Putney. Also available from Amazon:Popular Law-Dictionary.
Section 28. Common Law Theory Of Mortgage
Under the common law, amortgagewas considered merely what it purports to be, namely, a deed of the land with a condition subsequent. The condition subsequent which might defeat the estate of the grantee, and re-invest the estate in the grantor, was the repayment of themoneyby the grantor. If such payment was not made strictly according to the terms of the deed, the estate in the mortgagee became absolute. Upon the giving of themortgagethe mortgagee acquired the present legal estate, while the mortgagor only retained a possibility of revertor.
5 Am. & Eng. Ency. of Law, Vol. XX, pp. 899-900.
6 Coke on Littleton, 205a.
Possession passed to the grantee, unless reserved to the grantor by the terms of the deed.
Read more:http://chestofbooks.com/society/law/Popular-Law-7/Section-28-Common-Law-Theory-Of-Mortgage.html#ixzz1zOvrnFO4"
 Note the word "theory" in the article. also i think it would depend on local laws about mortgages.
Â
The funny thing about all this is she worked for the bank that foreclosed on the houses so she knows where they are.
And now has lost her job and apt.
So guess who she will be stickig it to???Â
I am glad their faces are all over the news. Maybe the next time they do this someone in the neighborhood will recognize them and turn them in! I don't know how they sleep at night.
What good will it do to turn them in? Turn them in to whom? The police didn't arrest them when they had the chance....so does that mean it's legal??? Â
 @johnsyd Squatting isn't actually illegal.
 @MissMarin This wouldn't be considered criminal trespass?
I am not, or at least never used to be, a conspiracy theory sort of person. But this does make me wonder. Just like Occupy, it would almost appear there is someone working in the background to enable and promote this sort of activity. Somebody is providing the list. Somebody is apparently backing these people, as most of the anarchist/squatter/occupiers don't appear to have much or any income. Just seems too organized to be chance.
 @Nobody people are actually smart enough on their own to conceive of and execute bad deeds. Not everybody has to be told what to do.
smells of occupy scum to me.?
This new sign-in can be a beach. I signed in, commented, and then it never was posted because it made me sign in again! Here goes....
In Wash. Cty, we had a squatter several years ago. They moved in quietly, took the realtor's lock box off the front door, and we all assumed they belonged. They were pretty good neighbors. After they were finally discovered, some six months or a year later, they were simply gone. The house was owned by the bank, and no one was buying or even looking, the bank never checked on the place, at least once the squatters moved in, the lawn was mowed! With so many foreclosures, empty houses, and short term neighbors, it's pretty hard to tell the difference sometimes. There was even a rumor a couple years ago that in Calif. you could "claim" a property by squatting long enough! Never believed it, but probably showed how many squatters we have in America now.
 @ConfusedByYou@60 Just click a check in remember me, unless your on a public PC.
Â
 @ConfusedByYou@60 Oregon may have such a law, we don't know . KATU won't investigate it.
 @ConfusedByYou@60  @60 The term "squatter's rights" is an often misunderstood and misused one. The idea that squatters, those who do not own or have rights to a property yet who use it, can come to own a piece of property is based in both statutory and common law precepts. Each state has its own rule regarding squatter's rights and Oregon is no exception. Filing for squatter's rights is possible in Oregon, if the right conditions are met. Read more: How to File for Squatter's Rights in Oregon | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/how_6188078_file-squatter_s-rights-oregon.html#ixzz1zOXIRgT4
 @ConfusedByYou@60  @60 For Washington State :
Parties to a lawsuit over adverse possession of real property will have some new provisions to take into account as a result of a law passed by the Washington State Legislature and signed by the governor. Engrossed Substitute House Bill 1026 (âESHB 1026â) changed the Washington adverse possession statute, RCW 7.28, to allow for a prevailing party to recover attorneysâ fees. It also permits a court to order a successful adverse possessor to reimburse taxes and assessments paid by the title holder during the time that the plaintiff was in possession of the property and for taxes that accrued during the lawsuit. Before the amendments, Washingtonâs adverse possession statute did not provide for any recovery of attorneysâ fees and made no mention of taxes and assessments. The changes to the law, particularly the allowance for attorneysâ fees, could result in more settlements of adverse possession cases to avoid the potential high costs of trial and risk of loss.
Adverse possession allows a person, after openly occupying someone elseâs land for a minimum of 10 years, to bring a lawsuit to gain record ownership of that property. The bill signed into law will allow the winning party to request costs and reasonable attorneysâ fees, which a court would have discretion to award all or a part of as it deems just and equitable. Similarly, the reimbursement of taxes would be left to the courtâs discretion. A court also could order the winning party to pay the county any taxes or assessments that were not paid during the time the adverse possession lawsuit was pending.
The new law went through several significant revisions during its travels through the Legislature. An earlier version of the bill that passed out of the state House of Representatives committee would have required that a person who asserted an adverse possession claim pay the attorneysâ fees of the defending party. This âwinner-paysâ scheme is different from most fee award provisions that typically provide for the prevailing party to recover attorneysâ fees and costs. That particular provision, however, did not make it out of the full House, as floor amendments changed the fee recovery language to a more standard prevailing party provision.
Also, in the original version of the bill was a requirement that a plaintiff prove adverse possession by âclear, cogent and convincingâ evidence. That standard would have been much higher than the typical preponderance of evidence burden of proof in civil cases, including many adverse possession cases. Although the full House retained that higher standard of proof in the version of the bill it passed, the state Senate struck the burden of proof language entirely from the final bill.
The changes to the law will not affect current adverse possession cases; it will only apply to adverse possession actions filed on or after July 1, 2012.
@ConfusedByYou@60@60
Instructions 1
Understand what squatter's rights are. Squatter's rights are granted under the concept of adverse possession. The idea of adverse possession is very similar to the idea of homestead, whereby the person who lives on a property and uses it as his residence has a right to stay on that property if his spouse passes away. Adverse possession is similar to this, in that it allows the person the right to stay on the property if he honestly believed he owned it and it later turns out he did not. Squatter's rights cannot be conferred to people who know they are trespassing.
2
Meet the requirements. Oregon state law lays out the specific conditions in which a squatter may claim legal ownership of a property. To claim such a right, the squatter must be able to show that he has maintained open, exclusive and continuous use of the property for at least 10 years, that he believed he owned the property during that time and that the belief was objectively based, was reasonable under the particular circumstances and that each element required is proved with clear and convincing evidence.
3
Know the exceptions. Oregon law specifically prohibits anyone from being able to acquire title to land that is owned by a railroad or used for a railroad operation. Further, the grazing of livestock, absent insufficient facts to satisfy the other requirements, is not sufficient to establish adverse possession.
4
File the petition. If a squatter can meet the requirements, he can file a petition stating his claim to the property under adverse possession and demanding title to it. The petition should be filed in the county courthouse in which either the property is located or in which the petitioner resides.
Read more: How to File for Squatter's Rights in Oregon | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/how_6188078_file-squatter_s-rights-oregon.html#ixzz1zOXc0WQ7
Wow, I can't believe it. the news actually follows something up and everyone gives em hell for it.
Somebody planning to take over private property???? And that's not a crime???
KATU is infatuated this story. Other new agencies had one article on this, yet KATU has empty "update" after empty "update" each day. Still haven't seen the answer to why this isn't a crime though.
This comment has been deleted
I
what the beck..please generate what?. think the LiveFyer just had an aneurysm.
 @lee986321 Not sure I agree. KATU isn't your legal research employee. They are bringing to light a situation that is apparently harming people (the woman who was tricked out of her house by the squatters). If KATU gets this out in the open where someone who has the legal background and ability to do something about the situation, then they have done their job as far as I am concerned. A TV station doesn't have the means and authority to arrest people or file legal charges against them. I appreciate the information. Maybe others, knowing what is going on, can avoid being duped into leaving their houses to these people. Maybe neighbors will pay a little more attention and notify the authorities when they see squatters taking over the house next door, destroying property, and messing up the lives of ordinary, decent people.
Â
Oh, and check the difference between "your" and "you're".
OK here is what I am trying to say, evidently the Android and Livefyer had some serious communications issues.:
What needs to happen is that KATU needs to go and investigate the law books both Common and ORS and see what is true and factual.
So what we are asking for is the law for and against squatters.
rather we like it or not. Other wise your doing "Ambush Journalism", which is not a good thing to do. but now the time has come to give us what is really law and what is not. Your suppose to educate and inform. I see Neither. even I learned at KLTV that we do not Ambush people.
http://www.ehow.com/how_6188078_file-squatter_s-rights-oregon.html
you may not like it, you may dislike it, you even may tjonk these people are scum.Hell you even may think they are breaking the Law. but how well do you know the law oncluding the common laws, untill you have searchedfor ypur self who is to say what is rright orwrong? KATU has failed in one tjing. eexplain the law.
Â
This comment has been deleted
and livefyre doesnt respond to email/contact us on thier web site
yeah, so I have noted, it crashes Droids,.I have thought of posting the errors that even Google gives.oh Linux seems to cut through it just fine tossing . but Windows and this Android Unit is vexing..there KATU I said it Wewe are vexed. @lee986321Â
@lee986321 .....Livefyre stinks.
"It's a story we've been following closely."
Â
Whatever.
 squatters = scum