Squatter’s Rights

Here is info for your review and contemplation. Marcy Kaptur is a US rep from Ohio and she suggests “squatting” as a means of last resort on foreclosed property.

Info on squatting can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squatting

A little problem I have with her talk is that it appears she puts all the blame on Wall Street for the bursting of the housing bubble.

Yes, for sure a lot goes there, but “government interference in the market place” has changed the entire playing field.

We don’t need more regulations, we need honesty and integrity in government and the best way to get that in the monetary arena is to bring back honest money. We have to go back to a sound and solid unit of measure of value so we can work from the same page.

As a side note, here in Indiana, A sound money bill has been submitted for consideration in the 2009 state legislature. http://www.runtogold.com/tag/indiana-honest-money-act/
Regardless we have to look at reality.

Since the playing field has changed, I agree with Rep. Marcy Kaptur’s suggestions to those being foreclosed upon. Don’t leave your home!! Stand and fight!! And even if you lose – Squat!!

Don’t spend the funds foolishly that you previously used to pay your mortgage!!
Put those funds in gold and silver and hold that wealth in your possession. Have it close to you for a rainy day so you can continue to have a roof over your head, food on the table and the means to defend your family.

We’ve seen the beginning on this economic downturn, but we haven’t seen the middle or anywhere near the end yet. Things will get rough out there!!

If someone has a moral or ethical problem with what I suggest, let me know. I will give your views my serious consideration and share them with others.

If you agree with this as an option, please pass the word to those who may now be or become a home foreclosure target.

Subject: Re: Mish’s Global Economic Trend Analysis

heyyyy…. just watched her video… this gal is fantastic & she’s a dem… anyhow, i’m glad you sent this to me because i was wondering if it’s true before i hit ‘f’wd’…. maybe it’s this kind of ‘revolt’ that might wake up a few comatose peeps in this country!!! i love it!!! p

Subject: Mish’s Global Economic Trend Analysis

This lady rep is from Ohio. She makes some good sense on the foreclosure issue. This may be info to pass around. Stop making payments. Use those funds to invest in gold and silver. If they foreclose, fight and gain as much time as possible. Then when one loses, become a squatter. Guerilla warfare?? – Yes, but one has to survive.
Your thoughts??? <:) bob

http://siliconinvestor.advfn.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=25373864

Here is a page on squatters

http://atdetroit.net/forum/messages/76017/87205.html?1163527452

Squatter’s rights

Adverse possession is sometimes called “squatters’ rights”. If the squatter abandons the property for a period, or if the rightful owner effectively removes the squatter’s access even temporarily during the statutory period, or even gives his permission, the “clock” usually stops.[citation needed] For example, if the required period in a given jurisdiction is twenty years and the squatter is removed after only fifteen years, the squatter loses the benefit of that 15 year possession (i.e., the “clock” is re-set to “zero”). If that squatter later retakes possession of the property, that squatter must, in order to acquire title, remain on the property for a full twenty years after the date on which the squatter retook possession. In this example, the squatter would have held the property for a total of 35 years (the 15 original years plus the 20 later years) to acquire title.

However, one squatter may pass along continuous possession to another squatter, known as “tacking”, until the adverse possession period is complete.[citation needed] A lawful owner may also restart the “clock” at “zero” by giving temporary permission for the occupation of the property, thus defeating the necessary “continuous and hostile” element.[citation needed] Evidence that a “squatter” paid rent to the owner would defeat adverse possession for that period.

[edit] Comparison to homesteading

Adverse possession is in some ways similar to homesteading. Like the disseisor, the homesteader may gain title to property by using the land and fulfilling certain other conditions. In homesteading, however, the possession of the property is not hostile; the land is either considered to have no legal owner or it is owned by the government. The government allows the homesteader to use the land with the expectation that the homesteader who fulfills the requirements necessary for the homestead will gain title to the property.

The homestead principle and squatter’s rights embody the most basic concept of property and ownership, which can be summed up by the adage “possession is nine-tenths of the law”; in other words, “the person who uses the property owns it”; likewise, “use it or lose it”. The homestead principle and squatter’s rights pre-date formal property laws and to a large degree modern property law is a formalization and expansion of these simple ideas.

The homestead principle is the idea that if no one is using or possessing property, the first person to claim it and use it consistently over a period of time owns the property. Squatter’s rights embodies the idea that if one property owner neglects property and fails to use it, and a second person starts to tend and use the property, then after a certain period of time the first person’s claim to the property is lost and ownership transfers to the second person, who is actually using the property.

The legal principle of homesteading, then, is a formalization of the fundamental homestead principle in the same way that the right of adverse possession is a formalization of the fundamental and pre-existing principle of squatter’s rights.

The essential ideas behind the homestead principle and squatter’s rights hold generally for any type of item or property of which ownership can be asserted by simple use or possession. In modern law, homesteading and the right of adverse possession refer exclusively to real property. In the realm of personal property, the same impulse is summarized by the adage “finders keepers” and formalized by laws and conventions about abandoned property.

[edit] Copyrights

Some legal scholars have proposed to extend the concept of adverse possession to intellectual property law, in particular to reconcile intellectual property and antitrust law[14] or to unify copyright law and property law.[15]

**********

I cannot remember where I got this.

Squatting
________________________________________
"Squatting" means finding some empty housing and moving yourself in without an agreement with the landlord. Squats can be just short term housing or they can evolve into long-term housing.
Squatting has always been an option people have chosen to meet their housing needs. Sometimes this choice is made for political reasons by people who have a strong conviction that the idea of paying money for housing (and others making money off housing) is simply immoral. More and more though, squatting has become an economic necessity. The rise in San Francisco’s homeless population demonstrates how many people simply can’t afford to rent in San Francisco and have chosen squatting as the only available option.
Many people independently choose to squat and set out to identify suitable houses and move themselves in, doing so without much fanfare or organization. Recently, Homes Not Jails has developed an organized squatting movement which identifies and sets up squats for people who are homeless.
What Are Squatters’ Legal Rights?
In San Francisco, there are no real "squatters’ rights," such as a right to occupancy after 30 days of squatting. Some cities do have laws which say that if a squatter simply squats for 30 days, she then has acquired rights to the housing and is no longer a trespasser.
There are local and state laws here which provide a person with tenants rights after thirty days, but these are applicable only to traditional rental situations. They do not cover squatting (except indirectly, as will be described), and some people familiar with the thirty day residency requirement for tenants’ rights in residential hotels mistakenly think this is applicable to squatting as well. Some other cities do have true squatters’ rights which take into account the facts that the squatter is not paying rent and may not have the permission of the landlord.
In San Francisco, the first step to acquiring some sort of squatters’ rights is to try to obtain tenants’ rights. Until some level of tenants’ rights are acquired, the squatter is technically a trespasser.
Getting Tenants’ Rights For Squatters
Getting tenants’ rights as a squatter is difficult but it’s not impossible, and early on what’s most important is at least acquiring the appearance of tenants’ rights, since the most basic aspect of a tenant is that she is someone the police won’t arrest as a trespasser.
There are two basic problems squatters have in gaining tenants’ rights:
•They are not paying any rent.
•They are living there without the landlord’s permission.
But as impossible as it seems to get past these hurdles, it is do-able.
First, rent does not necessarily have to be cash. Sure, that’s the most common, but rent is also frequently paid through labor (resident managers, caretakers, etc.). What makes a rental contract is "consideration:" that is, you are getting housing in exchange for something (usually money), but in the case of squatting, squatters need to realize that they are getting the housing in exchange for watching over it, making repairs, cleaning it up, etc.
Second, the landlord’s permission does not necessarily have to be explicit permission or written down. A rental agreement can be written, oral or implied by the conduct of the landlord.
Thus many squatters have found themselves in a squat which the landlord has known about and has given up (for whatever reason) trying to get rid of them. Squatters can make an argument that, when discovered by the landlord, they made an oral agreement with him to live there in exchange for maintenance and security of the property. (One Homes Not Jails squat was successful in establishing such tenants’ rights and even successfully fought the landlord’s attempt to demolish the housing to build condos.)
But probably the most important step and the first step which should be taken is to create the appearance of tenants’ rights. This is pretty easy and can forestall actions to evict you as a trespasser, giving you time to establish more solid rights (as described above).
Creating the appearance of a tenancy is based first on the fact that police are not supposed to arrest you as a trespasser unless they are acting on the complaint of the property owner. More importantly, police training in a trespassing situation instructs them to first determine if the person may be a tenant. Police are instructed to ask for rent receipts, utility bills or mail at the address. Police Training Bulletin 84-05 says: "If any material showing a right to possession is produced, however arguable it may be, the burden shifts to the property owner or agent to prove the elements required for a trespass violation . . . members should not presume a person to be a trespasser." (See Appendix for this Training Bulletin.) If the burden is shifted back to the owner, that means the police will tell him it’s a "civil matter" and must be addressed in court (i.e., through a formal eviction).
When squatting, people should anticipate that there will be some type of encounter with the police at some point and should immediately begin preparing for this.
The first thing to do is to make it look more of a home than a squat. Getting some furniture and possessions inside helps a lot. If the police come by and see that you’re cooking dinner, reading or watching television they’re much more likely to buy an argument that you have permission to be there and are really tenants. If it obviously looks like a squat you’re just crashing in for the night, they’re likely to ignore their training and procedures and will be happy to haul you off to the station "and let god and a judge sort it out later" (as one officer told squatters).
The second thing to do is to get some utilities legally in your name and get some mail sent to your squat. At first, squatters often do whatever is necessary to get the electricity and water working, but once you have an idea the squat might be a solid one, it’s a good idea to get them turned on legally in your name. This is relatively easy, since most utility companies don’t assume you’re squatting and won’t ask for any proof of tenancy. You should also have some mail sent to you and arrange for services like telephones and cable TV if you can afford them. Doing all this will give you a fistful of paper to show the police and raise serious doubts in their mind as to whether or not you’re actually a trespasser.
If you have a place looking like your home and have some mail and utility bills, you’re likely to be successful in a face off with the police, even if the owner is there as well. For such a face off, it’s also a good idea to have all your legal arguments down: "Mr. Smith has been letting us live here to keep an eye on the place and fix it up, but seems to have changed his mind ’cause he found someone else who’ll pay him money to be his caretakers."
In most cases, though, the first complaint will actually come from a neighbor who’s suspicious. In such a case, having documentation is doubly valuable. But also gently remind the police that they need some type of complaint from the owner to evict you as a trespasser. You might even call their bluff and provide the police the name of the owner and ask them to call him.
Long-term Rights: Adverse Possession
Squatting can actually lead to the total legal possession of the housing, through what’s called "adverse possession."
Sometimes, squatters get lucky and find a squat which the landlord seems to have really abandoned. Police and neighbors have been dealt with successfully and after many months the landlord still hasn’t complained or been seen. In that case, squatters might start laying plans for gaining adverse possession.
California Code of Civil Procedure 321 and 325 deal with the most relevant factors of adverse possession. Generally, the law says that a claim to adverse possession can be made after five years of possession and after the adverse possessors have paid the taxes on the property.
Adverse possession has been interpreted to mean "open and notorious" possession, in the sense that the squatting has been done on a level where the squatters’ presence is not hidden and the landlord could have reasonably gained knowledge of the possession. (In other words, squatters who arrive at midnight and clear out by 5 a.m. every day for five years might not meet the requirements of "open and notorious.")
Code of Civil Procedure 321 requires the property to have been "held and possessed adversely to such legal title for five years." Section 325 sets the requirement for the payment of taxes and also includes a provision that the property be "cultivated or improved" (which can be repairs, painting, etc.).
When a squatter gets into the position where adverse possession becomes a possibility, the greatest hurdle is often the payment of taxes, mainly because the landlord can pay the taxes on the 364th day of the 5th year and defeat the squatter’s claim to adverse possession (which is exactly what happened at a San Francisco squat in the 1970s). If squatters begin getting a substantial length of possession under their belt, it’s imperative that they begin saving up to pay the taxes in order to finalize their claim.

Possession (law)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Sister project Look up possession (law) in

Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

In law, possession is the control a person intentionally exercises toward a thing. In all cases, to possess something, a person must have an intention to possess it. A person may be in possession of some property (although possession does not always imply ownership). Like ownership, the possession of things is commonly regulated by states under property law.

* 1 Intention to possess
* 2 Importance of possession
* 3 Obtaining possession
o 3.1 Possession acquired by consent
o 3.2 Possession acquired without consent
* 4 See also

Intention to possess

An intention to possess (sometimes called animus possidendi) is the other component of possession. All that is required is an intention to possess something for the time being. In common law countries, the intention to possess a thing is a fact. Normally, it is proved by the acts of control and surrounding circumstances.

It is possible to intend to possess something without knowing that it exists. For example, if you intend to possess a suitcase, then you intend to possess its contents, even though you do not know what it contains. It is important to distinguish between the intention sufficient to obtain possession of a thing and the intention required to commit the crime of possessing something illegally, such as banned drugs, firearms or stolen goods. The intention to exclude others from the garage and its contents does not necessarily amount to the guilty mind of intending to possess stolen goods.

When people possess places to which the public has access, it may be difficult to know whether they intend to possess everything within those places. In such circumstances, some people make it clear that they do not want possession of the things brought there by the public. For example, it is not uncommon to see a sign above the coat rack in a restaurant which disclaims responsibility for items left there.

[edit] Importance of possession

Possession is one of the most important concepts in property law. In common law countries, possession is itself a property right. Absent evidence to the contrary, it provides evidence of ownership. Possession of a thing for long enough can become ownership. In the same way, the passage of time can bring to an end the owner’s right to recover possession of a thing.

There may be varying degrees of rights to possession. For example, if you leave a library book at a cafe and the waiter picks it up, you have lost possession. When you return to recover the book, even though the waiter has possession, you have a better right to possession and the book should be returned.

[edit] Obtaining possession

Possession requires both control and intention. It is obtained from the first moment that both those conditions exist simultaneously. Usually, intention precedes control, as when you see a coin on the ground and reach down to pick it up. Nevertheless, it is conceivable that a person might obtain control of a thing before forming the intention to possess it. If someone unknowingly sat on and therefore had control of a $10 note on the seat of a train, he or she could obtain possession by becoming aware of the note and forming the intention to possess it. People can also intend to possess things left, without their knowledge, in spaces they control.

[edit] Possession acquired by consent

Most property possessed is obtained with the consent of someone else who possessed it. They may have been purchased, received as gifts, leased, or borrowed. The transfer of possession of goods is called delivery. For land, it is common to speak of granting or giving possession.

A temporary transfer of possession is called a bailment. Bailment is often regarded as the separation of ownership and possession. For example, the library continues to own the book while you possess it and will have the right to possess it again when your right comes to an end. A common transaction involving bailment is a conditional sale or hire-purchase, in which the seller lets the buyer have possession of the thing before it is paid for. The buyer pays the purchase price in installments and, when it is fully paid, ownership of the thing is transferred from seller to buyer.

[edit] Possession acquired without consent

It is possible to obtain possession of a thing without anyone else’s consent. First, you might take possession of something which has never been possessed before. This can occur when you catch a wild animal; or create a new thing, such as a loaf of bread. Secondly, you might find something which someone else has lost. Thirdly, you might take something from another person without their consent. Possession acquired without consent is a property right which the law protects. It gives rise to a right of possession which is enforceable against everyone except those with a better right to possession.

o Possession of stolen goods
o Minor In Possession
* Other special conditions of possession
o Constructive possession
o Adverse possession
o Right of possession
o Debtor in possession

* Owner,Lessor,Rentor,Landlord

* Possessor,Lessee,Renter,Tenant

* Possession,Lease,Renting,Tenancy

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Possession_(law)"
Category: Property law

Property law

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Property law is the area of law that governs the various forms of ownership in real property (land as distinct from personal or movable possessions) and in personal property, within the common law legal system. In the civil law system, there is a division between movable and immovable property. Movable property roughly corresponds to personal property, while immovable property corresponds to real estate or real property, and the associated rights and obligations thereon.

The concept, idea or philosophy of property underlies all property law. In some jurisdictions, historically all property was owned by the monarch and it devolved through feudal land tenure or other feudal systems of loyalty and fealty.

Though the Napoleonic code was among the first government acts of modern times to introduce the notion of absolute ownership into statute, protection of personal property rights was present in medieval Islamic law and jurisprudence,[1] and in more feudalist forms in the common law courts of medieval and early modern England.
Contents
[hide]

* 1 Definition of property
* 2 Theory of property
o 2.1 Early American theory
* 3 Property rights and contractual rights
* 4 Property rights and personal rights
* 5 Classification
* 6 Possession
* 7 Transfer of property
* 8 Priorities
* 9 Leases
* 10 See also
* 11 References

[edit] Definition of property

In Roman law, property was defined as follows: ius utendi et abutendi re sua, quatenus iuris ratio patitur, ‘the right to use and abuse a thing, within the limits of the law’ (Justinian, Code 4, 35, 21; see also, commentary by P.J. Proudhon in ch. 2 of What is Property? [1]).

One modern textbook on property law states:

When a layman is asked to define "property," he is likely to say that "property" is something tangible "owned" by a natural person (or persons), a corporation, or a unit of government. But such a response is inaccurate from a lawyer’s viewpoint for at least two reasons: (1) it confuses "property" with the various subjects of "property," and (2) it fails to recognize that even the subjects of property may be intangible.

For a lawyer, "property" is not a "thing" at all, although "things" are the subject of property. Rather, as Jeremy Bentham asserted, property is a legally protected "expectation * * * of being able to draw such or such an advantage from the thing" in question [ . . . .][2]

Black’s Law Dictionary (5th ed. 1979) states that "[i]n the strict legal sense, [property is] an aggregate of rights which are guaranteed and protected by the government" and that the term property "includes not only ownership and possession but also the right of use and enjoyment for lawful purposes."

By contrast, Barron’s Law Dictionary (2d ed. 1984) defines property as "one’s exclusive right to possess, use, and dispose of a thing" [ . . . ] "as well as the object, benefit, or prerogative which constitutes the subject matter of that right."

Property law, in systems derived from English common law, is divided into personal and real property. Gray & Gray (1998) describe the definition of property in the modern sense as oscillating between ‘competing models of property as a fact, property as a right, and property as a responsibility’[3] Declared ownership in and of itself is insufficient to constitute property in a legal sense. Rather, the notion of property arises where one can have his/her right to land or chattels respected and enforced by a court of law. Therefore to possess good title (and thus enforceable rights) on property one must acquire it legitimately, according to the laws of the jurisdiction in which one seeks enforcement.

[edit] Theory of property

[edit] Early American theory

James Wilson, U.S. Supreme Court Justice and professor of law at the University of Pennsylvania, in 1790 and 1791, undertook a survey of the philosophical grounds of American property law. He proceeds from two premises: “Every crime includes an injury: every injury includes a violation of a right.” (Lectures, III, ii.) The government’s role in protecting property depends upon an idea of right. Wilson traces the history of property in his essay On the History of Property. In his lecture, “Of the natural rights of individuals,” (Lectures II, xii) he articulates related contemporary theory.

That theory was brought to a focus on the question of whether man exists for the sake of government, or government for the sake of man – a distinction which may derive from, or lead to, the question of natural and absolute rights, and whether property is one of them. While he doubts this is so, he nonetheless states: “In his unrelated state, man has a natural right to his property, to his character, to liberty, and to safety.” James Wilson asks whether “the primary and principal object in the institution of government… was… to acquire new rights by human establishment? Or was it, by a human establishment, to acquire a new security for the possession or the recovery of those rights….?” He indicates a preference for the latter.

In the opening sentence of On the History of Property, he states quite clearly: “Property is the right or lawful power, which a person has to a thing.” He then divides the right into three degrees: possession, the lowest; possession and use; and, possession, use, and disposition – the highest. Further, he states: “Man is intended for action. Useful and skilful industry is the soul of an active life. But industry should have her just reward. That reward is property, for of useful and active industry, property is the natural result.” From this simple reasoning he is able to present the conclusion that exclusive, as opposed to communal property, is to be preferred. Wilson does, however, give a survey of communal property arrangements in history, not only in colonial Virginia but also ancient Sparta.

[edit] Property rights and contractual rights

Property rights are rights over things enforceable against other persons. By contrast, contractual rights are rights enforceable against particular persons. Property rights, however, may arise from a contract, so there is an overlap between the two systems of rights. In relation to the sale of land, for example, two sets of legal relationships exist alongside one another: the personal right to sue for damages on the contract, and the proprietary right exercisable over the thing.

A separate distinction is evident where rights granted are insufficiently substantial to confer on the non-owner a definable interest right in the thing. The clearest example of these rights is the licence. In general, even if licences are created by a binding contract, they do not give rise to proprietary interests.

[edit] Property rights and personal rights

Property rights are also distinguished from personal rights. Practically all contemporary societies acknowledge this basic ontological and ethical distinction. In the past, groups lacking political power have often been disqualified from the benefits of property. In an extreme form this has meant that persons have become "objects" of property right, legally "things", or chattels – see slavery. More commonly, marginalised groups have been denied legal rights to own property. These include Jews in England and married women in Western societies until the late 19th century.

The dividing line between personal rights and property rights is not always easy to draw. For instance, is one’s reputation property which can be commercially exploited by affording property rights to it? The question of the proprietary character of personal rights is particularly relevant in the case of rights over human tissue, organs and other body parts.

There have been recent cases of women being subordinated to the fetus, through the imposition of unwanted caesarian sections. English judges have recently made the point that such women lack the right to exclusive control over their own bodies, formerly considered a fundamental common law right. In the United States, a "quasi-property" interest has been explicitly declared in the dead body. Also in the United States, it has been recognised that people have an alienable proprietary "right of publicity" over their "persona". The patenting of biotechnological processes and products based upon human genetic material may be characterised as creating property in human life.

[edit] Classification

Property law is characterised by a great deal of historical continuity and technical terminology. The basic distinction in common law systems is between real property (land) and personal property (chattels).

Before the mid-19th century, the principles governing the devolution of real property and personal property on an intestacy were quite different. Though this dichotomy does not have the same significance anymore, the distinction is still fundamental because of the essential differences between the two categories. An obvious example is the fact that land is immovable, and thus the rules that govern its use must differ. A further reason for the distinction is that legislation is often drafted employing the traditional terminology.

The division of land and chattels has been criticised as being not satisfactory as a basis for categorising the principles of property law since it concentrates attention not on the proprietary interests themselves but on the objects of those interests.[4] Moreover, in the case of fixtures, chattels which are affixed to or placed on land may become part of the land.

Real property is generally sub-classified into:

1. corporeal hereditaments – tangible real property (land)
2. incorporeal hereditaments – intangible real property such as an easement of way

[edit] Possession

The concept of possession developed from a legal system whose principal concern was to avoid civil disorder. The general principle is that a person in possession of land or goods, even as a wrongdoer, is entitled to take action against anyone interfering with the possession unless the person interfering is able to demonstrate a superior right to do so.

In the United Kingdom, the Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977 has significantly amended the law relating to wrongful interference with goods and abolished some longstanding remedies and doctrines.

[edit] Transfer of property

The most usual way of acquiring an interest in property is as the result of a consensual transaction with the previous owner, for example, a sale or a gift. Dispositions by will may also be regarded as consensual transactions, since the effect of a will is to provide for the distribution of the deceased person’s property to nominated beneficiaries. A person may also obtain an interest in property under a trust established for his or her benefit by the owner of the property.

It is also possible for property to pass from one person to another independently of the consent of the property owner. For example, this occurs when a person dies intestate, goes bankrupt, or has the property taken in execution of a court judgment.

[edit] Priorities

Occasionally, as a result of fraud or mistake, several people claim interests in one object, the claims being inconsistent with each other. This may arise where the person purporting to create or transfer the interest has a valid title, but purports to create several interests wholly or partially inconsistent with each other. In this case it is necessary for the courts to resolve the priorities conflict by determining the ranking of these interests. The need to resolve such conflicts suggests that different classes of proprietary interests have different spheres of enforceability depending on their place in the hierarchy.

[edit] Leases

Over the centuries, leases have served many purposes and the nature of legal regulation has varied according to those purposes and the social and economic conditions of the times. Leaseholds, for example, were mainly used for agricultural purposes until the late 18th century and early 19th century when the growth of cities in industrialised countries had made the leasehold an important form of landholding in urban areas.

The modern law of landlord and tenant in common law jurisdictions retains the influence of the common law and, particularly, the laissez-faire philosophy that dominated the law of contract and the law of property in the 19th century. With the growth of consumerism, consumer protection legislation recognised that common law principles that assume equal bargaining power between the contracting parties are acknowledged to work hardship when that assumption is inaccurate. Consequently reformers have emphasised the need to assess residential tenancy laws in terms of protection they provide to tenants. Legislation to protect tenants is now common.

[edit] See also

* Claim club

[edit] References

1. ^ Makdisi, John (2005), Islamic Property Law: Cases and Materials for Comparative Analysis with the Common Law, Carolina Academic Press, ISBN 1594601100
2. ^ R.A. Cunningham, W.B. Stoebuck & D.A. Whitman, The Law of Property, p. 1 (West 1984) (footnote reference omitted; italics and quotation marks in the original).

Do not leave your home find a lawyer and fight.

try this link

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2009/01/30/griffin.mortgage.squatting.cnn?iref=videosearch