Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur has some advice for Guice and other homeowners facing foreclosure. She's basically telling them to be squatters in their own homes. "Unless they have good legal representation do not leave your home because remember possession is 90 percent of the law," says Kaptur.
Yes, they should stay in their homes.  It's a bigger problem when you get all these people out on the streets, and the possibility for them to cause bigger problems for other American people.  Although it's not something that should be prolonged, there should be a law about how long they can squat, and what this squatting entails.  It's too bad that this had to happen, but nobody should be without a place to live.  It's sad to see people sleeping out on the street.  This is not what America should be, or become, as it's people sleeping on the streets is like littering, but with a real human body.  It does not look good for tourists, for people who live there, and the people who aren't in this situation.  It's not good for society in general.  Where are these people to go? 

I agree with what Kaptur is saying. Where else should these people go? It's not like the home is going to be used for anything in the meanwhile, so why should they have to leave?
Source(s):
http://abclocal.go.com/wtvg/story?section=news/local&id=6633716

Permalink | Report

This answer has been voted unhelpful by users. Please click to view

Yes go to inforwars.com and listen and watch some good videos such as simple answer as yes will be fulfilled.
Hide

Permalink | Report

People who have a mortgage signed a contract. If they are unable to fulfill their contract, there are laws about what happens. If you allow people to "squat" now, then you have to allow them to do so in the future.

I am NOT unsympathetic. These are some tough times for people. But, this does not justify breaking contracts or the law.
Permalink | Report

I don't think this is a simple yes/no answer. In California right now, the foreclosure process can take five-six months, even proceeding at a normal pace. If you figure that usually people are behind in their payments three-six months before the paperwork even starts, you're looking at about a year for the process. During that time, the people can legally stay in the house. After the foreclosure concludes, they need to work out a deal with the new owner if they want to stay - BUT...
I have seen some communities where I would guess squatters would be welcome. Brand new communities with homes selling for $700k+ now have mainly unoccupied homes. The ones that have been foreclosed upon - or are on the market - are selling for less than $300k, if sell at all.
From the perspective of the banks that own these empty homes, and the neighbors who are still living in the homes between the empty ones, I would prefer a squatter taking care of the home. The empty homes are magnets for the homeless, vandals, and thieves who rip the houses off for their appliances and copper. This makes the value in the neighborhood go down more yet, and more home owners walk away from homes they can never hope to come out ahead on.
It's not as simple as "pay your bills or get out." Many people bought these homes while they were able to afford the payments, but didn't have the gift of foretelling. They didn't know they would lose their long time job, that their pension would go away when the company for which they worked went bankrupt, or some emergency illness was the final straw.
In some cases, then, I'm open to "squatters", so I won't say an absolute "no" to the question. It may be in the best interest of the bank, the neighborhood, and the squatter to stay.
That said, if a person buys a home - on the market or at foreclosure - legally, it should be theirs to do with as they wish. In this case, squatters need to go, unless they can work out a deal with the new owners to rent. In this current situation, I admit I'd probably check out a house closely to see if it was inhabited or vandalized or damaged before buying. But if I was a private person who had sold the home and kept the note on it, then the people quit paying and I went through the foreclosure process, I would want to move on with making the home pay for itself again - and I should have that right. In this case, I'd have to say "no" to the question. We are a nation of laws.
Every foreclosure we've dealt with has had its own set of facts. We get in trouble - and lose opportunities - when we try to make one size fit all.
Source(s):
I'm licensed CA real estate broker, as is my husband. He is also a general contractor. We deal in "hard money" loans - and foreclosures for private investors.

Permalink | Report

I totally have to agree with easyeboy on this one. Especially in cases where it's a landlord/tenant situation. Many families are living paycheck to paycheck these days. What would you do if you were only making $20,000 a year and were told that you had 30 days to move because your landlord didn't pay the mortgage?

Heck yeah, if I had no where else to go, I would stay in the house until threatened with being arrested. Not all people have family and friends they can stay with, much less afford to move.

And, once the people are kicked out, no one can get a loan to buy the house anyway! So it would sit and rot. The banks should try to get a buyer for the house and collect rent on it, so it doesn't sit there for 5 years not making the bank any money.

Too many ideas are in my little brain right now about all this, and not sure any of it is coming out how I want.

Yes. Squat. :-)
Permalink | Report

Yes. They should be allowed to stay there until the bank that repossed the home finds a buyer, as long as the squatters are taking good care of the home.
Permalink | Report

Disgusting, Distasteful, and all around ridiculous.

People should not only start squatting but get together with other people in the same boat and threaten restitution.

The mortgage agencies and banks have not been taking proper responsibility for there actions and should be held accountable.

What most banks have been doing is not only immoral but also against local and international law.

I think i see the sun.

....Oh wait that's just American homes burning to the ground in a miraculous bonfire.
Source(s):
Common sense.

Permalink | Report

It is actually in everyone's best interest to have foreclosed owners stay in their homes. Abandoned homes diminish property values and we're talking about homes that are going to be left vacant with little to no chance of being sold. Keeping owners in foreclosed homes keeps the property vales up and prevents the slew of problems associated with homelessness.
This is not to say that they should be allowed there indefinitely but measures such as this along with debt restructuring and forgiveness will help the situation more than causing major issues for the sake of upholding a contract.
While contracts are meant to be upheld as law that doesn't keep them from being revised for fairness and applicability especially if the conditions change (rebus sic stantibus).
Permalink | Report