Trespassing on Abandoned Property

My question involves real estate located in the State of: CA

i am wondering about the laws involving trespassing in the state of california, according to my understanding if there is abandoned property that i have a claim of title for and i am living on said property, then the police have no rights to evict me because house occupancy is a civil matter rather than a criminal one. is this correct?

example:
house A has been abandoned for a number of years with no sign of the owner, no upkeep, no bills being paid, etc. i move into house A and begin cleaning and fixing it up. a concerned neighbor calls the police to inform them of a disturbance and possible trespassing. police show up at house A, i show them my claim of title.

i cannot be arrested because i have a claim of title and house occupancy is a civil matter, therefore they have no reason to arrest me. is this a correct interpretation?

No, you are trespassing which is a criminal matter and they will haul your keister to jail.

this is what i have assumed as well, however i have heard of cases where people did the same thing and when the police were called they (the police) did not arrest or do anything to the person because house occupancy was a civil matter

how are these people not arrested if they are trespassing?
if squatters are trespassing and can be legally arrested for trespassing, why is it so hard to get rid of them?

I don't know. That's a question for local law enforcement. Are you willing to gamble that the officer isn't going to arrest you in order to steal someone's home?

Quote:

---

i show them my claim of title.

---

Just what would you be showing? Be specific, and give us an example of where this has worked in the past.

Quote:

---

Quoting LandSurveyor

---

Just what would you be showing? Be specific, and give us an example of where this has worked in the past.

---

I was kinda curious about that myself, but not being familiar with those type things left it for others. Heck, I couldn't even find a clear definition of what exactly constitutes a claim of title.

i did a little research online and found
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/row/landsur...Possession.pdf

a few points that i saw while reading this document, which is from the california state website, states
"Trespass is a minor criminal offense, and someone convicted of criminal trespass can be fined and jailed.
Another kind of trespass is more permanent: using another's property as an owner would use it ... These trespassers can also be asked to leave or warned away. But there's a chance that any of them may in fact have a legal claim to the property"

this where i get confused, it states "legal rights to the property"

also the document states:
"A trespasser is entitled to legal ownership of property if his occupation of the property is hostile,
actual, open and notorious, exclusive and continuous for a period of years set by state statute"

and finally the legal codes, which all appear to say that a trespasser can legally claim a house or piece of land

323. For the purpose of constituting an adverse possession by any
person claiming a title founded upon a written instrument, or a
judgment or decree, land is deemed to have been possessed and
occupied in the following cases:
1. Where it has been usually cultivated or improved;
2. Where it has been protected by a substantial inclosure;
3. Where, although not inclosed, it has been used for the supply
of fuel, or of fencing timber for the purposes of husbandry, or for
pasturage, or for the ordinary use of the occupant;
4. Where a known farm or single lot has been partly improved, the
portion of such farm or lot that may have been left not cleared, or
not inclosed according to the usual course and custom of the
adjoining country, shall be deemed to have been occupied for the same
length of time as the part improved and cultivated.
324. Where it appears that there has been an actual continued
occupation of land, under a claim of title, exclusive of any other
right, but not founded upon a written instrument, judgment, or
decree, the land so actually occupied, and no other, is deemed to
have been held adversely.
325. For the purpose of constituting an adverse possession by a
person claiming title, not founded upon a written instrument,
judgment, or decree, land is deemed to have been possessed and
occupied in the following cases only:
First--Where it has been protected by a substantial inclosure.

Second--Where it has been usually cultivated or improved.

Provided, however, that in no case shall adverse possession be

considered established under the provision of any section or sections
of this Code, unless it shall be shown that the land has been
occupied and claimed for the period of five years continuously, and
the party or persons, their predecessors and grantors, have paid all
the taxes, State, county, or municipal, which have been levied and
assessed upon such land.

in regards to trespassing, yes someone going onto a another persons land is trespassing, but the legal codes here and the explanation seem to say that a trespasser would have legal rights to an abandoned piece of property so long as they paid the taxes, kept up the property etc.

i know one person who successfully did an adverse possession on a home but they never had dealing with the police being called or anything in the way of trespassing charges.

according to this article,
http://www.geekosystem.com/16-dollar-house/
a man did an adverse possession, but the police would not remove him based on the fact that house occupancy is a civil matter and not a criminal one.
the man was later removed from the house by the rightful owner (a mortgage company) who evicted him.
he was removed, but not by the police and was not arrested for trespassing. when the police were called were they simply nice guys who didn't want to arrest him, or were they legally not allowed to.

i have also read several places about the difficulty of removing squatters from homes, if they could simply be arrested for trespassing then why is it difficult to get them out and why are there rumours of loan companies paying them to leave to get them out quickly?

the law seems to contradict itself and i am trying to figure out the process of how that would work. i am not trying to do anything "criminal" here, just take advantage of a law that could work in my favor

a claim of title is filed with the county, from what i hear when one goes to the courthouse to claim adverse possession they are given a packet, which they fill out and return and are then given a validated slip of paper which constitutes their intentions for adverse possession. i am not completely 100% on that part however, i have not filed yet

You really should keep all your criminal activity in one thread: http://www.expertlaw.com/forums/show...ht=#post669122

Quote:

---

in regards to trespassing, yes someone going onto a another persons land is trespassing, but the legal codes here and the explanation seem to say that a trespasser would have legal rights to an abandoned piece of property so long as they paid the taxes, kept up the property etc.

---

No rights accrue until the time period has passed.

Quote:

---

according to this article,
http://www.geekosystem.com/16-dollar-house/
a man did an adverse possession, but the police would not remove him based on the fact that house occupancy is a civil matter and not a criminal one.
the man was later removed from the house by the rightful owner (a mortgage company) who evicted him.
he was removed, but not by the police and was not arrested for trespassing. when the police were called were they simply nice guys who didn't want to arrest him, or were they legally not allowed to.

---

unless the owner, or their representative make a claim of trespassing, you are correct; the police are limited to what they can do.

Quote:

---

i have also read several places about the difficulty of removing squatters from homes, if they could simply be arrested for trespassing then why is it difficult to get them out and why are there rumours of loan companies paying them to leave to get them out quickly?

---

loan companies pay sometimes because 1. it can be time consuming to remove a person but 2. more important; it is so the trespasser will not damage the premises.

Quote:

---

the law seems to contradict itself and i am trying to figure out the process of how that would work. i am not trying to do anything "criminal" here, just take advantage of a law that could work in my favor

---

No, it does not contradict itself. Trespassing is trespassing.

Quote:

---

a claim of title is filed with the county, from what i hear when one goes to the courthouse to claim adverse possession they are given a packet, which they fill out and return and are then given a validated slip of paper which constitutes their intentions for adverse possession. i am not completely 100% on that part however, i have not filed yet

---

but that does not give you a legal claim to the property. It acts as a recording of the initial date of when the AP started, nothing more.


you also must realize that once the requisite time period has passed, you must file a quiet title suit to validate your claim. Until you do that, even if you have gone beyond the requisite time, you still have no enforceable rights.

@ "flyingron"
as i said, i am not trying to do anything criminal, i am intrigued by this law and am trying to better understand it and other laws relating to it, i am sorry if this offends you in some way

Quote:

---

Quoting moonie09

---

as i said, i am not trying to do anything criminal, i am intrigued by this law and am trying to better understand it and other laws relating to it, i am sorry if this offends you in some way

---

Are you speaking to me? I couldn't care less what you do.


You also need to realize that if you are there 1 day short of the requisite period of time and the owner takes any action to deny your presence, the time starts all over, if you actually remain.

You have already stated you have trespassed in this home. It sounds like you intend to continue doing so in order to steal the home from its rightful owner. I realize the law allows it but morally and ethically, it's stealing.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

You also need to realize that if you are there 1 day short of the requisite period of time and the owner takes any action to deny your presence, the time starts all over, if you actually remain.

---

Or if he leaves the property for any extended time, or someone else squats in if he's away, etc...

@ "jk"
thank you for your answers, that had cleared up most all of my questions

you stated:
"unless the owner, or their representative make a claim of trespassing, you are correct; the police are limited to what they can do."

the owner of this piece of property has not been seen in years and i have not found a way to contact him. the house is a problem for the neighborhood and the police are notified by neighbors. neither the owner or any representative of him are making a claim of trespassing, so if i speak to the police and let them know of my intentions will i be arrested? or will that depend on the individual police person?

- - - Updated - - -

also @ "jk"
that was not meant for you, i appreciate your insight in clearing up my questions. i realize that this plan has a high chance of failure, but i figure it is worth a shot. i'm trying to go about it legally, if the owner or whoever owns the house shows up and says to leave then i'll do that

- - - Updated - - -

@ "free9man"
look man, i realize that this may conflict with your moral compass, but if the law allows it and the law is supposed to be right then i don't see a problem with attempting it, i'm sorry if that offends you. this guy abandoned his house years and is nowhere to be found. the house has become a problem for the neighborhood so i don't see a problem in fixing it up and living there. if the owner has a problem with it then he is free to come back and tell me to get the hell off his land which i would do without incident

Quote:

---

Quoting moonie09

---

as i said, i am not trying to do anything criminal, i am intrigued by this law and am trying to better understand it and other laws relating to it, i am sorry if this offends you in some way

---

Personally, I do not find this offending at all. Its interesting and possibly intriguing in light of today's housing market. In many cities there are many abandoned houses. Mortgage companies are often not taking possession of houses at all, and municipalities are waiting a long time before taking possession as well. However one thing that I think would have to be significant if someone was trying to do an adverse possession, is that the person would absolutely need to pay the property taxes on the property...which is potentially a pretty significant investment for a very risky venture.

Quote:

---

the owner of this piece of property has not been seen in years and i have not found a way to contact him. the house is a problem for the neighborhood and the police are notified by neighbors. neither the owner or any representative of him are making a claim of trespassing, so if i speak to the police and let them know of my intentions will i be arrested? or will that depend on the individual police person?

---

admitting you are committing a crime is never a good idea. Do not misunderstand; you are trespassing. It is a crime. If there is nobody to file a complaint, it is not likely to be prosecuted since it generally requires somebody to actually make the claim there is a trespass but never the less, you are trespassing. Should the owner or an owner's rep hear about it, they can seek to have you prosecuted for trespassing. If there is any damage to the property, they can attempt to pin that on you as well.

It's a gamble.

Quote:

---

also @ "jk"
that was not meant for you, i appreciate your insight in clearing up my questions. i realize that this plan has a high chance of failure, but i figure it is worth a shot. i'm trying to go about it legally, if the owner or whoever owns the house shows up and says to leave then i'll do that

---

there is no going about it legally. In order for a claim of adverse possession to ripen in such a situation, you do have to break the law. While there are innocent situations where a person uses land without actually intending on taking possession but due to the situation, end up making an AP claim, you are trespassing in order to be able to make a claim.

Most of us here are already familiar with section 323.

I would say to you, the OP, that you ignored my advice to search this forum for the hundreds of replies a search for "california adverse possession" would turn up. We have dealt with it long ago but you want us to replay and retype it all for your individual benefit. It's just trolling at this point. If you really think you can get away with trespass and successfully get title to the property you covet give it a try and come back in five years and tell us how it went for you. No one here can grant you title. Go get it!

thanks to everyone for their helpful replies, i understand the situation much better now and this endeavor seems to not be worth the risk. thanks for clearing that up for me

Quote:

---

Quoting llworking

---

which is potentially a pretty significant investment for a very risky venture.

---

not particularly, it would be rare for property taxes to exceed average monthly rent in a market, so it would be a discount rent to own sort of thing

You ARE trying to be criminal. You are committing a crime. You have been told in BOTH threads that you are committing a crime. You don't even have the ability to proclaim ignorance, not that it would be a defense. You're attempting to trespass on the property as well as steal the property (which won't work either). You have no altruistic goals other than your own pathological GREED.

Don't be surprised that people here aren't supportive of your pathetic behavior.

See my response in your other thread.

the situation in your neighborhood may or may not be significantly similar to the one in Texas. In that case, it appears that the occupier definitively identified the two title holders, one of which was very unlikely to return (owner underwater in loan and having deliberately abandoned property), and the other, a mortgage company no longer existent with the asset (the mortgage) apparently having not been sold to another mortgagor. That possessor weighed the risk of the original homeowner returning to eject him and decided it was sufficiently minimal.

Also, the story implies that the occupier need only file a form with a fee of $16 with the local government to declare his intention of building a title claim based on possession and that keeps all but the record title owners off his back. Each state approaches AP differently. CA has no such form and no such law to give a level of validity to one's trespass.

The info you found on the Caltrans website is among training materials for those studying for the Professional Land Surveyor's licensing exam. It is designed for a general understanding of when an occupation contrary to the written title location (which surveyors are trained to determine) may represent a valid title claim. Surveyors encountering such a situation cannot conclude the validity of a claim, and generally don't determine if a claim actually has been made based on AP, but must be aware when conditions may support a claim, and often must document the conditions, depending upon the task the surveyor has been engaged for.

That document is not a cookbook for making such a claim, but a guide for recognizing when one may exist. Nothing more.

Adverse possession in CA is most commonly used to clear up conflicting title where written title may overlap and possession/use has become a more important factor than seniority of title, or where the landowners or their predecessors in title had incorrectly placed fences or other physical limits of use and that incorrect placement is doscovered many years later. It is a useful tool for making written title conform to actual possession and use where that possession has existed for many years.

The other historic use was for the freeing of title from those who have truly abandoned the property in favor of those who would put the land to productive use. It was never intended as a means of circumventing the need to purchase title, or a means of depriving absentee landowners from their rightful title. Claims made on such motives are not looked on with favor by the courts.

- - - Updated - - -

Quote:

---

Quoting Lehk

---

not particularly, it would be rare for property taxes to exceed average monthly rent in a market, so it would be a discount rent to own sort of thing

---

Not really. As a necessary part of Open & Notorious occupation, the OP would have to maintain the property as if it were his to maintain. That requires investment. If you read his other thread on the same scenario, you see that he is referring to a very run down home and property in his neighborhood, which would require a very significant investment to restore. Restoring a heavily vandalized property with mold issues will be far more expensive than renting a similar property otherwise in good repair.

If a valid record owner or the law ejects him before he has a chance to perfect his claim into valid title, any such investment is lost. The amount of taxes will be among the smallest portion of the investment.

California is NOT Texas, and you've mischaracturized the Texas law as well.

flyingron, i am sorry if my questions have offended you. i don't see why you insist on returning to call me a criminal. i am not trying to "steal" property or anything of the sort, instead of trying to brand me a "criminal" with repeated short answers calling my morality into question why not offer advice and evidence showing how i have misinterpreted the law?. i don't quite understand your witch hunt against me. everyone is a criminal in some sense. everyone has done something against the law at some point, be it armed robbery, or simply going 67 mph in a 65 mph zone. don't be so quick to judge others

thank you again to everyone who has given helpful answers and insight

You are trying to steal things, you pathological belief that it is not stealing to the contrary.

I and others have told you how you might gain the property WITHIN the law, but you continue to try to weasel your way into thinking that fraud and trespassing is a way to your end. You invent all sorts of altruistic fluff to justify what you are doing, but it is still wrong.