Sooo, what’s the deal here guys? Is the username ‘Ashton Kutcher’ gonna pop up soon? Am I being punked… is this some sort of joke initiation for the new guy? These are all very basic and fundamental definitions. NOW we're debating the 101 definition of trespasser versus adverse possessor?? Even AFTER I’ve provided definitions?!?
@budwad, @Taxing Matters – certainly you know what Google is. All the definitions are out there.
1) From an article at orlandosentinel.com:
“A tenant who remains beyond the end of a lease is considered a "holdover tenant," not a trespasser. Moreover, a tenant's refusal to pay rent may be a breach of the lease for which the landlord may recover damages, but it is not a trespass.” I.E. I am not a trespasser.
2) From Investopedia:
Tenancy at sufferance (also called "estate at sufferance" or "holdover tenancy") arises when a tenant who has a lawful possession of a property (for example, a lease) holds over without the owner's consent. The only difference between a holdover tenant at sufferance and trespasser is that the tenant entered into possession in a legal manner but has now overstayed his or her welcome. I.E. I am not a trespasser.
3) MICHIGAN SPECIFIC REFERENCES (to definition of trespasser):
REVISED JUDICATURE ACT OF 1961 (EXCERPT)
Act 236 of 1961
600.5714 Summary proceedings to recover possession of premises; holding over by tenant or occupant of public housing or by tenant of mobile home park.
(1) A person entitled to possession of premises may recover possession by summary proceedings in the following circumstances:
(f) When a person takes possession of premises by means of a forcible entry, holds possession of premises by force after a peaceable entry, or comes into possession of premises by trespass without color of title or other possessory interest. This remedy is in addition to the remedy of entry permitted under section 5711(3). I.E. I am not a trespasser.
4) MICHIGAN SPECIFIC REFERENCE (to definition of trespasser):
600.2918 Damages for forcible entry and detainer; damages for unlawful interference with possessory interest; exceptions; opening of probate estate; forcible entry or possession by occupant; action for possession; claim for injunctive relief; joinder; waiver; commencement of action; limitations; "owner" defined.
(1) Any person who is ejected or put out of any lands or tenements in a forcible and unlawful manner, or being out is afterwards held and kept out, by force, is entitled to recover 3 times the amount of his or her actual damages or $200.00, whichever is greater, in addition to recovering possession.
(5) An owner's actions do not unlawfully interfere with an occupant's possession of premises if the occupant took possession by means of a forcible entry, holds possession by force, or came into possession by trespass without color of title or other possessory interest. I.E. I am not a trespasser.
Although I’ve already pointed out the following, it appears that there’s a lot of restatement necessary lately:
As a holdover tenant, possessing this parcel of real property in a manner which is adverse to the deed holder’s interest, I am ‘not’ a trespasser as it pertains to the proper and relevant legal definition by virtue of the following:
A) I did not takes possession of the premises by means of a forcible entry – I owned the property, with a certified quit claim deed - a deed registered in the public county seat register of deeds, with full and exclusive possession of said property.
B) I have not held possession of premises by force after a peaceable entry. No person, entity, agent or agency has requested me to leave the property nor made efforts to remove me.
C) I did not come into possession (of the property) by trespass without color of title. As stated, I had deed and title to the property obtained through purchase and consideration.
D) I did not occupy the property without a possessory interest. Obviously, my ownership and title to the property gave me the possessory interest and rights of possession.
So, I don’t know what’s going on here; I'm confident enough that some of you guys are competently intelligent enough to already know these rudimentary basics. But, as the year 2020 goes: It is what it is.
There is also the issue that as you can imagine, this is 'not' a Beverly Hills mansion; if it were he would have certainly claimed it by now. This house is in 'serious' need of some 'serious' repair. As you can also imagine, it would make zero sense for me to spend several hundred dollars, let alone $5-, or $10-, or $40 thousand dollars rehabbing a house which I don't hold title to; a house which could then be repossessed from me the very next day. It's been 10 years now, and it is 'seriously' questionable as to whether this house will be at the point beyond practical restoration is worth it in yet another 14 months. Not to mention that there are other neighboring property issues that need to be addressed like yesterday. So, no - the choice is not really mine to make. I have to be prepared now.
10 years ago, I made a conscious decision to leave - and was willingly ready to hand over the keys and made it clear to purchaser 'A' in an email that he should have purchaser 'B' call me to work out the details. But after BOTH purchaser 'A' (a real estate speculator from Australia) AND 'B' both showed exactly the extent of consideration, or lack thereof, that they would show to the neighbors here by way of their disregard for REPEATED requests to cut the grass, do anything with the property, or even to return ONE single phone call or email message to let us know anything in the last 10 years.... Still waiting for any of those. So, it became apparent that the best caretaker and rightful owner of the property should be me.
There are several other details... such as the fact that at my request an attorney for the county 'did' remove my property from the foreclosure list in 2010 (I already had a Quiet Title action courts regarding prior probate interests, an intestate estate interest, and clouded title)... but then he sent the property to auction anyway without notifying me. It got complicated; and yet 'still' there are a few other details.
AS FAR AS THE LEGALESE IS CONCERNED....
As I pointed out earlier, "title" is a complex issue which is not bound by the mere title at the top of a piece of paper, and I've seen many a judge exemplify that fact. More importantly as I also pointed out earlier: Contrary to some of the 'textbook' or 'academic' opinions here, the REAL WORLD HAPPENINGS are as I've stated already:
* The county treasurer IS already taking back properties on the basis that I've outlined.
* The courts ARE already making determinations that "title" is not determined by tricks, schemes, and other non-relevant devices for people to CONTINUE to abuse the system contrary to the intent of the tax foreclosure process.
I've provided the references to these real world happenings and given the reasons why - but for whatever reason there seems to be many folk here who are stuck in the textbooks. I'm quite confident that getting a court to recognize that the character of title never changed, and for the courts (or the county) to qualify this property (which was in violation of the terms and conditions of sale right from the start) as a tax-sale acquired property would not be a difficult task. THEY ARE ALREADY DOING THIS.
However, all that would accomplish in my case is getting the property put BACK into the system and it likely going BACK to auction... at which time I may get lucky if no one wants to bid significantly on it, or I might not. But I have to be mindful 'if' I were out bid, it is HIGHLY unlikely that I will find yet a 'third' person who buys a property and doesn't even try to take possession of it for years and years. Who does that?