Forums > General > General Forum

1 2 View All

Rolly

Apr 4, 2009, 3:54 PM

Post #1 of 26 (4971 views)

Shortcut

105 Families Evicted in Torreón

Can't Post | Private Reply

Yesterday (Good Friday) 105 families were evicted in Torreón.
They were squatters in a nearly completed development.

What a way to spend Easter -- sleeping under the stars.

Rolly Pirate

Rolly

Apr 4, 2009, 4:24 PM

Post #2 of 26 (4956 views)

Shortcut

Re: [Rolly] 105 Families Evicted in Torreón

Can't Post | Private Reply

OOPS. Easter is next week. It's DST that's tomorrow.

Rolly Pirate

ms mac

Apr 4, 2009, 5:52 PM

Post #3 of 26 (4935 views)

Shortcut

Re: [Rolly] 105 Families Evicted in Torreón

Can't Post | Private Reply

Well, Rolly, maybe Palm Sunday makes it even more poignant.
ms mac

donemry

Apr 5, 2009, 5:05 AM

Post #4 of 26 (4892 views)

Shortcut

Re: [Rolly] 105 Families Evicted in Torreón

Can't Post | Private Reply

Yes, some sympathy is due to these people. However, there is another side. They were occupying property they neither owned or rented and did so without permission of the owner. Did they expect this act to go unnoticed? How is this different from stealing? Does not the property owner deserve some sympathy also?

La Isla

Apr 5, 2009, 10:36 AM

Post #5 of 26 (4848 views)

Shortcut

Re: [donemry] 105 Families Evicted in Torreón

Can't Post | Private Reply

This is a very complicated situation. On the one hand, all of these people are now out on the street. On the other hand, they were squatters, living in buildings that were not their own. From what you can see in the photo that Rolly posted, with all the furniture and other household items they've accumulated, that they've been there a long time. Did they expect that they would be able to stay there indefinitely? Had they been given warnings to leave by the local government? How could construction go on all around them with nobody noticing that they were there? How long had the whole thing been going on?

Gringal

Apr 5, 2009, 12:36 PM

Post #6 of 26 (4829 views)

Shortcut

Re: [La Isla] 105 Families Evicted in Torreón

Can't Post | Private Reply

I understand that evicting squatters is not easy. In San Miguel, there was a large lot in the downtown area being used as a paid parking lot. It turned out that the "parking lot owner" was a squatter and the eviction process had been going on for several years. He finally vacated.

Rolly

Apr 6, 2009, 1:46 PM

Post #7 of 26 (4746 views)

Shortcut

Update

Can't Post | Private Reply

The news stories have been pretty short of details, but it appears that some had been there for good while. The developer had run out of money before he completed all the units in a rather large development. Some houses had been finished, sold and occupied. The unfinished units were in various states from almost completed to lacking doors and windows. Many of the squatters had made major improvements to their houses - adding doors, windows, kitchen sinks, etc.

When the developer secured new financing, he began the process of eviction. He got a court order on 15 Jan that was served on the people last Friday.

Now that the squatters have left, a roving band of thugs has wrecked many of the empty units. Both the neighbors and the police agree that it was not the evicted families that returned to devastate the property. This roving gang has been a problem in the area for some time.

Rolly Pirate

alex .

Apr 7, 2009, 2:56 PM

Post #8 of 26 (4658 views)

Shortcut

Re: squatters rights

Can't Post | Private Reply

I have heard anecdotal stories of squatters given rights to a property. The arguement in their favor went something like this:" If you are so wealthy that you have properties that you don't even occupy, then clearly the squatter has a greater need than you do." Does anyone know of a real life example?
Alex

Rolly

Apr 7, 2009, 3:48 PM

Post #9 of 26 (4646 views)

Shortcut

Re: [alex .] squatters rights

Can't Post | Private Reply

It is possible for a squatter to gain ownership of a property if the squatter has occupied the property for a long period during which the rightful owner has made no effort to evict the squatter. I don't know what the law defines as the time period. Chances are it varies by state.

In my town there is a wealthy and well connected country club with a golf course that has impinged on land belonging to the Edijo Lerdo. The club and the edijo have been at odds over this for years. From time to time, the edijo mounts a mass demonstration in order to pressure the club and to be sure that the matter does not fall into "squatter's rights." A few months ago the edijo made a very large push and finally got the club to promise to pay for the land. No money yet, but there is hope.

Squatter's ownership might be thought of as common law ownership, like common law marriage.

Rolly Pirate

jreboll

Apr 7, 2009, 7:40 PM

Post #10 of 26 (4618 views)

Shortcut

Re: [Rolly] squatters rights

Can't Post | Private Reply

Reminds me of something that happened to my wife's aunt.
She had bought a piece of land in a new subdivision and when she went back a few years later to look at it she saw that the landmarks had been taken away. She tried talking to the neighbors to see where the property lines were and no one knew anything. An old friend provided the solution. He told her to hire a couple of guys and go out there and go through the motions of building a fence making sure that you are well into the neighbors' properties. Before long your neighbors will show up and help you make the proper adjustments. She did this and it worked.

bournemouth

Apr 8, 2009, 6:48 AM

Post #11 of 26 (4598 views)

Shortcut

Re: [jreboll] squatters rights

Can't Post | Private Reply

That solution is brilliant in its simplicity.

Carron

Apr 8, 2009, 8:00 AM

Post #12 of 26 (4588 views)

Shortcut

Re: [alex .] squatters rights

Can't Post | Private Reply

When we first moved to Chiapas we found an ideal property to buy: a couple of acres, all behind high walls, a well, lots of fruit trees, and a beautiful old L-shaped adobe hacienda with verandas all around. And the price was right. We made a handshake deal with the elderly owner, who was selling because he had cancer, and made an appointment with a notario publico. The rooms of the house were occupied by families, not all of whom were paying rent, but the owner assured us he would have them out in time for us to move our family in.

We were then told by another lawyer that it would be extremely difficult to evict the current tenants, even those without a lease and rental history. It might actually be required that in order to make them move we, as new owners, might have to provide them with other living arrangements of equal or better quality.

Friends offered a more practical solution: we should just move into the vacant areas of the house ourselves and make ourselves as obnoxious as possible. The trespassers would be intimidated enough that they were having to live alongside crazy gringos and would soon move of their own volition. This was the option we were going for.

Fortunately, the matter was moot when it turned out the old man had bought the property in the names of his daughters when they were babies. As adults they were now scattered to the winds, primarily somewhere NOB, and he could not get in touch with them. They, not he, were the legal owners and he could not sell.

Rosalinemg

Apr 17, 2009, 11:29 AM

Post #13 of 26 (4413 views)

Shortcut

Re: [alex .] squatters rights

Can't Post | Private Reply

I too have heard of this. Don't know anyone personally that this has happened to but heard many tales of those that it did. Have also been told that many of the colonias is the cities started out by people squatting on land and claiming rights after a period of time. We have squatters that live along the railroad tracks here in my colonia and they have been there for a number of years judging by the way they have settled in.
We did have a problem when we bought our house. After signing the papers and handing over the money we agreed to allow the former owner 2 weeks to get out because we weren't moving to for that period. Big mistake!

When the 2 weeks were up she was still in the house. What's more she had the keys. We talked to the lawyer and he said we couldn't do anything because we had told her she could stay. We were not about to take this as final. So we started to move right in with her. One day she had to go out so we told her to leave the keys with us. Her mistake!

While she was gone we had every lock in the house changed and refused to give her any keys. She was pretty mad but was gone by the end of that week. Took every light bulb, and even a rusty bottle opener that was screwed to the wall.

We went back to the lawyer and told him we got her out, and how. He laughed so much he almost peeded his pants and said that he had never had anyone win that one so easily. He also said that he will pass that on to anyone having the same problem. Which from what I gather is quite common here in Mexico.

So the lessong from this: If you buy here don't pay the final payment until the owner has vacated - period. They have some crazy laws here and possession is 9/10s of the law no matter who is the legal owner.

mazatlanlee

Apr 17, 2009, 12:19 PM

Post #14 of 26 (4405 views)

Shortcut

Re: [Rosalinemg] squatters rights

Can't Post | Private Reply

That's hilarious, Rosalinemg.... we're gonna have to meet at one of Mazatlan's beach-front palapa restaurants one day so you can explain to me how you managed to survive with two women claiming the same cocina!! You oughta write a book on that one!! Lee
Lee's Photos: Beyond the Guardrails

Marlene

Apr 18, 2009, 9:27 PM

Post #15 of 26 (4304 views)

Shortcut

Re: [mazatlanlee] squatters rights

Can't Post | Private Reply

A friend of mine found a good deal and went ahead with the purchase, but as it turned out the wife refused to move out on agreed possession day. It took her more than a year to get possession of her house through many concessions after the fact. To add insult to injury and even though she had a reputable notary, she is still paying (two years later) for the former owner's financed fridge and air conditioner billed on her monthly CFE (electric) bill! Surprise. Details, details.

Georgia

Apr 19, 2009, 10:19 AM

Post #16 of 26 (4267 views)

Shortcut

Re: [Rolly] squatters rights

Can't Post | Private Reply

In the US it's called "adverse possession": the use of the land that is not titled to the squatter in New York State is defined as "open, notorious, and exclusive" and the squatter must occupy and possess as if it were his own. The period changes according to the state. If memory serves me correctly in New York it was ten years.

La Isla

Apr 19, 2009, 5:57 PM

Post #17 of 26 (4228 views)

Shortcut

Re: [Marlene] squatters rights

Can't Post | Private Reply

In Reply To

Marlene

Apr 19, 2009, 9:34 PM

Post #18 of 26 (4199 views)

Shortcut

Re: [La Isla] squatters rights

Can't Post | Private Reply

CFE allows financing on new energy-efficient appliances (they arrange and finance the purchase somehow; my mother-in-law has a new fridge also) and the payments are monthly and are reflected on the electricity bill. The appliances, in my friend's case, were not part of the purchase agreement, something not unusual here. The big surprise came when her first electric bill arrived and she realized she was paying for someone's appliances for what appears to be a very long time! She says that at this point there is nothing she can do but pay off the former owners debt with the electric company. It's that or the electricity gets cut. Is this something the Notario should have caught? Who knows, but it's something to be aware of.

esperanza

Apr 20, 2009, 9:11 AM

Post #19 of 26 (4151 views)

Shortcut

Re: [Marlene] squatters rights

Can't Post | Private Reply

In Reply To

...The appliances, in my friend's case, were not part of the purchase agreement, something not unusual here...

Marlene, what does this mean? The payments are part of the electric bill but not part of the purchase agreement between CFE and the person who bought the appliances? I don't understand what you're saying.

http://www.mexicocooks.typepad.com

Marlene

Apr 20, 2009, 9:30 AM

Post #20 of 26 (4147 views)

Shortcut

Re: [esperanza] squatters rights

Can't Post | Private Reply

No, what I meant was the appliances were not part of the purchase agreement between my friend who bought the house and the people who sold it to her. She bought an empty house, to be renovated, and was not expecting anything to be left behind. They even took the toilet when they finally moved out! What she wasn't expecting was this situation with CFE that surfaced upon receiving her first electrical bill. It's something to be aware of when purchasing a home here. CFE was not sympathetic and she is still paying for someone elses new appliances, 2 1/2 years later.

Gringal

Apr 20, 2009, 10:10 AM

Post #21 of 26 (4135 views)

Shortcut

Re: [Marlene] squatters rights

Can't Post | Private Reply

The word "supposed to" enters. The Notario is supposed to ensure that all the utilities have been separated when a new owner takes title.

As we discovered, this does not always happen as it "should". Your friend may get some satisfaction by leaning on the Notario in this case.
CFE often has an attitude problem.

Marlene

Apr 20, 2009, 10:45 AM

Post #22 of 26 (4127 views)

Shortcut

Re: [Gringal] squatters rights

Can't Post | Private Reply

She has decided to cut her losses at this point. There is no way she will ever recover her money. (She keeps paying each month or she won't have electricity.) She has spoken to the Notario about it all, but remember there was nothing that could even be done to get them out of her house on the possession date. The whole thing turned into a bit of a mess. A court order, which apparently would take between a year and two years to shuffle through the slow-moving system, would have been a waste of time and money. These are the pitfalls. Incidentally, the Notario did do the change of name on the CFE account, which is why she is kind of stuck now. To CFE it appears as if she accepted the debt during the name change. The account was current at the time of the sale so this little detail didn't jump out at anyone.

Willie1

Apr 20, 2009, 11:03 AM

Post #23 of 26 (4121 views)

Shortcut

Re: [Marlene] squatters rights

Can't Post | Private Reply

When I was still selling real estate here in Mazatlan, we ALWAYS made sure there was nothing on the former owner's electric bill except the electricity charges. All the notario is required to do is to make sure that the utilities are current. We did discover the same situation one time & the seller had to pay that off before closing. We even would personally go down to the phone company to check for unpaid charges there...found lots of interesting things over the years!

Willie

Marlene

Apr 20, 2009, 11:18 AM

Post #24 of 26 (4118 views)

Shortcut

Re: [Willie1] squatters rights

Can't Post | Private Reply

Excellent case for using a realtor, rather than buying privately. :-)

ken_in_dfw

Apr 20, 2009, 11:43 AM

Post #25 of 26 (4111 views)

Shortcut

Re: [Marlene] squatters rights

Can't Post |

Yikes! Well, THAT'S one aspect of life in Mexico that I think I could do without!

I never thought it was possible - but CFE makes the deregulated electrical market in Texas look good. And that is truly saying something.

1 2 View All