# Man buys $330 000 home for $16



## loco365 (Jul 22, 2011)

In a process called Adverse Possession, a Texan man bought a house for only $16. News video below.

[youtube]DpqKIzxiixc[/youtube]

Neighbors don't like the idea of buying an expensive home for so little, and they want him out.

*If you knew that you could buy a home like this, would you take advantage of it?

Do you think it's fair that he bought such an expensive home for so little?*


----------



## Nujui (Jul 22, 2011)

Well, if it was all fair and legal, then yes.


----------



## Vulpes Abnocto (Jul 22, 2011)

I've been waiting on this story to come to GBAtemp.
From what I've read the guy has to live in the house with no power and no water for three years before it actually 'belongs' to him. Not the easiest of things to do.
But I'm all for sticking it to Big Bank Government.


----------



## dickfour (Jul 22, 2011)

Buy some kerosine lamps and a chemical toilet and I'd be all set. For $16 yell yeah


----------



## Sir-Fritz (Jul 22, 2011)

Wouldn't living in a house with no water be illegal though?


----------



## Nebz (Jul 22, 2011)

I had seen this a few days ago on WSHH. In my opinion, it seem all fair. The home won't actually belong to him for some time. Whether he lasts that long or not it still seems just fine to me.

I understand why some of those people are upset since this man may seemingly be the owner of a home for $16 while they've payed or are paying thousands but damn... They should hop off a bit.

Homie did his homework and I'm glad to see it payed off for him


----------



## SinHarvest24 (Jul 22, 2011)

Vulpes Abnocto said:
			
		

> I've been waiting on this story to come to GBAtemp.
> From what I've read* the guy has to live in the house with no power and no water for three years before it actually 'belongs' to him*. Not the easiest of things to do.
> But I'm all for sticking it to Big Bank Government.


I didn't catch the full story but i don't understand why he has to do that though.


*If you knew that you could buy a home like this, would you take advantage of it?*

Hell yeah, a house real fucking expensive.


*Do you think it's fair that he bought such an expensive home for so little?*

Well according to Vulpes, if the guy have to live in the house with no power and no water for three years. That's no easy task. Even still, if i think it's fair...no.


----------



## Zarcon (Jul 22, 2011)

Living with no power or running water for 3 years is quite a feat.
If he lasts that long and goes uncontested then he deserves the house.

The neighbours may have had to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars with their hard earned money, but at least they got to come home to proper modern living conditions.

This guy still has to work presumably and then comes home to a near empty house with no power or running water.

sinharvest24: At the moment he only _technically_ owns the house.
The original owner who abandoned the place is still the owner so he can't go and activate the power and water so to speak.


----------



## Joe88 (Jul 22, 2011)

heres the full story



			
				QUOTE said:
			
		

> FLOWER MOUND, Texas - Can you imagine paying $16 to live in a $330,000 house? That's the case for a man in Texas.
> 
> Television station WFAA reported Kenneth Robinson is living in the house after he filed paperwork at the courthouse for $16 that says he claims ownership of the abandoned house.
> 
> ...



http://www.9news.com/news/sidetracks/20921...r-330000-house-


----------



## DeMoN (Jul 22, 2011)

So the original owner couldn't pay his mortgage and had to leave but the bank that issued the mortgage went out of business.  
Why didn't the original owner go back?  There's no one to pay his debt to.


----------



## shyam513 (Jul 22, 2011)

I don't see anything wrong with it - I'm all for sticking one to the banks. To be honest, if the law says he can do it, and it's not hurting anyone, why shouldn't he?


----------



## p1ngpong (Jul 22, 2011)

DeMoN said:
			
		

> So the original owner couldn't pay his mortgage and had to leave but the bank that issued the mortgage went out of business.
> Why didn't the original owner go back?  There's no one to pay his debt to.



Yeah I was thinking the same thing after watching that myself. In an ideal world the poor guy who lost his home originally, presumably because of financial trouble should just get his home back. 

I am curious as to how old this law is, every country has antiquated laws on the books that people who do a little research can exploit. Kudos to the guy for being smart enough to exploit the law that way, but at the end of the day he amounts to little more than a vulture. I would be all for his actions if the home was abandoned in other circumstances, but as it is he is just trying to profit through someone else's misfortune.


----------



## Raika (Jul 22, 2011)

Neighbors are jelly of him. Just move on, dammit.


----------



## FireGrey (Jul 22, 2011)

after all that time of living at the house with no water and electricity he would grow sick of the house.


----------



## Creqaw (Jul 22, 2011)

FireGrey said:
			
		

> after all that time of living at the house with no water and electricity he would grow sick of the house.


Well even then, he could just sell it and buy a cheaper one.


----------



## Veho (Jul 22, 2011)

QUOTE said:
			
		

> *If you knew that you could buy a home like this, would you take advantage of it?*
> Yes.
> QUOTE*Do you think it's fair that he bought such an expensive home for so little?*


Eh... 

There are similar laws about arable land. It depends on the country but basically if the owner doesn't claim or use arable land for a set number of years, it defaults to the state or the current occupant. So you can basically start growing lettuce on a patch of abandoned land (mind the zoning regulations), and in X years the land is yours by law (void where not valid). Same thing with houses, I guess. 

As for the original owner, he could have done the same, (had he known the law). Mortgage company goes bust, he moves back in, and in three years he gets the house without paying back the loan. But then he would be getting the stuff he paid for with the mortgage loan, for free. Would _that_ be fair? Eh... 

And the neighbours are just jelly


----------



## Depravo (Jul 22, 2011)

I wonder why the youtube uploader felt it necessary to point out the man was black. It's as if he's implying it would be fine if it was a white guy.


----------



## Deleted member 473940 (Jul 22, 2011)

If the Neighbors are jelly, just tell them to swap homes with him lol.
No Electricity, No water?
Fuck no  -.-


----------



## InuYasha (Jul 22, 2011)

Interesting to say the least but I do wonder about a few things...

1.Can he run something such as a generator for power or is that illegal?
2.What happens if the house gets burned down before the 3 years is up?
3.Where the hell is he gonna take his showers for the next 3 years?


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 22, 2011)

There is nothing illegal about this whole matter and such laws are present not only in America. These laws are "with us" since Ancient Rome ("Usucaptio", "Longi Temporis Praescriptio."), and since most law codes are based more or less on Roman law, we stick with them.

_Res habilis + titulus + fides + possessio + tempus_ are the things necessary in this process, that being "a thing one wants to possess, law title, good will, posessions and time".

The man is simply claiming ownership over something that has no owner, once he pays the court bills ($16) the building is lawfuly his by the time of 3 or so years.



			
				QUOTE said:
			
		

> 1.Can he run something such as a generator for power or is that illegal?
> 2.What happens if the house gets burned down before the 3 years is up?
> 3.Where the hell is he gonna take his showers for the next 3 years?
> 
> ...



That's your interpretation. Jesus, I hate it when people point that out. When will people learn that skin colour is a characteristic like any other and saying that a black person is black is *not* offensive and doesn't imply anything. All it means is, d'uh, the person we're reffering to is black.


----------



## Cyan (Jul 22, 2011)

Zarcon said:
			
		

> Living with no power or running water for 3 years is quite a feat.
> If he lasts that long and goes uncontested *then he deserves the house*.


Fixing : Then he *doesn't need* a house !


----------



## Depravo (Jul 22, 2011)

Foxi4 said:
			
		

> QUOTE said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


But why emphasise it at all? We can see his skin colour in the video. Why not just "Texas Man Buys $300,00(sic) House For $16"? He obviously thought that little detail had an important bearing on the story.

Anyway, I say good on him. If it's all legal and above board then why not? I bet people all over the state are now scouring property records to bag a similar bargain.


----------



## The Pi (Jul 22, 2011)

Would I do it? Hell yeah

Is it fair? First come first served I'd say.

He could just live as normal (where he stayed before) and just wait. $16 never hurts a wallet THAT much.


----------



## Veho (Jul 22, 2011)

Cyan said:
			
		

> Zarcon said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Well he still needs walls and a roof


----------



## Depravo (Jul 22, 2011)

The Pi said:
			
		

> He could just live as normal (where he stayed before) and just wait. $16 never hurts a wallet THAT much.


There's probably a clause that says he has to occupy the property for the full three years.

It wouldn't be so bad I suppose... Just like camping in a really elaborate tent. Get a portable stove and only buy food for your next meal. Pooing and weeing might get a little messy but I'm sure there's a workable solution.

I bet he has friends who will let him go to their's and watch his favourite TV shows, charge his mobile, use their wifi, take a shower etc.


----------



## Sop (Jul 22, 2011)

Jelly of you americans. Here a low-low mid range house is $300 000, hell our family's house is probably worth 800-900 000 now. It only cost about 150K to build.


----------



## Joe88 (Jul 22, 2011)

Depravo said:
			
		

> Foxi4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I looked through the uploaders video's then looked at their favorites
it seems they are a racist


----------



## Pyrmon (Jul 22, 2011)

Sop said:
			
		

> Jelly of you americans. Here a low-low mid range house is $300 000, hell our family's house is probably worth 800-900 000 now. It only cost about 150K to build.


Bought a small house on a big plot of land for 25K. Built a house on it for 170K. Current estimated value: 450K. U jelly?


----------



## Serina (Jul 22, 2011)

I absolutely love this story - that guy is awesome.


----------



## Schlupi (Jul 22, 2011)

That is an epic win for this guy.

My guess is these people want him out because of two reasons:

1. Jelly and butthurt since they paid big $ for their homes and
2. Many white suburban people are racist. They might just be intimidated and offended that this black man "stole" this house. 

They should get over it, and realize how stupid they were for paying full retail.


----------



## KirovAir (Jul 22, 2011)

Lawl, awesome move of the guy.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 22, 2011)

Schlupi said:
			
		

> That is an epic win for this guy.
> 
> My guess is these people want him out because of two reasons:
> 
> ...



That's not exactly how this works. It just so happened that the owner of the house died and had no relatives plus the company he was paying mortgage to was disbanded - a complete coincidence that allows you to use this loophole.

I find it hard to believe that the entire Suburbs area was a subject to this matter, it was only 1 house. It'a a 1 in a 1,000,000 case, but if you DO find a house like that, enjoy squatting for 3 years and take what's rightfuly yours.

As far as 1. and 2. are concerned, wouldn't you be Jelly? Also, you can't steal something that doesn't belong to anyone anymore.


----------



## Ace (Jul 22, 2011)

Schlupi said:
			
		

> 1. Jelly and butthurt since they paid big $ for their homes and
> *2. Many white suburban people are racist. They might just be intimidated and offended that this black man "stole" this house. *


Thank you for addressing this. I can't tell you how much I noticed this when I lived in an American suburb in Bolivia as a kid. It really makes me look down on white, rich suburbian people in general. When I moved to Sweden, the closest I ever got to this stereotype was watching The Boondocks. Now, with Sweden's 4th biggest political party being quite literally Nazi's... I dunno.

As for the guy, I wish him good luck. If he's perseverant and goes through with this, I only hope those white neighbors don't go around chasing him with pitchforks for it.

Given the conditions and his keen eye on the law, I would do the same in his shoes.


----------



## _Chaz_ (Jul 22, 2011)

A bunch of butthurt bitches jealous that they couldn't get their homes for such a deal.

I'm behind this guy 100% and anyone who wants him out needs to stop crying and be a good neighbor (they're bringing down the property value of their own homes).


----------



## doyama (Jul 22, 2011)

http://www.lonestarlandlaw.com/Adverse.html

If you feel like reading a lot of the nitty gritty law stuff.

Basically the document he submitted only 'starts the clock' on the 3/5/10 year statue of limitations. 

As for the water/electricity thing, he can just call up the utilities to have it turned on. The utilities don't care who owns the home long as you pay the bills. He probably scheduled it but, as utility companies are, probably just slow in getting someone out there to turn on everything.


----------



## The Catboy (Jul 22, 2011)

If it's totally legal, then I really don't care.
I hate the fact that he is getting away with getting such an expensive house for so little, but he saw an opportunity and he went for it. Honestly given that chance, I would have gone for it.


----------



## AlanJohn (Jul 22, 2011)

Oh I love texas laws.


----------



## naved.islam14 (Jul 22, 2011)

No, I don't think it's fair because everyone else in the neighborhood had to pay so much for a house, and that guy just paid $16!


----------



## doyama (Jul 22, 2011)

naved.islam14 said:
			
		

> No, I don't think it's fair because everyone else in the neighborhood had to pay so much for a house, and that guy just paid $16!



The circumstances surrounding this are pretty extreme

1) Owner walks away from title
2) Mortage company goes bankrupt

Even then the $16 only starts the clock on the 'squatter' rule. He still has to wait 3 years until he actually can get the title to the home.

Considering the neighbours pretty much 'love' the guy, they might be able to find some weird entity that holds some minor stake in the title to kick the guy out. Or they could just litigate him into oblivion.


----------



## Shinigami357 (Jul 22, 2011)

I don't think there's anything particularly wrong or unfair at all about this. In fact, it's genius [ingenious, even].

[1]  In the eyes of the law, he had done no harm.
[2]  It's keeping a perfectly liveable house in use [i.e. giving shelter], and as far as I'm concerned, that's what a house is for.
[3]  He had not in any way interfered or otherwise harmed the pathetic people in the neighborhood.
[4]  He is being smart, what with the current state of housing.
[5]  He had not compromised the previous owner who had not claimed the property nor the bank [or whatever it was] who had already gone out of business.

Really, I think it is commendable in this day and age, to find a way to earn something [he did pay for it and he does have a few rules to follow] without really ever harming anyone else in the process. I say: f*ck them damn neighbors.


----------



## Wombo Combo (Jul 22, 2011)

So why cant he have water or power in the house?


----------



## SamAsh07 (Jul 22, 2011)

If he got it legally, then why not?? All he needs is a GBA to pass free time


----------



## AlanJohn (Jul 22, 2011)

Wombo Combo said:
			
		

> So why cant he have water or power in the house?


Bills.


----------



## Hakoda (Jul 22, 2011)

That woman's a bitch. She's just pissed that she had to pay full price and that guy was clever enough to take advantage of the situation for less money. 

It's like Guy #1 goes to a book store and buys a book for full price then their friend, Guy #2, buys the same book on Amazon and it's $50 cheaper or something then Guy #1 doesn't want to be friends Guy #2 anymore.


----------



## SamAsh07 (Jul 22, 2011)

Hakoda said:
			
		

> That woman's a bitch. She's just pissed that she had to pay full price and that guy was clever enough to take advantage of the situation for less money.
> 
> It's like Guy #1 goes to a book store and buys a book for full price then their friend, Guy #2, buys the same book on Amazon and it's $50 cheaper or something then Guy #1 doesn't want to be friends Guy #2 anymore.


This. Seriously why can't we all live peacefully and appreciate what others get??


----------



## Wombo Combo (Jul 22, 2011)

AlanJohn said:
			
		

> Wombo Combo said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That doesn't explain anything. He can't afford it? Or the law doesn't allow him to?


----------



## Shinigami357 (Jul 22, 2011)

SamAsh07 said:
			
		

> Hakoda said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Envy and Greed. They're two of the 7 deadly sins. It's like an intrinsic fault of humanity, really.


@Wombo Combo - Meh. This case already proves how weird Texas laws are. I'm chalking it up to more weirdness on their part, LOL.


----------



## Depravo (Jul 22, 2011)

Wombo Combo said:
			
		

> AlanJohn said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Technically he doesn't own the house yet nor is he the legal tenant. Utility suppliers would need an official owner/tenant before providing their services.


----------



## jonesman99 (Jul 22, 2011)

3 years is enough time to flip the house and make BANK!!!! Now this is #WINNING!!!

More power to ya, my brotha!


----------



## steveo1978 (Jul 22, 2011)

Well to get lights and water all he would probably have to prove is that he is a resident at that address. All he would have to do to prove he is a resident of that address is get bills sent there, like a cell phone bill and some other stuff. Also he can probably get the address on his drivers license to reflect the address of that house.

I also think it is pretty racist that posters here think that most suburban white people  are racist. Its funny how people see a white person upset about something s black person is doing and automatically say they are racist, and where in the youtube video does it say that all the neighbors that are pissed are white, maybe that Hispanic people that are pissed are at work. Did you ever think that the neighbors are elitist and not racist?


More on topic: I think the guy deserves the house also. If he had gone to the store and bought a lottery ticket for a dollar and won a few hundred million no one would have complained. He put a lot more effort into getting the house then just buying a lottery ticket.


Edit: Jut like to add that I am not sure if this applies to texas but in North Carolina a place of residence is where a person has cloths and receives mail. An example of what I mean is, ike you have a girlfriend move in with you and she has cloths there and recieves her mail there. A week or 2 later you two get in an argument and you want her to leave. legally you can not kick her out you will have to evict her.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 22, 2011)

Wombo Combo said:
			
		

> AlanJohn said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



To get water and electricity, you need to be a lawful owner of the house. To become a lawful owner of this house, he needs to live in it for 3 years straight.


----------



## HateBreed (Jul 22, 2011)

get a gYm membership and use their shower


----------



## sergster1 (Jul 22, 2011)

Silly rednecks. He DID pay for it. He just got a 99.99466666666667% Discount in price |:


----------



## gumgod (Jul 22, 2011)

I've heard of this before.  It's called "squatter's rights", but I've never heard of anyone getting such an expensive house that way.  Sounds like he knows what he's doing.


----------



## durpy (Jul 22, 2011)

good for him. you've gotta be determined as hell to find, research, and implement a way to legally own a house for $16 bucks. of course the neighbors are jelly, i think i would be as well but w/e let him be, since it was legal.


----------



## KingVamp (Jul 22, 2011)

I didn't understand how people are calling it unfair...specially all stuff he needs to go through. 

If you had a chance like this to get a house for $16 would you say no it isn't fair?


----------



## air2004 (Jul 22, 2011)

The neighbors aren't pissed because he's black , their pissed because they are the ones that will be paying uncle same back for bailing out the banks.
I'm not surprised that this guy knows the law so well though. I wonder how many other times he has tried this and failed.


----------



## nando (Jul 22, 2011)

isn't that how teh west was really won?

anyway, i always fantasized about doing this. i do know of an abandoned property here in oakland and thought about squating. i know the owners never intended to live in and they walked out on their mortgage. the bank no longer exists and it's been over 2 years since anyone has been to that house. anyway, in california you need to squat for 5 years for adverse possession.   

i need to check it out more closely, maybe this can be my first home!


----------



## steveo1978 (Jul 22, 2011)

Foxi4 said:
			
		

> Wombo Combo said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




You just have to be a resident of that address. A person that rents a house is not its owner but they can get the electricity turned on. I have seen where a guy owns a house or is renting it and then the utilities are in a girlfriends name.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 23, 2011)

steveo1978 said:
			
		

> Foxi4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Incorrect. Only the owner of a given building can sign a contract of such nature. If you are renting a house, it's the owner's responsibility to allow you access to electricity and water, not yours. You can't go barging with power drills into someone's house and start installing crap, you need the owner's premission, alternatively, a contract that gives you such privileges.

If the landlord is a nice person though, he'll "allow" you to make modifications. That doesn't mean that from the law's standpoint you can do them.

If the law was as lenient as you expect it to be, I'd have a swimming pool in my room already. Any type of construction works require specific paperwork.


----------



## trumpet-205 (Jul 23, 2011)

From moral perspective adverse possession is negative. But rest assured it is perfectly legal to do so.


----------



## steveo1978 (Jul 23, 2011)

Foxi4 said:
			
		

> steveo1978 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It might be like that there but trust me here you do not have to own the house to get the lights turned on there. My brother rented out a house that he had and the guy that rented it had the lights turned on in the renters name not my brothers.

Edit:
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs...P.16.htm#16.024

It seems to me the guy already owns the house, the state is just allowing 3 years for some to dispute his claims. So after the three years there is nothing no one can do to get him out of the house except to buy it.


----------



## ProtoKun7 (Jul 23, 2011)

Joe88 said:
			
		

> heres the full story
> 
> 
> 
> ...


She's just annoyed because she didn't get the chance.


----------



## ShadowSoldier (Jul 24, 2011)

Sounds like the neighbors are a bunch of rich pricks who think they own everything. 

The man paid $16.00. As far as I'm concerned, he got "the money like everyone else", he just didn't have to get AS much as everyone else. 

The lady should shut her yap. If the guy paid, followed the rules, has papers, he has the law on his side, he's done everything by the books. She should shut up and disappear to the kitchen just because their house set them back a couple grand.


----------

