Man buys $330 000 home for $16

[loco365]

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]

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

 

[Vulpes Abnocto]

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]

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

 

[Sir-Fritz]

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

 

[Nebz]

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]

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]

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]

heres the full story

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.

The house was in foreclosure, the owner abandoned it, and the mortgage company went under. That's when Robinson swooped in after looking into a law called adverse possession.

Now, the owner would have to pay his mortgage debt and the bank would have to file a lawsuit to get Robinson out.

After three years of staying in the house, Texas law says he can petition the court for the deed.

"I want to be owner of record. At this point, because I possess it, I am the owner," Robinson said.

Neighbors like Leigh Lowrie aren't happy.

She said, "If he wants the house, buy the house like everyone else had to. Get the money, buy the house."

This is how the law works in Texas, so make sure you call your attorney before trying it in Colorado.

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

 

[DeMoN]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[FireGrey]

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

 

[Creqaw]

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]

If you knew that you could buy a home like this, would you take advantage of it?
Yes.
QUOTEDo 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]

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]

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

 

[InuYasha]

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]

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.

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?

1. He can, the land is his already.
2. Nothing. The house is nobody's anyways.
3. Ever heard of water bowls and soap?

QUOTEI 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.

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.