patrick.net

Tax implications?

That doesn't make sense. What do you mean "tax implications"?

You aren't going to have interest payments to deduct. So your tax "bill" is going to be higher if you can't write off your interest on your mortgage.

However, WHO CARES. You don't make mortgage payments, so you save that money.

Are you referring to getting hit with a big tax bill cause you got a house without a mortgage or something?

None.

Unless you sell the house, then maybe your taxed, but aren't you able to sell your primary residence up to $500,000 tax free?

Larry

larrypatrickmaloney says

I have completed two adverse possessions. It does work, you just have to do it correctly.
As far as the owner of record, who is the owner? The home owner or the bank?
In any event, you can always collaborate with someone else. You can “swap” your house with someone else, who is in the same position.
I think the courts would grant a clean title to a homeowner, who’s been in foreclosure for five years. Some remedy would be considered by the courts.

Maybe you can explain in detail what you did then because from your posts you don't really seem to understand what adverse possession is, so it seems unlikely that you would be able to pull it off.

If Larry can't answer his own question about who the owner of record is, there is zero chance he pulled off an adverse possession. The owner of record is the person who was deeded the house last. The bank is only a mortgagee unless and until it forecloses (not when it sends a notice of foreclosure but when it actually forecloses). Bottom line, talk to a lawyer and get some real advice before spending 5 years of your life trying to pull off something someone mentioned on a message board.

larryp says

Now, I debated about writing this publicly, because I want to jealously guard this “open secret” to my advantage.

Dear Penthouse:
I never thought this could happen to me, but...

@larrypatrickmaloney: How can you have "completed two adverse possessions," as you say, and not know whether the bank or the home owner is the owner of the record?

ellie--

Very nice. that made me laugh.

tatupu70 says

ellie–
Very nice. that made me laugh.

Thanks - I had a whole scenario in my head, but realized that less is more. :)

uvafitz says

If Larry can’t answer his own question about who the owner of record is, there is zero chance he pulled off an adverse possession. The owner of record is the person who was deeded the house last. The bank is only a mortgagee unless and until it forecloses (not when it sends a notice of foreclosure but when it actually forecloses). Bottom line, talk to a lawyer and get some real advice before spending 5 years of your life trying to pull off something someone mentioned on a message board.

My response was more rhetorical than practical.

The owner of record is the homeowner, but the bank has a lien on the property.

So, who is the REAL owner. (The bank is). Until the house is paid off, the bank really owns the property, and can take the house back.

If the house is in your name, then you need to find someone else who can adversely possess your house.

larrypatrickmaloney says

So, who is the REAL owner. (The bank is). Until the house is paid off, the bank really owns the property, and can take the house back.

Um, not to put a fine point on this, but no they are not. They cannot take the house back--unless you fail to follow the terms of the loan.

You own the house. The bank has a contract with you with the house as backing.

Sounds like stealing to me....of course that's the culture of today though. Something for nothing, something for nothing. Seems like everywhere I turn I hear that the key to happiness is "Something for nothing." The only key to bettering yourself is abandoning the hope of getting something for nothing. People that get too caught up in this type of greed forget that if they're getting something for nothing, somebody else is losing their shirt...which exposes the "Something for nothing" culture for what it is: selfishness. So go ahead and ruin our culture for your kids and grandkids by teaching them that selfishness is your life motto, thus perpetuating the belief in your kids and grandkids only to find out one day that you've been aspiring to things which cannot satisfy.

jeffweichers says

Sounds like stealing to me….of course that’s the culture of today though. Something for nothing, something for nothing. Seems like everywhere I turn I hear that the key to happiness is “Something for nothing.” The only key to bettering yourself is abandoning the hope of getting something for nothing. People that get too caught up in this type of greed forget that if they’re getting something for nothing, somebody else is losing their shirt…which exposes the “Something for nothing” culture for what it is: selfishness. So go ahead and ruin our culture for your kids and grandkids by teaching them that selfishness is your life motto, thus perpetuating the belief in your kids and grandkids only to find out one day that you’ve been aspiring to things which cannot satisfy.

Greedy? The bank is the greedy one.

Look, if you are stuck in limbo, for five years, and the bank isn't even bothering to foreclose on you, then what is the home owner to do?

Another method, one could use, is just save all your mortgage payments. If after five years, the house finally goes to foreclosure, go to the auction with your saved cash, and bid against the bank.

By that time, the property will have probably dropped enough that you can buy it from the bank at the reduced price at the auction.

Ok, Larry. Time to move on to reality.

Well said Camping.

Larry, I think you should work with Tom Vu, you might be able to come up with a new system he could advertise.

camping says

Ok, Larry. Time to move on to reality.

Sure, that is why I use my real name, and I don't hide behind an alias.

"Go camping" ha!

larrypatrickmaloney says

camping says

Ok, Larry. Time to move on to reality.

Sure, that is why I use my real name, and I don’t hide behind an alias.
“Go camping” ha!

Larryp:

It seems hokey. If it works for you, that's cool. But obviously many of us don't believe you or don't care. You'll obviously never win, at least here. IMHO, of course.

WTHeck???!!!

I just can't, for the life of me, imagine living like some squatter in a house waiting for the sheriff to move me out and throw all my things out in the street where other animals and savages can go through it and pick and choose while I run around looking for a truck to move my things. I realize that some people put themselves or are put into such situations through hard~luck and loss of jobs and/or illness etc. The majority of these people just should never own houses, condos etc. But to actually sit around and ponder how one will take/steal a house from a legal owner is beyond me.

Don't you have any decency? Don't you care about the trauma and humiliation your family will have to endure when they are thrown out into the street with all the neighbors watching? Does such a scenario not concern you? I guess if you are used to living like an animal you probably don't think it's wrong to go into a supermarket and just start eating food items as long as you walk out with the food in your belly~~~hey 'it's not stealing'. I suppose you consider anyone and everyone who owns something YOU want to be 'greedy'. The banks are 'greedy' because they give you a loan and they charge interest for their service? Besides, banks may not be moving people out of foreclosures because of several reasons~~~most of which have been discussed on this forum, ad nauseum. 'Forgetfulness' is not a way that I would describe banks and bankers. They have their reasons for doing things and their own time schedules. Furthermore, how would you feel if someone did this to you? You own a house, out of town, and hold the mortgage and someone comes and moves in and adversely takes possession~~~I suppose you would be all right with it since the owner is 'greedy' and only the squatter is free from greed or malice.

I also read that you don't have to pay taxes because taxes are unconstitutional. *tin hat time

PS

My comments are not a response to the OP, per se, but just my opinion of people who think that 'scheming' should be an inspiration.

OK gang, here is a great story on how this is done! :)

http://www.infowars.com/toledo-man-streams-foreclosure-occupation-over-internet/

You live in your house, bank forecloses, they take title/deed, and you remain in the house against their will.

If you can do it long enough, you can get your house back, without the mortgage.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JgrdaUERGw

Jeff if the bank doesn't care about the property, then perhaps they have abandoned it. But of course we know that they will likely come in before 5 years, although they hate to mark to market, which is what this all is about.

Wanted to follow up on my original post, and provide an interesting article.

In case I wasn't clear, if you are foreclosed upon, you should try to stay in the house. Fight to stay, and if you can stay for five years after foreclosure, you have a case for adverse possession.

Also, check out this article:

http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/05/24/1645122/new-rule-says-banks-must-prove.html?story_link=patrick.net

Looks like people are wising up! Maybe my original post is where people had their "secret" meeting. http://www.americanbanker.com/bulletins/-1025519-1.html?source=patrick.net#most-emailed-list

larrypatrickmaloney says

,p>In any event, you can always collaborate with someone else. You can “swap” your house with someone else, who is in the same position.

Collusion and fraud. Great way try and steal a home. Brilliant.

Adverse means against the owners wishes. If the lien holder allows you to stay, it is not adverse.

We have to wait 4 more ...

Nomograph says

Well, it's been well over a year since this was posted. How many people got their free house?

The original post doesn't make sense. All the bankster has to do is say "you are permitted to live here while we are considering foreclosure." It defeats being "adverse."

Nomograph says

LarryPatrickBaloneyPony says

Free house for any deliquent CA mortgage owner.

Now it's been a year and a half since the Balony Pony's original "Listen closely" post.

(1) Where are all the free houses? WHERES MY FREE HOUSE LARRY?

(2) As an upstanding Tea Party member (special emphasis on member), why do you expect the courts (i.e. the government) to give you a free house?

Let other pens dwell on guilt and misery -- Jane Austen

You have to find the houses, sorry, not going to do the work for you.

Many people started defaulting in 2008, so we are three years into some potential adverse possession cases.

Also, I don't think it really matters if a bank gives you permission to stay in your own house.

If the bank doesn't pay the property taxes, which is a burden they have to bear while foreclosing on a home owner. The whole point was, if the bank doesn't pay the taxes, and YOU do, you have a legitimate claim.

The process is know as "quieting the title". At any point, a homeowner could petition a court (here in CA, it would be the Superior Court that has jurisdiction of your house )

LarryPatrickMaloney says

Also, I don't think it really matters if a bank gives you permission to stay in your own house.

Yes, it does -- if the bank says, "you can stay in the house until we foreclose," it's not adverse. In order for adverse possession to occur, the possession must actually be adverse.

Also note that you generally can't adversely possess your own house. It's not adverse.

This whole thing is basically nonsense, and any court would throw it out of court for unclean hands. Even if the law supported this interpretation (care to provide us case law?), which it doesn't to my knowledge, it's bad faith to try to eliminate a mortgage this way anyway.

Larry you are confused here. Adverse possession will only work if something is completely abandoned. AP of an abandoned shack in the middle of a desert used for drug smuggling operations is nothing to write home about.

FortWayne says

Larry you are confused here. Adverse possession will only work if something is completely abandoned. AP of an abandoned shack in the middle of a desert used for drug smuggling operations is nothing to write home about.

Quality Auto Repair Since 1979

Nope, I'm not confused. I've done it twice. Once succesfully, another time... "almost" :)

Of course the property has to be empty, or at least not occupied by other people. Otherwise it would be trespassing.

Patrick posted an article today about a lady who has managed to stretch her foreclosure out.

http://www.dailyfinance.com/2011/10/18/how-to-stretch-out-a-home-foreclosure-for-years/?source=patrick.net

This lady makes that lady look like an utter amateur. How about staying in the house for 25 years?

ptiemann says

LarryPatrickMaloney says

[..]

Nope, I'm not confused. I've done it twice. Once succesfully, another time... "almost" :)

Of course the property has to be empty, or at least not occupied by other people. Otherwise it would be trespassing.

[..]

Ok. I will bite. Post where you have successfully taken adverse possession.

County name and APN please, or, if this happens to be improved property, a street address.

You claimed to be posting under your real name (just as I do.. just google my id). I appreciate the honesty of forum members posting under their real name. I will appreciate your posts once you clarify your successful adverse possession.

No.

LarryPatrickMaloney says

Nope, I'm not confused. I've done it twice. Once succesfully, another time... "almost" :)

You may well have obtained a house by adverse possession, but you certainly didn't get your own mortgage removed by adverse possession.

That's probably why you said this:

LarryPatrickMaloney says

Of course the property has to be empty, or at least not occupied by other people. Otherwise it would be trespassing.

You were adversely trying to possess empty houses in which you were squatting. That's easy to do. The mortgage nonsense you stated above is not.

LarryPatrickMaloney says

No.

hahahahahaha

This is really a myth.

There is almost no one. ZERO. that has done this sucessfully in the last 10 years and where its a decent area as far as I know.

Its like the 'you dont have to pay income taxes, its unconstitutional myth'. just try it.

ptiemann says

It's quite interesting to observe the errors that assessor and recorder's office make.

ptiemann says

But people doing basic record search using web sites like ForeclosureRadar.com or RPRecord Search will be misled.

Are you sure it's the assessor/recorder making the error and not ForeclosureRadar or other site?

ptiemann says

A preliminary title report (issued by Chicago Title) also shows me as the owner.

ptiemann says

Chicago Title thinks the previous owner still has it.

If a title report is showing you, are you absolutely sure that your LLC owns it? Maybe I'm not understanding the difference between a "preliminary" title report as opposed to a proper title report? It seems odd that a title company would get this wrong.

ptiemann says

The big title companies have their own 'in-house' database which is effectively a copy of the recorder's data. They update their database periodically. Daily? I don't know.

Actually, I think it might be daily for the biggest companies. I think I remember reading something about a legal case that implicated this recently and said that the title company was getting a CD with the data every day.

I'm surprised to hear that your experience with title companies includes many erroneous title reports. Considering that title insurance probably has the lowest payouts of any insurance, I find it odd that they're so lax.

Also didn't know that the prelim is the same software as ForeclosureRadar -- that explains the similar errors.

PockyClipsNow says

This is really a myth.

There is almost no one. ZERO. that has done this sucessfully in the last 10 years and where its a decent area as far as I know.

Its like the 'you dont have to pay income taxes, its unconstitutional myth'. just try it.

Oh really?

http://www.wimp.com/manbuys/?source=patrick.net

IANAL - but wouldn't he have to be paying the taxes on the house in order to have an adverse possession claim?

Nomograph says

LarryPatrickMaloney says

Oh really?

Didn't you see your own link? He didn't get ownership, HE IS JUST SQUATTING. He doesn't own shit, he just filed a piece of paper.

Why is it that bums, mooches, and freeloaders like Larry Patrick Maloney feel they are entitled to free houses?

Here's some advice from Uncle Nomo: Get a job, sir.

great advice, in my opinion. How are you getting along Doc?

Thought this was flame war but it's been going on for over a year now it seems...

My question pretty much is what if someone does not know who specifically is the bank? Given how much has been consolidated and sold to other banks it isn't always as clear as what some might think. If there is just one bank and they are assured it is just that bank then this should be simple.

This might also apply in Texas. A man bought a house for $16!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsW-qDCA-oU

On the same level there is a thing called a tax lien certificate in that if someone doesn't pay property taxes they put a lien up at auction. If you buy it (assuming you win) you are paying those property taxes. The debtor has a given period of time to pay it off plus a penalty of interest to you. If they don't pay it then you get the house. This process varies all over the place depending on the state and some states vary by the locality. In RI it is 10% and a addition 1% each month for the next six months. Even if they can suddenly pay it off the next day they still legally have to give you 10%. There are groups that did this for investment purposes (16% solution - a book details this but it's 20 years old). Now it is iffy for an investment unless you really want to put money into these houses and flip them.