Homeless woman was living inside Michigan rooftop store sign with computer, coffee maker - eviltoast
  • xmunk@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    14
    ·
    6 months ago

    They behaved kindly because they were in the wrong - it’s almost certain that if they’d used force and she’d resisted that it’d end up in front of a judge and she would be able to claim the area as a residence.

      • xmunk@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        14
        ·
        6 months ago

        There are laws about squatters rights in the US and they likely qualified under them.

        • andrewta@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          19
          ·
          6 months ago

          I would be extremely surprised if squatters rights apply to a commercial business premises.

          • dual_sport_dork 🐧🗡️@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            13
            ·
            6 months ago

            Correct, and Squatter’s Rights are meant to apply to properties abandoned by their owners, i.e. they’re meant to prevent absentee landowners from just hoarding buildings wherever and never visiting or maintaining them. Or traditionally, if a property owner has died with no next of kin, or someone believed they inherited a property from a dead relative and this was not contested. Somebody simply hiding in a thoroughly used and very much frequented and maintained building in such a way that they’ve managed to escape notice for some amount of time doesn’t allow them to magically put the deed in their name.

            To make a successful claim this woman would have had to occupy the premises for 15 years, or do so for 10 years while also paying the property taxes on it. Further, their occupation has to be “open and notorious,” i.e. it cannot be in secret (she failed that requirement right off the bat) and occupation must be exclusive, i.e. others don’t have access to the property. That requirement was obviously failed as well.

            Relevant statute:

            https://www.legislature.mi.gov/Laws/MCL?objectName=MCL-600-5801