Squatters and Indiana law ?

[Cameramonkey]

i dont know but if i came home with my daughters and some strange guy was in the house i would fear for me and my daughters lives. I think the guy was deffently there to commit a felony no other reason for him to be in MY HOUSE.

Yep. And knowing the gun on my person is not the ONLY gun in the house, how do I know he/she hasnt been in long enough to get control of said extra weapons? Not that I'm going to shoot him in the face just for standing in my living room wearing my robe eating my bag of doritos while Jerry Springer reruns are playing on the TV, but I'm not playing games of "no, this is MY house now, you get out!"

 

[Ahburns]

Without a valid title claim, it sounds like a very very weak attempt at an adverse possession claim by the trespasser. The steps he took: changing the locks, improving the property, openly living there, etc. could be an attempt to satisfy the elements of adverse possession. Too bad for him the statutory period, like in Indiana, is typically ten years. When the family returned, after three weeks, they effectively ousted the trespasser and his comical claim to their title. The best recourse for the family, or someone in a similar circumstance, is through the courts. It is true that the castle doctrine does justify the use of deadly force against a trespasser who threatens life by entering your home. But, it would not apply in this case because YOU are not in your home. The castle doctrine serves to protect the human beings within the castle not the castle itself. The use of deadly force is never justified to protect property alone.

 

[K_W]

Did this happen in California? i wouldn't count on anything coming out of California as reasonable.


If they are in, they are a threat to my life.

This is the story I was remembering, http://www.bizpacreview.com/2014/04...deployed-outrageous-law-lets-them-stay-114403

I had it backwards, it was soilder on deployment who found a family living in his home.

 

[K_W]

It is true that the castle doctrine does justify the use of deadly force against a trespasser who threatens life by entering your home. But, it would not apply in this case because YOU are not in your home. The castle doctrine serves to protect the human beings within the castle not the castle itself. The use of deadly force is never justified to protect property alone.

Yes that is what I was trying to say.

 

[chezuki]

The use of deadly force is never justified to protect property alone.

The use of "reasonable force" is.

I will use "reasonable force" to remove them. How they react to that "reasonable force" will dictate if escalation is required.

 

[K_W]

The use of "reasonable force" is.

Yes, but what is resonable and legal in Indiana against a (in this case) non-violent squatter?

I assume reasonable would be pushing them out, maybe pulling them out with out injuring them, but what about being locked out, can you beak into your home while someone else claims it theirs?

These are honest questions, I have better things to do than troll my favorite forum.

 

[Ahburns]

In this or similar circumstance the remedy is calling the fuzz and going through the court process. Self help by physically removing them yourself sounds reasonable but cannot be achieved without committing assault or battery. In the article both parties believe they have legitimate claim to the property. The courts exist to solve these unclear problems.

 

[actaeon277]

In this or similar circumstance the remedy is calling the fuzz and going through the court process. Self help by physically removing them yourself sounds reasonable but cannot be achieved without committing assault or battery. In the article both parties believe they have legitimate claim to the property. The courts exist to solve these unclear problems.

There is NO "unclear problem".

 

[chezuki]

There is NO "unclear problem".

This. Problem is crystal clear as is the solution.

 

[Mr Evilwrench]

I was under the impression that the very entry of an intruder into your home is sufficient grounds to presume a threat of gross bodily harm or death for castle doctrine purposes, whichever of you is there first. Someone taking up residence in another's house is nothing but an intruder, therefore a threat.

 

[Ahburns]

There is NO "unclear problem".

The last three pages spent discussing this complicated and strange set of circumstances suggests otherwise.

 

[actaeon277]

Its unclear, only because people allow it to be.
You can not move into someone's house and "squat" while they go to the mall.
Loss of ownership takes a long time. This didn't.

 

[K_W]

I was under the impression that the very entry of an intruder into your home is sufficient grounds to presume a threat of gross bodily harm or death for castle doctrine purposes, whichever of you is there first. Someone taking up residence in another's house is nothing but an intruder, therefore a threat.

Only if you are preventing or terminating the unlawful entry. The question is if someone has already entered and will not leave, citing their claimed residency or even ownership, which would be trespass / unlawful occupancy / theft of personal and/or real property... none of which fall under castle doctrine, and to my understanding of the law would prevent you from forcing them to leave... which is why I asked; What do you do?

Taking them to court is ridiculous, and I am hoping someone knows what Indiana actually says on the matter.

 

[chezuki]

The last three pages spent discussing this complicated and strange set of circumstances suggests otherwise.

1 page... not complicated... intruder... proceed to "intruder flowchart".

 

[HeadlessRoland]

Can someone please just shoot some squatters in their house so we can start developing a body of caselaw? Anyone? Anyone with the courage of their convictions?

No? What's that? You don't feel like becoming the test case for shooting (and possibly killing) some vagrants living in your home? Well. I never!

 

[actaeon277]

Can someone please just shoot some squatters in their house so we can start developing a body of caselaw? Anyone? Anyone with the courage of their convictions?

No? What's that? You don't feel like becoming the test case for shooting (and possibly killing) some vagrants living in your home? Well. I never!

Seems to me, I remember a soldier came back to this. Some bikers "straightened" things out with the squatter.

 

[churchmouse]

Can someone please just shoot some squatters in their house so we can start developing a body of caselaw? Anyone? Anyone with the courage of their convictions?

No? What's that? You don't feel like becoming the test case for shooting (and possibly killing) some vagrants living in your home? Well. I never!

As I posted.....it would not get that far. My neighbors would have this dealt with before my return. If not, there would be hell to pay.

 

[churchmouse]

Seems to me, I remember a soldier came back to this. Some bikers "straightened" things out with the squatter.

Bikers are usefull folks to know.

If you cal LEO in before you act to remove you are "Stuck" in the system as you have admitted you are aware they are not life threatening intruders. If they are duct taped up in the front yard when LEO arrives it is a far different set of circumstances.

 

[Mr Evilwrench]

Some questions are better left unanswered, or even better unasked.

 

[JetGirl]

Bikers are usefull folks to know.

It's always good to have access to a club.










;-)