Squatters Invaded His Mom's House—so He Fought Back
Thanks to "squatters' rights" laws, evicting a squatter can be so expensive and cumbersome that some people simply walk away from their homes.

What if you come home and find strangers living in your house?
I assumed you order the squatters out, and if they resist, call the police, and they will kick them out.
Wrong.
Pro-tenant laws passed by anti-capitalist politicians now protect squatters. If a squatter just lies about having a lease, the police won't intervene.
"It's a civil matter," they'll say. "Sort it out in court."
Great. Court might cost $20,000. Or more. And courts are so slow, eviction might take years.
In my state, New York, homeowners can't even shut off utilities to try to get the squatter out. That's illegal. Worse, once a squatter has been there 30 days, they are legally considered a tenant.
This month, New York City police arrested a homeowner for "unlawful eviction" after she changed locks, trying to get rid of a squatter.
"Squatter rights," also known as "adverse possession" laws, now exist in all 50 states. As a result, evicting a squatter legally is so expensive and cumbersome that some people simply walk away from their homes!
Flash Shelton may have a better idea.
His mom wanted to sell their house after his dad died. But while they were selling it, squatters moved in.
Shelton did what I would have done—called the police. But the police said there was nothing they could do.
So he tried a new tactic: out-squat the squatter.
"I just felt, if they can take a house, I can take a house," Shelton says in my new video. "I could go in as the squatter myself, [and] gain possession of the property."
When the home invader left for a few hours, Shelton went in and changed the locks. Only then did the squatters leave.
Now Shelton's started a business, SquatterHunters.com, where he tries to help others get their houses back.
"People think of squatters as homeless, destitute," I say.
"They are not homeless," answers Shelton. "They're criminals…people taking advantage of the system."
In fact, one squatter he pushed out was Adam Fleischman, who started the Umami Burger restaurant chain. Fleischman told Shelton, "I'm a victim here." He even called the cops.
"He felt that since he had possession of the house," says Shelton, "that he had the right to call law enforcement and have me removed."
I tried to reach Fleischman to hear his side of the story. No luck.
"Where does he hear that he has this right to squat?" I ask Shelton.
"The city was telling him this," says Shelton.
But now Shelton was a squatter, too, so he was protected by the same pro-"tenant" law.
Still, only when Shelton threatened to bring friends to the house as backup did Adam Fleischman leave.
In Los Angeles, a woman claimed to be a "caretaker" for an elderly homeowner, who said she didn't want the woman in her home. So, she gave Shelton a lease. While the squatter was out, Shelton changed the locks.
"But the squatter is still there?" I ask Shelton.
"Still there," he says, "Climbing through the window because she doesn't have access to the main house."
She's now been there for two years!
Shelton says his team will move in and get rid of the squatter.
"How do you know that will work?" I ask.
"Because once I take possession," says Shelton, "then she'll have to fight in court to try to get back in. Most likely she won't do that."
Why do squatters feel entitled to other people's property?
Probably because people hate landlords. They listen to silly people like Marxist New School professor Miguel Robles-Duran, who calls landlords "parasites" who "provide no social value." Popular TikTok socialist Madeline Pendleton adds that landlords have "guaranteed forever incomes, without having to put in any labor."
No labor? Who does she think buys the land; pays lawyers to decipher the excessive regulations; hires architects, carpenters, plumbers, and electricians; pays the taxes; manages the property, etc.?
It's infuriating!
I'm glad people like Flash Shelton fight back.
COPYRIGHT 2024 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS INC.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
There are now Liberal groups who advise squatters on how to take possession of a home. Some even provide legal assistance for squatters when the legal owner tries to get rid of them.
Like with migrant groups, these groups are usually taxpayer funded.
There’s a word for these people. Commies.
AKA thieves, looters, and members of the something-for-nothing crowd.
All these people belong in landfills. It’s time to cleanse the left.
I'm glad people like Flash Shelton fight back.
*FLASH!* *BOOM!* AHHHHH! Savior of Private Property Rights!
🙂
😉
""Squatter rights," also known as "adverse possession" laws, now exist in all 50 states."
Florida House Bill 621; soon to be 49 states.
Idaho:
Seems reasonable.
A squatter wishing to make an adverse possession claim must reside in the property for at least 20 continuous years. This period must be uninterrupted and the squatter cannot have left the property for weeks or months, as that would disqualify their claim to the property.
Yeppers, anything over a year of continuous adverse possession, with exceptions for day trips to work, get groceries, etc, seems fine to me.
Guy owned a vacation home near me (I live in the boonies) and discovered a year later that someone had stolen his garden tractor. Sucks, but was he too cheap to pay a neighbor to check up on it once a week?
I don't hate people who own vacation homes, unless they're hateable hypocrites like Bernie Sanders, but geez, bud, you have to have someone check on it regularly, if only to check for wind damage, bears breaking in, and in this case, two legged critters trespassing and stealing. Once a year? Not much sympathy.
Do you feel the same way about any safe deposit boxes or storage units that contain your valuables and you've not opened and inspected for 367 days? What about an IRA that you've not executed a transaction in for 367 days?
What do you think happens to the safety box and the safety boxes around it during that time?
Aren't you paying someone to watch those boxes, units and IRAs?
If they were lying in a field some place.
Are you really that dumb? I said that's why you pay a neighbor or somebody to check up on the house regularly. What do you think the bank does, dump safe deposit boxes out in a field?
You do pay someone to maintain your ownership.
They're called 'the state', and they MAKE you pay.
I wondered why "Red" states first targeted immigrants and abortions before they targeted property rights. Maybe there is still a tiny ray of hope for America.
Because it animates their base. Most Republican voters do not own rental properties or fear squatters taking over their homes. "Old school" sweat-of-the-brow Republicans might agree with the principles on paper but it doesn't animate them to go to the polls like xenophobia and puritanism do.
I find that people who offer only name calling do so because they cannot make a coherent argument. Boobdraggin' is yet another example. It gets really old and tiring. Go F yourself until you can make a coherent argument.
When it comes to economic issues, the GOP is little more than Dem-lite these days. Kulturkampf is their focus, and free markets and property rights let people make the "wrong" choices.
Shoot, shovel, shut up.
This is the way.
Nah, you need to shovel first. Otherwise if somebody comes by at the wrong time then you're digging another hole. Next thing you know you're stuck there all night.
Absolutely. Or just get a few Hell’s Angels, or the equivalent, to have a ‘chat’ with the squatters.
I play the 24/7/365 Mystery Science Theater 3000 streaming channel on PlutoTV or TubiTV. Any would-be squatters who listen through the door will think I'm some bat-shit crazy loon who talks back to the TV and they'll stay the Hell away!
And if things get real crazy in this nation, I'll switch to something gorier like the 24/7/365 Walking Dead Channel.
🙂
😉
What if you come home and find strangers living in your house?
I assumed you order the squatters out, and if they resist, call the police, and they will kick them out.
Wrong.
That is wrong.
I see to it that these people who put me in fear of my life are sent away to where they will never put someone in fear for their life ever again.
Make sure you have an untraceable throw-down gun so you can establish self-defense.
You seem to be assuming the police can determine who is the squatter. A question of fact. Not so easy! That's why we have courts.
There wouldn't be any 'squatters' in my home.
Rigor makes it hard to squat.
One person will have the deed.
The other person is the squatter.
But the police don't examine deeds. And shouldn't!
Why is that? There may be times that the police don't have enough information, but if you can show a Warranty Deed with your name and addess on it to a police officer I don't see why that would not be in their purview.
They don't seem to have any problem when the "squatter" has been there less than 30 days - that's called trespassing and the police sort that out very routinely.
What if you come home and find strangers living in your house?
Make sure you are paid up on home owners insurance and set that bitch on fire.
You know, I wonder if these squatters right's might loop right around to getting rid of tenant laws. The guy in this case is getting rid of people who were never invited into the home, but there is no real reason a land lord who wants a higher paying tenant couldn't just employee the same tactic. Pay a reliable person to move into the apartment when the tenant is out. Take possession of the home. Then turn around and rerent it.
In that case, if there is a valid lease or rental agreement, I would think that the actual tenant would win in court.
And may actually end up owning the property.
Of course, this is also criminal fraud.
That's the problem. The average eviction in New York takes two years. How is that fair to anyone but lawyers and squatters?
That’s a whole different problem regardless of squatters.
I saw that alleged in the NY caretaker case. He alleged that the family who purchased the property entered into an agreement to have him stay in the house to reduce its value at sale. Which if so, he's an even bigger shitbag since this should open a fraud case against him. Government may not care about your property but they certainly want their full cut of the sale.
Pro-tenant laws passed by
anti-capitalistmarxist politicians now protect squatters.FIFY
fire is an effective negotiation tool.
I'm a proponent of rat poison.
I thought it was Skinny & Sweet!
Dealing with squatters is easy, if you have no qualms about using your guns for their intended purposes.
This is what I don't get.
Squatters' rights, meet castle doctrine.
Seems simple enough. Wait til the squatters leave, come on in, and when they break in as trespassers, defend yourself.
Or if needs must, break in while they are there, and when they attack, defend yourself. But that assumes you kill them all before any call 9-1-1 and that they haven't set up video cameras.
This is a symptom of the real problem. Which is the continued existence of the democrat party, and allowing the presence of Marxists in America.
Just correct those problems.
And NYC wants more affordable housing but wonders why those who build and collect rent balk at building more.
Building more? Many don't even bother to maintain what they already have. If they're not allowed to collect enough in rent to cover the cost, why should they?
Nothing that a Smith and Wesson (or Glock, or Sig, or...) a shovel and a shallow grave (or vat of acid) couldn't solve.
"What if you come home and find strangers living in your house?"
Yell rape real loud and beat them to death with a baseball bat.
Make sure you identify as a woman when the cops show up.
...
How else could it be? it's a question of fact the police aren't equipped to resolve.
If people dispute ownership of a car, the registration system does give the police the facts to determine whose car it is, on the spot. Not so with a building. Or, for that matter, a purse. "It's my bicycle." "No, it's mine." Did you steal it, or did you just take back your property? Think the police can resolve that one?
How would you feel about having to register ownership of a building? Or tenancy or leaseholding? And having to keep it up to date? Then the police could, on the spot, look up who has the right to be there. But it would also mean nuisance tickets for failure to keep your papers.
How would you feel about having to register ownership of a building?
A quick web search at the county recorders office will tell you who owns a building.
But often, that just gives you the name of a holding company and not an individual.
But it certainly won’t be the fucking squatter.
Thank you!
But a third party wouldn't know that without further research. "San Juan Holdings LLC? Yeah, that's me."
This research can be done in a matter of minutes or at most hours.
But even if you know who owns it, how do you know a "squatter" isn't authorized to be there under the terms of a lease? There's really no substitute for a legal investigation, and that's not something police are equipped to do, any more than they can determine whose bicycle it is. Get an injunction, then send the police.
Confused about your position Roberta. Are you arguing that squatters should just come on into private property and we should all be okay with that?
Roberta thinks that submission to slavery is better than submission to the horrors of war, that treating slaves kindly takes any priority over flat-out freeing them, and that means-testing Medicare/Medicaid is a legitimate Libertarian position rather than getting rid of them even gradually. So of course her position on squatters is bound to be equally fucked-up.
Ask the squatter to present the lease to the police. After the police determine that he lied to them, which is a crime, they should arrest him. Not sure they will, but they should.
Not sure what you are talking about. All properties have public listed ownership. My OnX app tells me who owns what in the middle of a national forest and all of the surrounding land/buildings.
Interesting, never heard of that app. Will check it out for riding trails. A few years ago was out following a trail on google maps and this guy had cut down a tree blocking a trail and said it was on his property. It wasn’t near where we normally ride so didn’t bother following up but would have been nice to find out in the moment.
OK, so if you go to the police and accuse someone of rape, and that person says “it wasn’t rape, it was consensual”, then the police can’t do anything because they aren’t equipped to resolve it?
The police are equipped to make an arrest, the courts are equipped to resolve it. If there was a blatantly false accusation, the accuser can be sued or arrested herself. That’s how it’s supposed to work. But in the case of housing, and only housing, police have decided to stop doing their jobs.
And we see the result in regard to rape: The first to accuse gets the other arrested!
Would you arrest both people? Goddamn! You are warped!
Well, ownership of a building is fairly easy to establish. There are public records for all real estate transfers.
Maybe the answer is to presume that a property owner has the right to remove anyone from their property. If that happens in violation of a lease agreement or something, then the tenant can sue for damages. That could suck for some tenants, but it doesn't seem particularly worse than what is happening to some property owners now.
Part of the problem in NYC is that after 30 days, the squatter is legally a tenant with no lease and presumably doesn't owe any rent. How that survives is a testament to how fucked up our legal system is.
I'd call that a separate problem. We're doing a lot of conflating of the issues of adverse possession/squatter's rights and tenant "rights" laws.
I'll generally come down on the side of the property owner. Though I think it's probably appropriate to have some basic tenant protections, like a landlord not being able to demand someone move out tomorrow or throw all the tenant's property out on the street with no notice.
True, people are conflating these issues.
fairly easy to establish
But the problem is that establishing that IN COURT and getting enforcement of the court's judgement can take months or years. Yes, it's not hard to establish who owns a building, but until a judge and the police are convinced, nothing happens.
Bullshit. You already do have to register ownership of buildings. It's on the deed which has to be recorded and is routinely used for property tax collection. The government has excellent sources to know the owner of every plot of land. And they are available to the average police officer about as easily as looking up a license plate.
As noted above, police regularly sort out trespassers who have been on the property less than 30 days with little to no trouble at all.
If someone lies about having a lease, yes, that's a matter for the courts - and should be sorted out by police in the meantime the same way they sort out false claims of non-trespassing - by investigating, ejecting the less credible claimant and letting that person raise the civil case. By the way, "more credible" in an "I have a lease" claim goes to the property owner because if the property owner falsely denies the lease, he/she is in breach and subject to substantial penalties both civil and criminal.
Falsely claiming to have a lease or to be paying rent is fraud. If a false statement was made to a cop, that's another crime. It's the police's job to investigate and arrest the fraudster - unless your home is in a People's Republic where you own nothing.
Squatters have been getting lots of attention lately but it also brings up the interesting question about vacant properties. The squatters seem to be taking over houses and apartments that are vacant for a significant period of time to be noticed. If own have a property you need to keep an eye on the property. If you only check it monthly or less you could be a victim. We can talk about changing laws but proactively keeping an eye on your property is a likely to be a better approach in the short run.
If the squatter tells police they have been there for 31 days even though they had moved in, with furniture, earlier in the day, how would that be different than the current situation?
If the homeowner called the police, wouldn't the police just say "This is a civil matter, there's nothing we can do at this time unless you get a court order for eviction"?
The police can't generally verify when the squatter actually moved in just as they can't generally verify that the squatter has/does not have a verbal rental/lease agreement.
It’s just easier to get rid of the, by force. Just make sure there are no witnesses.
“They wouldn’t have squatted if the house wasn’t dressed like that”.
/m4e
Yep, victim blaming.
"Squatter" is just another name for thief.
There are plenty of reasons people need to leave their homes for more than 30 days that don't in any way come close to the property being considered abandoned.
And common sense says they should ask neighbors to check up on it regularly.
Yes, exactly. Once the squatter are moved in you going to have a hard time dislodging them. Just like a tick.
They aren't 'squatters' until they've been there for years. In some cases, decades. 'Squatting' requires for the property to be legally abandoned and the trespass to be uncontested over a very long period of time.
People are deliberately conflating the term with property thieves and fraudsters to sow confusion among the ignorant.
That may be common sense but that is not the proper basis for losing legal rights.
Up until the recent progressive stupidity, (i.e. past decade or less), squatters rights needed to be established over many years, typically 7 – 10, depending on the state. It’s a concept dating back to English common law that enshrines the idea that it’s generally bad practice to force abandoned property to go unused and unimproved.
Allowing people who break into your house pretend to live there after no time at all and giving them the full protections a tenant with a contractual lease is so far away from the original concept that it’s not even the same thing. This is just rent theft, legalized.
They really aren’t ‘squatters’ until after they have completed the term of their continuous adverse possession. Which, in sane states, is like a decade. Prior to that they are illegal trespassers who can be kicked out at any time at the landlord’s will.
What Nueva York and the Left Coast have going on currently isn’t squatting, it is just ‘legalized’ bureaucratized property theft.
The democrat party and its true believers should be liquidated at the first opportunity. Why do we allow them to exist anymore?
These stories of squatters are very disturbing. But think of how charming Joe Odom is portrayed in the book Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil by John Berendt. And I believe he was a lawyer.
Wonder if Mr. Flash Shelton has considered franchising his business.
There's plenty the police could do, but the police have learned that the more that they actually do, the more likely there's going to be an incident where they wind up on TV roughing someone up. So they pick and choose when to intervene.
I will burn my own fucking house down before i let some asshole steal it from me that way. Unbelievable.
I would rather just beat or kill them if I’m going to risk a felony. As far as I’m concerned, anyone pulling this deserves what they get.
Same with burglars. Dying is an occupational hazard of being a thief.
I have fire insurance. "Squatters burned down my house, sorry"
That can get complicated if there’s an arson investigation. Just easier to eliminate the squatters and make an insurance claims for any damages.
That day government started working for the criminals............
Normally government has to interview and hire and pay criminals. This way they get them for free.
This mixes up two similar but actually different circumstances.
Tenant law, which protects tenants from landlords evicting them with little to no notice, is what these people are generally hiding behind. That is why they come up with fake leases, or simply tell the police (if they get involved) that they have a lease. At that point, like it or not, it is a civil matter, and the cops bow out.
Squatting, i.e. taking over an abandoned property and meeting the various state requirements to actually gain ownership, is a different animal entirely. In Virginia for example one has to have 15 years of use (adverse use meaning you used it even though it wasn't yours, but the owner made no effort to stop you for whatever reason) before one can prove in court that the property should be yours.
Two different things. If someone moves into your house over the weekend, changes the locks, they aren't a squatter. They are trying to use tenant laws fraudulently to their benefit.
I think you make a good distinction.
So if they don't bother to change the locks, aren't they burglars, or at least trespassers?
The changing locks was just referring to some of the actions that the article is referring to, the people who move in and then claim they are tenants to then hide behind tenant law, kicking it to civil court and causing lots of delays for the landowner. It was to better distinguish between that group and actual squatters, who take over a property for years and then may be granted title through the law.
Changing locks? In Texas, where it's open season on christian hippie communes, the merest hint that someone might be "fortifying" a property brings SWAT, BATF, KKK and PIGS at a dead run with fixed bayonets. Show up at police station with mortgage bills or clear title and tell the cops "insurgents" are "fortifying and barricading" your property. Saying you "think" you smelled merry-jew-wanna or meth solvent safely ensures no survivors--sometimes no house--left.
Excellent plan.
Yeah it was fucked up when those Texas Republithug pussygrabbing girlbulliers burned all those kids to death at Waco. Oh wait...
"Why do squatters feel entitled to other people's property?"
Like the author said, they get this insane idea from Saint Karl Marx and his legion of useful idiots in academia.
Well, let's put the shoe on the other foot.
Find out where these Marxist professors live and send all the squatters to their house since these communists turds believe in communal living, and while they're at it, don't forget to share the professors' food, clothing and bank account.
After all, that's what communism is all about...sharing the wealth.
It's likely simpler to that. A lot of people will simply do what they can get away with.
In some places there are criminals that find empty units and rent them with fake leases and then dissappear with the deposit and first month rent. Usually to young people who take an offer because it is too good to be true. This is another case where the occupant is also a victim.
Scams like that are endemic on Craig's List.
The squatter claims ownership of the land because they’re doing something with it. Farming an abandoned field or fixing an abandoned house. They’re creating value and improving the land. Likely paying taxes, which makes the government that much more willing to give them ownership.
These people call themselves squatters, but they’re trespassers abusing tenant law. As DP says above. And quite often they’re destructive.
They give squatters a bad name.
Stossel for Chase Oliver's running mate!
Haven't read the new Florida law yet but the bullet points include presenting a fake lease a class A felony. The scam has always been move in, owner calls the cops, squatter shows a phony lease, cops say it's a civil matter, after months or years and thousands in legal fees civil court rules against squatters, squatters move into another house, rinse and repeat. These people are criminals and these matters need to be adjudicated in criminal courts and they need to face criminal penalties.
I wonder how those who feel that private property should be respected feel about the Wisconsin Lac du Flambeau tribe denying access to a road on tribal property.
https://www.wpr.org/history/dispute-promts-wisconsin-tribe-block-roads-lac-du-flambeau-reservation
As a Wisconsin state resident, I think it's reasonable of them to do so given the refusal of the BIA and other interested parties to negotiate.
Same in Wisconsin.
From https://www.hemlane.com/resources/wisconsin-squatters-rights/:
"The doctrine of adverse possession has its roots in English common law and was initially conceived as a way to make sure land was put to productive use. The thinking was that if a property owner wasn't utilizing their land, it was better for someone else to claim it and make use of it."
I think Mr. Stossel's observation that such laws 'exist in all 50 states' could use a little nuance.
In ancient times it was far more common for land owners to simply disappear. Violent crime, war, plague, famines, religious or ethnic persecution, or getting on the wrong side of a nobleman could cause whole families to disappear and leave land unused. Squatters' rights made sense.
Squatting is theft. Theft is illegal. Squatters don't deserve rights.
What the hell is the difference between squatting and trespassing ? Because I'm obviously missing something important.
If I am renting, I would have a signed lease. If I don't have a signed lease, then what would I show that I have the right to be there ? If the answer is "nothing" , then I am likely trespassing. I mean, if I came home and there was a stranger in my house, I would shoot them out of fear for my life. How is squatting any different ?
Traditionally, if you live on an abandoned property for a long time and take responsibility for it by maintaining and even making improvements, the logic is that your sweat equity can eventually exceed the original capital equity. At that point, you arguable have a better claim to be the "owner" than the absentee purchaser who is letting the property decay. That idea is more formally called "adverse possession" and is the good flavor of 'squatting'.
What's described in the article above is a lot more like trespassing but it is shades on a spectrum.
When you think about it, property lines are just another name for borders. According to Reason, border enforcement is just racism by another name.
you own the house. You kennel your XL bullies as watchdogs there along with those skeeves. Sit back and enjoy the results.