FAIR USE NOTICE

FAIR USE NOTICE

A BEAR MARKET ECONOMICS BLOG

Occupy Dissent


This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. we believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law.

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

FAIR USE NOTICE FAIR USE NOTICE: This page may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. This website distributes this material without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for scientific, research and educational purposes. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C § 107.

Read more at: http://www.etupdates.com/fair-use-notice/#.UpzWQRL3l5M | ET. Updates
FAIR USE NOTICE FAIR USE NOTICE: This page may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. This website distributes this material without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for scientific, research and educational purposes. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C § 107.

Read more at: http://www.etupdates.com/fair-use-notice/#.UpzWQRL3l5M | ET. Updates

All Blogs licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 3.0

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.

Monday, December 7, 2009

The Guerrilla Tactics You Need to Fight for the Right to Simplicity

OnSimplicity.
net



If you’re craving more simple ideas, please feel free to check out two guest posts I have out today. Simple Mom is featured 30 Simple Ways to Get Your Child Ready to Read while My Friend Amy is sharing The Power of Story: Sara from On Simplicity on The Dot. Both are literacy related, so if you appreciated yesterday’s post on the power of libraries to fight poverty, you might enjoy these as well. Thanks!

Rights and privileges are becoming very politicized terms, as entitlement programs and the “I deserve it” mentality are being questioned. And while some things shouldn’t be classified as “rights,” such as single-family houses or automobiles, there are still certain things that should be considered as such. Not surprisingly, I consider simplicity to be a right, but it’s one that you’ll have to fight for.

Sneaky Cat in the Grass
Every day, the world is hoping to make your life more complex. Marketers hope you’ll sign for a new program or product, newsmakers angle to be considered relevant to you, media channels claim their essentialness, and all around you, folks are looking for a way to get in front of your eyeballs. (Obvious yet relevant disclosure: I’m one of them. Sign up for my RSS feed and I’ll be happy to be in front your eyes every day.)

Living a simple life is no longer the default option, which can be a problem for some of us. Instead of opting in to complications both wonderful and terrible, you now have to opt out. What do I mean? The simple pleasures have become harder to find, while the complicated ones are now the default, the standard option. You have to work hard to escape advertisements, bleeding edge technology, and pre-meeting meetings. It’s all still in your control, but it’s not as easy to balance as it once was.

Instead, you’ve got to fight for your right to simplify. Again, that word: right. Is it going overboard to refer to simplicity as a right? I’d say not. It should be within your rights to choose the lifestyle you desire (Lord of the Flies scenarios aside), and that includes living quietly and peacefully. So how can you fight for that right—without making your life into a complex mess in the meantime? You might consider trying one or two of these guerrilla tactics as a start:

Use a Smear Campaign to Undermine Traditional Media

Cat Planning Sneak Attack
I don’t mean to be flippant in serious times, but if you take every thing see seriously, you’re going to want jump off a building. When pundits are panicking, it’s okay to snicker. One of the best, best, best parts about living simply is that you can ride out the storms that capsize so many others. Celebrate that freedom in every way possible. (Well, don’t go “Nyah, nyah” to your neighbor who’s in trouble, but outside that…)

Eschew Traditional Forms of Leadership

Do all heroes wear fatigues? Do all leaders wear suits and ties? Choose your icons and role models based on your values instead of external cues. By tossing out the standard signifiers of leadership and success, you free yourself to stop chasing dreams you don’t care about. You can stop worrying about the sweet new car next door. Instead, you can stay focused on what matters to you, in the manner that fits your life.

Build Relationships with the Civil Population

Guerrilla warfare is about hearts and minds. When you’ve got a loyal network of solid relationships, you have less need to rely on outside agencies for support and self-esteem reinforcements. Get out in the civilian population and make connections. You might find that the more people you’ve got rallying around you, the less you need the traditional trappings of success. In other words, friends are the best weapon against the vaccuum of loneliness and boredom that can cause us to reach out for stuff instead of connections.

Employ Surprise Attacks

Cat Lurking for Surprise AttackSo everyone expects you to dress in a certain simple way, listen to a certain kind of music, and have a certain set of interests? Surprise them by doing exactly what suits you, regardless of what “simplicity” is supposed to look like! Keep ‘em on their toes by wearing your favorite heels to the farmers’ market, or by rocking out to luxury-laden R&B as you enjoy Get Rid of Crap Week. Keep opponents from boxing you in by sticking to your guns (and your unique personality) and watch the battle become fun and fierce!

Cut off Enemy Resources

Sick of getting propaganda in the mail? Use GreenDimes’ service to slash your name off of junk mailing lists. Tired of telephonic communication disruptions during dinnertime? Get yourself on the Do Not Call list. If you’re trying to enjoy a simple lifestyle, don’t roll out of the red carpet to marketing that’s trying to convince you you’re not satisfied.

Use Local Terrain to Your Advantage

Guerrilla fighters know how to use the land to advance their goals, and that means working with what they’ve got. You can do the same thing. Tired of being told that high fructose corn syrup is good for you? Head to your local arms supplier, err, farmers’ market and stock up on fresh, healthy goods. Embrace local businesses and infiltrate local charitable subcultures. By building a base within your community, you’re laying the groundwork of a life that’s more detached from outside influences.This has all been a bit facetious, but I hope that you’ve found a new way to look simplicity. If it’s something you value, it’s worth fighting for.

Creative Commons License photo credit: Okaggi

Creative Commons License photo credit: qmnonic

Creative Commons License photo credit: pantherkatz

Similar Posts:

If you enjoyed this, please take a second to pass it on:

Take Advantage of State Adverse Possession Laws

FINDLAW


State Adverse Possession Laws


Adverse possession laws allow people who move onto property and possess it in an open and obvious public manner to potentially acquire title, after a certain amount of time. Choose a link from the list below for state-specific laws on adverse possession, including the time limits required for possession and landowner challenge, and the effect of certain activity by the possessor.

Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming

Sunday, December 6, 2009

10 Things Your Bank Won't Tell You

SmartMoney Magazine by Jim Rendon (Author Archive)

10 Things Your Bank Won't Tell You

Below is an excerpt from the book "1,001 Things They Won't Tell You," which was published in May 2009 and highlights popular columns from SmartMoney's long-running "10 Things" feature.



1. “We’re in survival mode.”

Banks may still be a safe place to stash your cash, with the FDIC now insuring up to $250,000 per depositor. But after years of lending money to just about anyone with a pulse, the industry is paying a steep price. Losses on bad loans issued during the credit bubble could top $1.4 trillion, according to the International Monetary Fund. With their balance sheets in tatters and stock prices in the gutter, some of America’s biggest banks have been forced to merge to survive. And even with the U.S. government infusing money into the system to get banks lending again, “the days of easy credit are gone,” says Greg McBride, senior financial analyst with Bankrate.com.

Customer service also seems to be a casualty of the credit crunch. With less money coming in, many big banks are cutting jobs, closing branches, and scaling back their call-center operations, says Mike Moebs, a bank industry consultant in Chicago. Moreover, employees left on the job now have to handle more customers and may have less flexibility to ease up on fees for overdrafts or other services. “Customer service is waning at the big banks,” says Moebs. “It’s a downward spiral.”

2. “Our fees will only go up.”

Don’t look now but punitive fees—for overdrawing your account, say, or using a competitor’s ATM—are increasing. The average ATM service charge doubled between 1998 and 2007, and overdraft fees brought in $17.5 billion in revenue in 2006, up from $10.3 billion in 2004, according to the Center for Responsible Lending. Rubecca Hegarty, a married mother of three in Woodridge, Ill., says she often pays upwards of $100 a month in overdraft fees to Chase, since, like most banks, it changes the order of purchases so that large debts get paid first— increasing the likelihood of incurring fees on smaller purchases. JPMorgan Chase says it does this because big payments like a mortgage are more important to consumers, so they get priority.

Revenue from penalties can be addictive for banks, says Harvard Business School Professor Gail McGovern, but “They’re going to face problems from angry customers, which leads to big callcenter bills, employee dissatisfaction, and turnover.”

3. “We change our interest rates all the time.”

Regardless of what your credit card agreement says, you can never be sure how much interest banks will charge you. For example, nearly all cards have a default rate—as high as 30 percent— which banks apply when you’ve done something wrong, usually after two late payments in 12 months. But some banks have cut that to one, says Curtis Arnold, founder of CardRatings.com.

Banks can also change the terms of your agreement, raising rates when they like (though you can opt out and pay off the balance at the old rate as long as you never use the card again). Bank of America did that recently, upping many cardholders’ rates from 10 or 12 percent to 27 percent or more, even though they’d done nothing wrong. “There’s no clarity on what criteria can lead a bank to raise interest rates,” says Robert Manning, director of the Center for Consumer Financial Services at the Rochester Institute of Technology. “It’s a black box.” A Bank of America spokesperson says the company periodically reviews the credit risk of its accounts and adjusts rates accordingly, adding that in the past year 94 percent have had no increase.

4. “College campuses are a gold mine for us.”

Students are the customers of the future, and banks are increasingly courting them, sometimes right on campus. More than 120 universities have cut deals with banks to issue student-ID cards that are also ATM and check cards. Schools can make millions from these deals, sometimes even taking a small cut of individual purchases.

Students are also a hot market for credit card issuers; banks will make private deals with alumni associations to get contact info for students, parents, and ticket buyers to university athletic events. Card companies cut deals to set up booths on campus, and Chase even inked a deal with Facebook to display ads and set up a Chase group on its website.

The problem? Mounting credit card debt among college kids, for one. “Universities don’t negotiate on behalf of students,” says Manning. “They’re negotiating the best deal for the university.” A spokesperson for the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities says don’t blame schools—banks would market to students anyway, and universities at least try to get the best rates they can for students.

5. “In debt? The courts won’t help.”

Since the late 1990s, banks have been including mandatory arbitration agreements in their contracts for many of their products, including auto loans, checking accounts, home-equity loans, and credit cards. Such agreements prohibit you from suing and instead require you to use an arbitrator— someone picked by the arbitration firm named in your credit card contract to hear the dispute and decide the outcome.

While these clauses were originally designed to thwart class-action suits, the banks have also been using them for debt collection, says Paul Bland, an attorney with consumer-advocacy group Public Justice. There are even times when consumers, often victims of identity theft and unaware of the debt, aren’t present when awards are handed down against them.

A recent suit against an arbitration firm brought by the San Francisco city attorney noted that arbitrators ruled in favor of banks in 100 percent of the 18,045 California cases brought against consumers from January 2003 through March 2007. “From the consumer perspective, it’s a nightmare,” says Bland. If a bank brings arbitration against you, hire a lawyer and request a hearing—in person.

6. “We’re excited about your trip to Europe, too!”

It’s not bad enough that the dollar is hovering near historic lows against most major currencies, but when you travel overseas, every transaction comes with big fees attached. Take out cash from an ATM in London, and you’ll get hit with a foreign-transaction fee, plus a fee for using a competitor’s ATM. All told, it can cost up to $7 just to withdraw $200. Credit card purchases aren’t much better. Visa and MasterCard each charge 1 percent of the purchase for converting currency. And the issuing banks may take another cut, which can bring the total to 3 percent of your purchase price, says CardRatings.com’s Arnold. “If people don’t travel overseas very often, they just don’t think about it,” he says.

The best thing to do is see which of your cards charges the lowest overseastransaction fee. If you travel a lot, Arnold recommends a Capital One credit card, which charges no overseas-transaction fees (even refusing to pass on Visa and MasterCard’s 1 percent fee to customers). Also, ask your bank about partnerships with foreign banks. Bank of America, for example, partners with Barclays Bank, saving its customers $5 per withdrawal from the latter’s ATMs in the U.K.

7. “For all the fine print, we don’t disclose very much.”

Bank documents come loaded with small type, detailing terms and conditions. But good luck finding out exactly what you’re signing up for when you open an account. In 2007 the Government Accountability Office (GAO) sent investigators to see how well banks explained their fees and other conditions to potential customers. Though banks are required by law to make this information available, the GAO found that one third of the branches it surveyed didn’t provide the required information. Worse, more than half didn’t have any fee information on their websites.

Nessa Feddis, senior counsel at the American Bankers Association (ABA), questions the report’s methodology— banks failed the test if investigators waited more than 10 minutes for the information—and defends the lack of data online. Banks are afraid of leaving old, inaccurate information on their site if terms change, she says. But without details on fees, consumers can’t make educated choices. “Banks are not complying with the law,” says Ed Mierzwinski, consumer program director with the U.S. Public Interest Research Group. “People need more information so they can shop around for the best deal.”

8. “Your money might be better off elsewhere.”

Banks offer lots of ways to earn interest on your money—among them, simple savings, CDs, money-market accounts, and IRAs. But they don’t always yield the best return. In early 2009, the average savings account, for example, was paying about 0.5 percent interest. But even in this low-interest-rate climate, you can do better—3 percent or more—if you shop around. “It pays to be a free agent,” says Bankrate.com’s McBride. “There is tremendous disparity in the returns available.”

Banks have been expanding into other financial services for a decade or more, including comprehensive wealth management and financial planning, brokerage services, even insurance. The well-off customers who use these are a bank’s most profitable; they keep the highest balances and are less sensitive to fees, says Maryann Johnson, senior vice president of wealth market management at the ABA. That’s something to remember when you talk to a bank’s investment advisers: Many are paid a commission on investment products, says Certified Financial Planner Craig DuVarney, meaning they often go for the easy sale. “They don’t have the harder discussion about estate planning, tax bracket, and liquidity,” says DuVarney. Johnson sees it differently; she says banks take a more holistic approach and that their wealth managers serve much the same purpose as financial advisers, with bonuses for not only sales but also dollars invested, new clients, and even customer retention.

9. “When it comes to banks, smaller is sometimes better.”

Banks have been consolidating like crazy over the past decade. In 1990 the top 10 banks controlled 25 percent of the market; by 2008 they controlled half. This gives customers of large banks vast networks of free ATMs and branches across the country. But it hasn’t been entirely good for consumers, says Arthur E. Wilmarth, Jr., a professor at George Washington University Law School. Though big banks offer many conveniences, they can come at a price: high fees. In 2006 the 10 largest banks generated 54 percent of revenue from fees and service charges; by contrast, the 10 smallest banks generated just 28 percent from those sources.

Not only do big banks bring in more fee income but they also pay out less interest. According to FDIC data, smaller banks generally pay higher interest on savings accounts and other products. For example, in 2006 the 10 largest banks paid an average 1.87 percent in interest for savings accounts, while the smallest banks paid 4.37 percent. “The largest banks are no longer worried about being undercut on price,” Wilmarth says.

10. “Your online account info isn’t necessarily accurate.”

Online banking has changed the way people handle their finances. They can pay bills online, transfer funds, track payments, and get a more detailed view of their bank account than ever before. Unfortunately, it may not always show the proper balance. With electronic transactions, ATMs, check cards, and direct deposits, banking has gotten more complicated.

ATMs and online bank statements will show deposits available before the money is actually in your account. Using your debit card at a gas station or to reserve a hotel room, for example, can put a hold on funds. Some merchants may be slow to send in charges. And banks can sit on deposits—an out-of-state check may take up to five days to clear.

Add to that the constant reordering of debits, and your account balance can quickly become a moving target—hard to track accurately day to day. “Banks use different algorithms to process payments than what you see online,” says Harvard’s McGovern. “It gives you a false sense of security.”

Stick it to The Man: 15 Things You Should Never Pay For



PTMONEY

Real Personal Finance for a Life Without Limits

 

Stick it to The Man: 15 Things You Should Never Pay For

By

Stick it to the Man
Stick it to the man, ’cause he’s stickin’ it to you.



“The Man” is trying to take your money. Don’t let him. I’ve put together 15 things that you should never pay “the man” for. For a lot of things in life, you get what you pay for. But in the case of these 15 items, most of us wouldn’t be sacrificing any quality to go with the freebie.

  1. Your Credit Report – Your credit report is available for free right now from http://annualcreditreport.com. Don’t be fooled by the other websites. Just go to annualcreditreport.com and get your free credit report every 12 months. You can get 1 free report from each of the 3 reporting agencies every 12 months.
  2. Banking Services- Never, ever, pay bank fees for a regular account. Just say no. Sign up for their free account. Switch banks if you have to. Just don’t pay any fees to a bank. It’s not necessary anymore, plus they’re already making interest by holding your money. And do your best to never pay for another checkbook again. Pay as many bills as you can using free bill-pay services. When you do run out of checks, make nice with your local bank branch manager and ask him about getting a free refill. You guys know I love the free banking with FNBO Direct and ING DIRECT. I’ve used them. Never paid them a dime. In fact, they’ve paid me. Best interest rates in the industry, by a mile.
  3. Software for Your Computer – Stick it to Microsoft! Don’t buy Excel or Word. Invest in a little “free” and get OpenOffice Calc (like Excel), Writer (like Word), Impress (like PowerPoint), Draw (like Paint), and Base (like Access). Why pay when you can get it for free? These programs all have a “save as…” feature that let’s you save in Microsoft format so you can send files to your ”payin’ the man” friends.
  4. A Credit Card- I can’t think of a single service that a credit card could offer me that I couldn’t get for free or a nominal fee elsewhere. Nor would I ever dream of using a card enough to garner enough services to justify an annual fee. Don’t ever pay for a credit card annual fee. Isn’t necessary. AmEx even has no-fee cards, and have for years now. Stop paying annual credit card fees.
  5. Books – There’s a magical place in your hometown that’s renting books for free right now: your local library. Check em out. :) And I’m always giving away free books here on the blog. A new book giveaway coming up soon.
  6. Tax Preparation- The vast majority of tax filers don’t need to pay to have their taxes prepared and e-filed. Every major tax prep company (TurboTax, TaxAct, TaxCut, to name a few) offers free e-filing services of some kind. And there’s always the IRS Free File that could set you up with free tax prep and filing.
  7. The Newspaper- C’mon. Do I have to explain this one? If you’re doing it for couponing reasons, ok. But for getting your news??
  8. Credit Counseling – Credit counseling is available free through the National Foundation for Credit Counseling (NFCC). Don’t ever hook up with some shady “get out of debt quick fix” company.
  9. Water – Well, I realize there’s always going to be that water utility bill. But the bottled water is out. Tap is cool again.
  10. Budgeting Software – The past couple of years have seen an explosion of online free budgeting software options. There are some really nice option available to you. All are without a charge. Quicken Online and Mint are two that I’ve used.
  11. A Pet – Search your local animal rescue center for a pet that’s free and in need.
  12. Online Shipping – With sites like freeshipping.org now available, you should be able to make most of your online purchases without forking over a shipping fee.
  13. DVD Rentals- Instead of paying $5 for a DVD rental, just go to a RedBox or a New Release rental box in your local grocery store. Before you go though, get the free daily code from www.insideredbox.com.
  14. Auction Listing Fees – While some items require a true auction type service, or a larger audience to be sold for full value, the vast majority of items you’d want to sell online can be sold through Craig’s List. Ebay does have it’s place. But never use it (and pay their fees) if it’s an item that could be sold on Craig’s List. I’ve sold my last two vehicles there.
Alright, now it’s your turn. I’ve left #15 for you to fill in. Offer up one more thing you should never pay for in the comments below
Related posts:
  1. New Ways to Avoid Bank Overdraft Fees
  2. Low Score Got You Down? How to Establish or Rebuild Your Credit
  3. High-Yield Savings Account Mini-Reviews
  4. AnnualCreditReport.com: Still The Best Way to Check Your Credit Report
  5. Best Credit Card for World Travelers – Revisited

Adverse Possession: A method of gaining legal title to real property

Dictionary, Encyclopedia and Thesaurus - The Free Dictionary

Adverse Possession


A method of gaining legal title to real property by the actual, open, hostile, and continuous possession of it to the exclusion of its true owner for the period prescribed by state law. Personal Property may also be acquired by adverse possession.

Adverse possession is similar to prescription, another way to acquire title to real property by occupying it for a period of time. Prescription is not the same, however, because title acquired under it is presumed to have resulted from a lost grant, as opposed to the expiration of the statutory time limit in adverse possession.

Real Property

Title to land is acquired by adverse possession as a result of the lapse of the Statute of Limitations for Ejectment, which bars the commencement of a lawsuit by the true owner to recover possession of the land. Adverse possession depends upon the intent of the occupant to claim and hold real property in opposition to all the world and the demonstration of this intention by visible and hostile possession of the land so that the owner is or should be aware that adverse claims are being made.

The legal theory underlying the vesting of title by adverse possession is that title to land must be certain. Since the owner has, by his or her own fault and neglect, failed to protect the land against the hostile actions of the adverse possessor, an adverse possessor who has treated the land as his or her own for a significant period of time is recognized as its owner.

Title by adverse possession may be acquired against any person or corporation not excepted by statute. Property held by the federal government, a state, or a Municipal Corporation cannot be taken by adverse possession. As long as the property has a public use, as with a highway or school property, its ownership cannot be lost through adverse possession.

Anyone, including corporations, the federal government, states, and municipal corporations, can be an adverse possessor.

Elements In order that adverse possession ripen into legal title, nonpermissive use by the adverse claimant that is actual, open and notorious, exclusive, hostile, and continuous for the statutory period must be established. All of these elements must coexist if title is to be acquired by adverse possession. The character, location, present state of the land, and the uses to which it is put are evaluated in each case. The adverse claimant has the burden of proving each element by a preponderance of the evidence.

Actual Adverse possession consists of actual occupation of the land with the intent to keep it solely for oneself. Merely claiming the land or paying taxes on it, without actually possessing it, is insufficient. Entry on the land, whether legal or not, is essential. A Trespass may commence adverse possession, but there must be more than temporary use of the property by a trespasser for adverse possession to be established. Physical acts must show that the possessor is exercising the dominion over the land that an average owner of similar property would exercise. Ordinary use of the property—for example, planting and harvesting crops or cutting and selling timber—indicates actual possession. In some states acts that constitute actual possession are found in statute.

Open and Notorious An adverse possessor must possess land openly for all the world to see, as a true owner would. Secretly occupying another's land does not give the occupant any legal rights. Clearing, fencing, cultivating, or improving the land demonstrates open and notorious possession, while actual residence on the land is the most open and notorious possession of all. The owner must have actual knowledge of the adverse use, or the claimant's possession must be so notorious that it is generally known by the public or the people in the neighborhood. The notoriety of the possession puts the owner on notice that the land will be lost unless he or she seeks to recover possession of it within a certain time.

Exclusive Adverse possession will not ripen into title unless the claimant has had exclusive possession of the land. Exclusive possession means sole physical occupancy. The claimant must hold the property as his or her own, in opposition to the claims of all others. Physical improvement of the land, as by the construction of fences or houses, is evidence of exclusive possession.

An adverse claimant cannot possess the property jointly with the owner. Two people may, however, claim title by adverse possession as joint tenants if they share occupancy of the land. When others or the general public have regularly used or occupied the land with the adverse claimant, the requirement of exclusive possession is not satisfied. Casual use of the property by others is not, however, inconsistent with exclusive possession. Generally, easements do not affect the exclusive possession by an adverse possessor. In some jurisdictions easements exercised by the public or railroad rights of way will destroy exclusive possession.

Hostile Possession must be hostile, sometimes called adverse, if title is to mature from adverse possession. Hostile possession means that the claimant must occupy the land in opposition to the true owner's rights. There need not be a dispute or fighting over title as long as the claimant intends to claim the land and hold it against the interests of the owner and all the world. Possession must be hostile from its commencement and must continue throughout the statutory period.

One type of hostile possession occurs when the claimant enters and remains on land under color of title. Color of title is the appearance of title as a result of a deed that seems by its language to give the claimant valid title but, in fact, does not because some aspect of it is defective. If a person, for example, was suffering from a legal disability at the time he or she executed a deed, the grantee-claimant does not receive actual title. But the grantee-claimant does have color of title because it would appear to anyone reading the deed that good title had been conveyed. If a claimant possesses the land in the manner required by law for the full statutory period, his or her color of title will become actual title as a result of adverse possession.

Continuous Adverse possession must be continuous for the full statutory period if title is to vest. Continuity means regular, uninterrupted occupancy of the land. Mere occasional or sporadic use is not enough. Continuity is sometimes explained as the daily control of the land by the adverse claimant for the length of the statutory period. If a person has continuously occupied only a part of all the land claimed under adverse possession, he or she will acquire title only to the occupied portion.

While continuous possession is required for the acquisition of title by adverse possession, it is not necessary that only one person hold the land continuously for the statutory period. The time periods that successive adverse occupants have possessed the land may be added together to meet the continuity requirement if privity exists between the parties. The addition of these different periods is called tacking. Privity refers to the giving of possession of the land from one owner to the next so that it is continuously occupied by a possessor. Privity exists between different persons whose interests are related to each other by a sale or inheritance of the land or by operation of law, as possession by a trustee in Bankruptcy.

Tacking is permitted only when the possession by the prior occupant had been adverse or under color of title. If any time lapses between the end of one owner's possession and the start of another's occupation, there is no continuity, so tacking will not be allowed.

Interruption of continuous possession deprives the adverse possessor of the legal effect of his or her prior occupancy. The statute of limitations will begin to run again from the time he or she starts actual, open, hostile, notorious, and exclusive possession. The length of the interruption is insignificant as long as it disturbs continuous possession. At that time the law restores constructive possession of the land to the true owner.

The commencement of a lawsuit by the owner against the occupant over the right of ownership and possession of the land is one way to interrupt continuous possession. It may be an action to quiet title, for trespass, for an Injunction involving possessive rights, or to file a petition for registration of land title. Such lawsuits will destroy the continuity of possession only if successfully pursued to final judgments. If the owner chooses to abandon or settle a suit or if a court dismisses it, the continuity of possession is not breached.

The entry of the owner upon the land with the intent to repossess it is a clear exercise of ownership that disturbs possession. A survey of the land made at the request of the true owner does not interrupt possession unless the purpose is to help the true owner take possession. The owner's actions must be notorious and open so there can be no doubt as to what is intended. An accidental, casual, secret, or permissive entry is ineffective. While the entry must be notorious, it must also be peaceable to prevent violence and warfare, which might otherwise result.

The payment of real estate taxes by the owner, while demonstrating that he or she has not abandoned land, is not considered to have any impact on continuous possession.

The adverse claimant may destroy his or her continuous possession by abandoning the land or giving it to someone else, even the owner, before the time at which title to it would vest. It does not matter how long or brief the Abandonment is as long as it was intentional. A temporary absence from the land is not the same as an abandonment and has no effect on the occupancy, provided it is for a reasonable period of time.

Statutory Period The time period of the statute of limitations that must expire before title can be acquired by adverse possession varies from state to state. No statute will begin to run until the adverse claimant actually possesses the property in question under color of title or claim of right, where necessary. As of that time, the landowner is entitled to bring a lawsuit against the possessor to recover the property.

The adverse possessor must occupy the property for the full statutory period. In jurisdictions that also require color of title, it must coexist with possession for the complete period.

If the statute of limitations has been suspended—for example, because there is a lawsuit pending between the owner and the claimant or the owner is insane, an infant, or serving in the armed services—that amount of time will not be counted toward the time necessary for the acquisition of title.

Acquired Title

Once adverse possession is completed, the claimant has full legal title to the property. The expiration of the statutory period eliminates any Cause of Action or liability for ejectment or trespass regarding the new owner's prior unlawful possession of the property. Once the time period is satisfied, the adverse possessor is considered the original owner of the land. He or she may use the land any way he or she sees fit provided it is lawful.

Personal Property

Ownership of personal property may be acquired by adverse possession if the same requisites are met. The claimant must possess the property actually, openly, notoriously, exclusively, hostilely, under claim of right, and uninterrupted for the statutory period.

Further readings

Berger, Lawrence. 1999. "Unification of the Doctrines of Adverse Possession and Practical Location in the Establishment of Boundaries." Nebraska Law Review 78 (winter): 1–17.

Bloch, David S., and James Parton III. 2001. "The Intent Theory of Extinguishment under California Law." Southwestern University Law Review 30 (winter): 221–52.

Gonski, Dennis M. 2001. "Disrupting More Than a Half Century of Accepted Law." New Jersey Law Journal (June 18).

Latovick, Paula R. 1998. "Adverse Possession of Municipal Land: It's Time to Protect This Valuable Asset." University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform 31 (winter): 475–513.

Spitler, William Hayden. 2000. "Over a Century of Doubt and Confusion: Adverse Possession in Arkansas, Intent to Hold Adversely and Recognition of Superior Title." Arkansas Law Review 53 (spring): 459–87.

Stake, Jeffrey Evans. 2001. "The Uneasy Case for Adverse Possession." Georgetown Law Journal 89 (August): 2419–74.

Cross-references

Cause of Action; Color of Title; Easement; Real Property; Statute of Limitations; Title; Trespass.

West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.

adverse possession n. a means to acquire title to land through obvious occupancy of the land, while claiming ownership for the period of years set by the law of the state where the property exits. This can arise when a rancher fences in a parcel contending he was to get title from some prior owner, and then grazes cattle on the property for many years without objection by the title holder. Payment of real property taxes and making improvements (such as paving or fencing) for the statutory period (varies by state) are evidence of adverse possession but cannot be used by a land grabber with no claim to title other than possession. (See: possession)

Copyright © 1981-2005 by Gerald N. Hill and Kathleen T. Hill. All Right reserved.

adverse possession noun acquisition, assumption, attainment, obtainment, ownership, proprietorship, recovery, seizure
Associated concepts: adverse claim, adverse holding, adderse interest, adverse party, adverse user, adverse verdict, adverse witness

Burton's Legal Thesaurus, 4E. Copyright © 2007 by William C. Burton. Used with permission of The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.


ADVERSE POSSESSION, title to lands. The enjoyment of land, or such estate as lies in grant, under such circumstances as indicate that such enjoyment has been commenced and continued, under an assertion or color of right on the part of the possessor. 3 East, R. 394; 1 Pick. Rep. 466; 1 Dall. R. 67; 2 Serg. & Rawle, 527; 10 Watts R, 289; 8 Con R. 440; 3 Penn. 132; 2 Aik. 364; 2 Watts, 23; 9, John. 174; 18 John. 40, 355; 5 Pet. 402; 4 Bibb, 550. Actual possession is a pedis possessio which can be only of ground enclosed, and only such possession can a wrongdoer have. He can have no constructive possession. 7 Serg. & R. 192; 3 Id. 517; 2 Wash. C. Rep. 478, 479.
2. When the possession or enjoyment has been adverse for twenty years, of which the jury are to judge from the circumstances the law raises the presumption of a grant. Ang. on Wat. Courses, 85, et seq. But this presumption arises only when the use or occupation would otherwise have been unlawful. 3 Greenl. R. 120; 6 Binn. R. 416; 6 Cowen, R. 617, 677; Cowen, R. 589; 4 S. & R. 456. See 2 Smith's Lead. Cas. 307-416.
3. There are four general rules by which it may be ascertained that possession is not adverse; these will be separately considered.
4.-1. When both parties claim under the same title; as, if a man seised of certain land in fee, have issue two sons and die seised, and one of the sons enter by abatement into the land, the statute, of limitations will not operate against the other son; for when the abator entered into the land of his father, before entry made by his brother, the law intends that he entered claiming as heir to his father, by which title the other son also claims. Co. Litt s. 396.
5.-2. When the possession of the one party is consistent with the title of the other; as, where, the rents of a trust state were received by a cestui que trust for more than twenty years after the creation of the trust, without any interference, of the trustee, such possession being consistent with and secured to the cestui que trust by the terms of the deed, the receipt was held not to be adverse to the title of the trustee. 8 East. 248.
6.-3. When, in contemplation of law, the claimant has never been out of possession; as, where Paul devised lands to John and his heirs, and died, and John died, and afterwards the heirs of John and a stranger entered, and took the profits for twenty years; upon ejectment brought by the devisee of the heir of John against the stranger, it was held that the perception of the rents and profits by the stranger was not adverse to the devisee's title; for when two men are in possession, the law adjudges it to be the possession of him who has the right. Lord Raym. 329.
7.-4. When the occupier has acknowledged the claimant's titles; as, if a lease be granted for a term, and, after paying the rent for the land during such term, the tenant hold for twenty years without paying rent, his possession will not be adverse. See Bos. & P. 542; 8 B. & Cr. 717; 2 Bouv. Inst. n. 2193-94, 2351.

A Law Dictionary, Adapted to the Constitution and Laws of the United States. By John Bouvier. Published 1856.

UK Squatting guide

Home

UK Squatting guide


This is a brief guide to the completely legal activity of squatting - occupying an empty property and making it your home.

It helps avoid homelessness, since renting or buying a house can be prohibitively expensive for many people.

There is a fair chance that you may believe squatting in England and Wales to be illegal. This is most definitely not the case. Squatting is not a crime, and if anyone says it is, they are wrong! With a few exceptions, if you can get into an empty building without doing any damage and can secure it, you can make it your home.

The 1994 Criminal Justice & Public Order Act has made some changes to the laws about squatting but it is still as legal as it is necessary. Always remember that squatting is unlawful, not illegal which means that it is a civil dispute, dealt with by a civil court; and the police have nothing to do with civil disputes.

You will almost certainly be evicted eventually, perhaps very quickly, but you have the same rights as other householders; the right to privacy, rubbish collection, postal delivery, social security and essential services like water and electricity. Many squats last only a time but if you choose your place carefully, you may be able to stay for years (pictured above is St Agnes Place, a whole street in South London squatted for over 30 years). Choosing carefully usually means taking time to gather information. You could quite easily open the first empty building that you come across, but the chances are that you would not stay there forever. Opening a new squat is always a bit of a gamble but the more you know the better your odds. Read on!

Finding a place
All property is owned by someone and it is a good to find out who that someone is before breaking a new place. Some types of landlord are far easier to deal with than others, so here are a few tips on what to expect from various landlords:

Council Property: In the past the best places to squat have been local authority owned properties that are not going to be re-let. This is for a number of reasons. Councils have a lot of empty properties and often do not have the money to keep them in a lettable state. Often quite reasonable properties are left empty because of mismanagement, bureaucracy or low demand on hard to let estates (as people do not want to move to them). If there are a lot of squatters the council will take longer to evict people. Some councils or individual employees may be unofficially sympathetic to squatters and leave eviction until the properties are required. Also, councils do have some duties to house people and these duties can sometimes be used as legal defences in possession proceedings. Be warned, though, that recently more and more Councils have become more hard line in their attitudes towards squatters, and in fact any-one living in council property; and the incidences of false PIOs, illegal or heavy-handed evictions and trashing property have increased. Council properties will either be letting stock, (i.e. properties fit to be let), hard to let or awaiting renovation, demolition or sale.

Housing Associations/Trusts: These are government and or charitably funded housing organisations. They also have large numbers of empty properties and some are quite reasonable in their attitude to squatters. Others can be particularly stupid - and nasty. The different categories of Housing Association property are basically the same as Council property.

Other Large Organisations: Many government departments and newly privatised quangos own lots of empty properties. These include the MOD, the police and railway companies, as well as hospitals and schools.

Mortgage Repossessions: These are places owned by banks or building societies, and are an attractive option simply because there are huge numbers of them. As long as the previous owners have been evicted, the owners will have to take you to court.

Commercial Property: Private landlords and property companies are always the most unpredictable type of owner - they could send in the heavies or ignore you for years. They are the type of owner most likely to evict you if you leave the place empty. In the past few years many pubs have been closed and left empty for years, and have sometimes been successfully squatted.

Private Houses: Empty houses with 'For Sale' signs outside are not a good option. If an owner has recently moved out, it is quite likely that someone else is about to move in and so would be very inconvenienced. A new private owner is able to use the PIO provisions of Section 7, and is highly likely to do so. Best avoided.

Moving in
The most difficult part of squatting is actually gaining possession. Squatters are sometimes arrested for Criminal Damage, which, taken in it's strictest possible form, is an offence which almost all squatters commit. Removing steel doors, boards, damaging the front door, even taking out broken parts of a house can be considered Criminal Damage. But don't get paranoid! Only a very small minority of squatters ever get nicked - and with good legal advice they often get off. The greatest time of risk is when you have just moved in - the police are bound to come nosing around and may accuse you of having smashed windows, etc. If any damage has been done, make sure it's repaired immediately.

Opening a squat by yourself can be risky - it's safer and more fun to do it with others. Most forcible evictions happen in the first few days, so make sure there's a group of you who open up the squat and are ready to move in at once. If the police want to charge you with criminal damage, they'll have to sort out who actually did it. Provided no one is caught red-handed or makes any stupid statements, they will obviously have a difficult time deciding who to charge. The first thing to do once you're in is to change the lock on the front door and secure all the entrances. Until you have control over who comes in and out, you do not have possession and can be evicted straight away if the owner or police turn up. Remember secure all windows and skylights. Putting up a legal warning (see below) in a front window may be helpful, as it may deter the police or owner from breaking in, but you must have someone in the place all the time to back it up. A legal warning will not stop you being evicted on it's own. Put up curtains and try to make the place look lived in. Get down to the gas and electric board quickly - before the owners do. If the services are on, take a note of the meter readings. If you use gas or electricity without paying, you can be charged with theft. If you have neighbours, and enlist their support. Explain why you are homeless - you may get a surprisingly sympathetic response.

Dealing with the police
It's best to expect a visit from the local police soon after you've moved in, as they are bound to turn up sooner or later. Remember, they have no right of entry without a warrant, so don’t let them in if you can avoid it. Let them know the situation. Say something like:-

"We have moved in here because we have nowhere else. We did not break anything when entered and we have not damaged anything since. It isn't a criminal matter; it's a civil matter between us and the owners, and they must take us to court for a possession order if they want us to leave".

Some police act as if they can evict or arrest any squatter they see. This is not true. Try to talk to them through the letter box. Make sure you know the legal situation better than they do (not usually very difficult) and show them a copy of the Legal Warning. If they simply say "get out, don't be clever", etc you can point out that they may be committing an offence under section 6 of the Criminal Law Act, because they will be violently entering premises where there is some opposing their entry.

Eviction
Unless you are evicted under Section 6 or 7 of the 1977 Criminal Law Act or the owners have evicted you while you were out, the owner must apply the courts for a possession order. Any other method will probably be illegal. Nearly all squats are evicted after a possession order has been made by a court. The notorious 1994 Criminal Justice & Public Order Act has not actually changed the position very much. Apart from a few minor changes to the law about PlOs, it has produced an extra type of possession order called an INTERIM POSSESSION ORDER (IPO). This can be nasty, but has turned out to be not nearly so bad as everyone thought when it was going through parliament. It cannot be used on the majority of squatters, and so far there have very few IP0s. Most IP0s which squatters defended have flopped and the owners have been forced to use the old procedures instead. The important thing about IP0s is that you get very short notice. You need to take action THE SAME DAY as you get served with the papers. Get legal advice straight away.

The first warning
The first warning you get may be someone calling your squat saying they are the owner or are acting for the owner. Ask to see their identification and note the name, address and phone number. They will probably say something like, "'You are trespassing and you must leave". They may also give you some bullshit about the new IPO procedure and say that the police could come and arrest you at any time. Make sure you know the facts about IPOs and don't get intimidated by this sort of talk. Make a note of everything you heard and said as soon as they leave. Sign and date it, as it may be useful evidence if you fight the court case. They will probably ask for the names of all living in the squat, and there is no advantage in withholding this information. If you volunteer a lot of names - particularly in a big squat – and they forget to send summonses to all those people, you may have a defence in court. You don’t have to give your real name, but if you fight the case and require legal aid, you can’t get it in a false name!

Quite often the first warning will be a letter rather than a visit. It will say the same sort of things and probably that you must leave by a certain date or else the owner "will take proceedings". Don't panic about such a letter. It just means the owner has found out that you're there.

It's quite possible that the first warning you get will be the summons. A summons is the formal notice of the court hearing, and you have the right to get one. These are civil courts, not criminal ones, so you don't have to go if you don't want to. It's more of an invitation, but one you should think about accepting if you value your home and want to fight for it. Of course, some cases are not worth fighting if there is no defence. You may be better off looking for another place than putting energy into a court case that will go against you sooner or later. On the other hand, even technical defences can give you a little more time and sometimes quite a lot. IP0s should always be opposed if possible.

It is beyond the space limitations of this guide, to go into the details of fighting court cases, and it is recommended that you get hold of a copy of the Squatters Handbook which contains stacks of info on every aspect of squatting (details below).

Squat now while stocks last!
If you are homeless and have tried all the accepted ways of getting a home, don't be afraid to take matters into your own hands instead of letting the system grind you down. Everyone has the right to a home. If others can squat, so can you. Take control of your own life instead of being pushed around by bureaucrats and property owners who are more concerned with money and status than the quality of people's lives or their happiness.

This article has been made with extracts of The Squatters Handbook, which is published by Advisory Service for Squatters, 2 St Pauls Road, London N1 2QN Tel: 020 7359 8814 www.squatters.org.uk.
This text was taken and edited from schnews.org.uk by libcom.org. Last reviewed 2006.

Squatting in the United States


Squatting

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Squatting is the act of occupying an abandoned or unoccupied space or building, usually residential,[1] that the squatter does not own, rent or otherwise have permission to use. According to author Robert Neuwirth, there are one billion squatters globally, that is, about one in every seven people on the planet.[2] Yet, according to Kesia Reeve, "squatting is largely absent from policy and academic debate and is rarely conceptualized, as a problem, as a symptom, or as a social or housing movement."[3]

United States of America

In the United States, squatting laws vary from state to state and city to city. For the most part, it is rarely tolerated to any degree for long, particularly in cities.[50] There have been a few exceptions, notably in 2002 when the New York City administration agreed to turn over 11 buildings in the Lower East Side, which had been squatted in, to an established non-profit, on the condition that the apartments would later be turned over to the tenants as low-income housing cooperatives.[51]

Occupancy Issues

Laws based on a contract-ownership interpretation of property make it easy for deed holders to evict squatters under loitering or trespassing laws.[24] The situation is more complicated for legal residents who fail to make rent or mortgage payments, but the result is largely the same.

Most squatting in the US is dependent on law enforcement, and the person legally considered to be the owner of the property being unaware of the occupants. Often, the most important factors in the longevity of squats in the US are apathy of the owner and the likeliness of neighbors to call the police. This was not always the case, particularly in the era of Westward expansion, wherein the federal government specifically recognized the rights of squatters. For example, see the Preemption Act of 1841.

Legal Protections

The United States Homestead Act legally recognized the concept of homesteading and distinguished it from squatting, since it gave homesteaders permission to occupy unclaimed lands. Additionally, US states that have a shortage of housing tend to tolerate squatters in property awaiting redevelopment until the developer is ready to begin work. However, at that point, the laws tend to be enforced.[citation needed] The Homestead Act of 1862 was signed by Abraham Lincoln on May 20 and sought to reallocate unsettled land in the West. The law applied to U.S. citizens and prospective citizens that had never borne arms against the U.S. government. It required a five-year commitment, during which time the homesteader had to build a twelve-by-fourteen foot dwelling, develop the 160-acre plot of land allocated, and generally better the condition of the unsettled property. After five years of positively contributing to the land, the homesteader could file for the deed to the property, which entailed sending paperwork to the General Land Office in Washington, D.C., and from there, "valid claims were granted patent free and clear".[52] Moreover, there were loopholes to this law, including provisions made for those serving in the U.S. military. After the Civil War, Union veterans could deduct time served in the army from the five-year homesteader requirement.

In common law, through the legally recognized concept of adverse possession, a squatter can become a bona fide owner of property without compensation to the owner. Adverse possession is the process by which one acquires the title to a piece of land by occupying it for the number of years necessary, dictated differently by each state. A necessary component of this transfer of ownership requires that the landowner is aware of the land occupation and does nothing to put an end to it. If the land use by the new occupant goes unchecked for the said number of years, the new occupant can claim legal rights to the title of the land. The occupant must show that the "possession is actual, open, notorious, exclusive, hostile, under cover of claim or right, and continuous and uninterrupted for the statutory period."[53]As Erin Wiegand notes, the most difficult part of claiming adverse possession on the part of squatters is the continuous part. Squatting is a very transient lifestyle and many are evicted on a frequent basis. [54] In an article regarding recent foreclosures in the United States, a current squatter in Miami stated of her housing, "It's a beautiful castle and it's temporary for me, if I can be here twenty-four hours, I'm thankful."[55] Thus, while adverse possession allows for the legality of a squatter's situation, it is not easy to win a case of adverse possession.

Types of Squats

Squats used for living in can be divided into two types (although they are not absolutes): so-called "back-window squats" (the most common type[citation needed], in which occupants sneak in and out of the building with the intent of hiding that they live there) and "front-door squats" (where the occupants make little or no effort to conceal their comings and goings). Many squats may start out as one or the other and then change over time. Frequently, squatters will move in and then later assess how open they can be about their activities before they approach the neighbors; others will not move into a place until they have first met and discussed the idea with the neighbors. The difference between the two types can be signs of vast differences in philosophies of squatting and its purpose, how long the occupants plan to be around, and on the atmosphere of the neighborhood, among many other factors.

Squatters can be young people living in punk houses or low-income or homeless people.

Non-profit Advocacy

There are non-profit advocacy groups in existence in many cities throughout the U.S. These groups give organizational backing and political power to the plight of squatters. The nonprofits also assist the squatters to have the work on improving their apartments legitimized, or approved by the appropriate local authority. In New York City, the Urban Homesteading Assistance Board was at the forefront of a homesteading movement in the 1970s and 1980s, and more recently liaised with the city to legitimize the efforts of squatters in 11 buildings in the Lower East Side.[51] Although the New York City government had previously forcibly removed many squatters in the 1990s, in 2002 it agreed to sell these 11 buildings for $1 each to UHAB. The buildings were to be brought up to code by the squatters (with UHAB's assistance) and then the apartments were bought for $250 each and the buildings converted to affordable cooperatives by the former squatters [51].

Take Back the Land is a Miami-based self-proclaimed housing liberation group that formed in 2006. They break into vacant, unused bank-owned foreclosed homes and move homeless people inside.[56] Take Back the Land organized a shantytown called the Umoja Village to squat a vacant lot in 2006 and 2007. [57]

A group called Homes Not Jails advocates squatting houses to end the problem of homelessness. It has opened "about 500 houses, 95% of which have lasted six months or less. In a few cases, [these] squats have lasted for two, three or even six years."[20]

In Minnesota, a group known as the Poor People's Economic Human Rights Campaign has relocated families into thirteen empty properties, and one national organizer likened the advocacy and service work of her group to "a modern-day underground railroad".[55]

The Movement

In addition to these advocacy groups, there are a number of useful websites that provide squatters with information on how to go about setting up a squat.

Squat!net is an internationally contributed-to website that provides squatters with tips on how to squat and possible open properties on which to do it.

Additionally, some squatters use the internet as a safe space in which to share information. An Australian-based community of squatters, SquatSpace, developed a comprehensive website after being forced underground with the eviction of the Broadway Squats in South Sydney. The website features anonymous postings of squatter art exhibits and protests in the Sydney area and provides a virtual space for those without a physical community space. There are also numerous squatter blogs and blogs about how to squat, including one from author Robert Neuwirth.

California Gold Rush

When gold was discovered in California in January 1848, it resulted in a flood of treasure seekers entering the state, just two weeks after it was ceded to the United States from Mexico. Due to the ambiguity in existing law regarding squatting federal land, individual mining camps had to develop squatting laws to fill the legal void.

New York City

In New York City, homeless people squatting in underground spaces such as Freedom Tunnel have come to be known as Mole People. They were the subject of an award-winning documentary called Dark Days.

It is estimated that in the 1990s, there were between 500 and 1,000 squatters occupying 32 buildings on Manhattan's Lower East Side. The buildings had been abandoned as a result of speculation by owners or police raids as part of a crackdown on drug use.[58] As the area became gentrified, the squats were evicted, Dos Blockos being one. Three buildings on 13th Street were evicted without notification following a prolonged legal battle in which the squatters argued through their lawyer Stanley Cohen that they were entitled to ownership of the buildings through adverse possession since they had lived there since 1983.[59]

In 1995, a preliminary injunction had been granted against the eviction plans, but this was overturned by state appellate.[60]

Despite squatting being illegal, artists had begun to squat buildings to live in and use as atelier space[clarification needed]. European squatters coming to New York brought ideas of cooperative living with them such as a bar, support between squats, and tool exchange.[24]

In 2002, eleven squats out of the twelve remaining on the Lower East Side signed a deal with the city council brokered by the Urban Homesteading Assistance Board. In this project, UHAB bought the buildings for $1 each and agreed to assist the squatters to undertake essential renovation work, after which their apartments could be bought for $250 each. UHAB would also train them in running low-income limited-equity housing cooperatives.[58] After prices peaked from the housing boom, several of the squatters told press that they wanted out of the contract so they could be allowed to sell their units at market rate prices. No such arrangements have been made, but some squatters are challenging the contract and believe adverse possession protects their ownership claim.[61]

The first squat to completed co-op conversion in May of 2009 is Bullet Space, an artists' gallery and residence at 292 E. 3rd St. [62] Another is C-Squat; as well as social center ABC No Rio, which was founded in 1980.