Forced to live with squatter in my Detroit Boston-Edison house?

What's up wid this? Who goes along with such a thing...? Seems strange. Dinner time must be a push around there especially after the owner has spoken out re. what she considers as the 'entitlement' attitude of her, eh' umm guest?

More squatter stories have been in the news. This one suggests a new form of communal living? Per the article the owner had left the property unoccupied for some time... see vid which shows the home, etc.

Forced to live alongside squatter in my Detroit house, woman says

From article:

The alleged squatter's name is documented all over the house as Missionary-Tracey Elaine Blair, a write-in candidate for president.

We asked Peterson whether she feels safe.

"I don't know what the capabilities are. We're afraid of her mindset of entitlement."

A squatter doesn't have a legal right to the property, but under the law the homeownerhttp://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/icon1.png cannot remove a squatter by force. In most cases, the homeowner has to file a civil action in court, prove it's their property and evict the squatter. That is what Peterson is trying to do.

"She thinks that this is a program in Detroit to take people's homeshttp://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/icon1.png and fix them up and then she gets to keep them," Peterson said.

Since Peterson spent all of her money on the house, she said she can't afford to go anywhere else, and until she can legally kick the woman out, they are forced to live under the same roof.

"I thought if the house is not safe, how can I come here with my child? There's an issue with that. But should I lose my house to a squatter because I don't have rights to my property or should I fight to get it back," said Peterson..."

http://www.myfoxdetroit.com/story/19...use-woman-says

Screw the squatter/civil definition, why wouldn't an owner use criminal trespass to get them out?

This story really disturbs me, that woman, the owner, is sleeping in there with her baby! I don't know if I would go that far to prove a point! Very scary! That squatter is a freaking nut! I don't care what the law says, its time for Heidi to call up some big buff family members and have them all fill up that house and keep the squatter out!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Detwa

This story really disturbs me, that woman, the owner, is sleeping in there with her baby! I don't know if I would go that far to prove a point! Very scary! That squatter is a freaking nut! I don't care what the law says, its time for Heidi to call up some big buff family members and have them all fill up that house and keep the squatter out!

---

Detwa, I was thinking the same thing: get some real rough necks,, every family has a few, to get ole girl out of there. Why can't Heidi have the locks changed like Ms. Missionary did?

Why would someone buy a home in Boston Edison, and then just leave it for a year, unwatched?

I wouldn't leave a home in that area unwatched for the weekend. A year is just crazy, and you would expect something bad to happen in that timespan.

I mean, she paid 23k for what is probably a mini-mansion. Why does she think it's so cheap?

Isn't that a form of breaking and entering? Something isn't right with this case.

Let's say this squatter never stayed in the house. Wouldn't the owner arguably be worse off?

What would happen to an unoccupied, unwatched home in this neighborhood in the course of a year? At the least, it would be stripped clean.

Another example of how due process is killing the city. I'm all for democracy...but when this is the byproduct, I think the pendulum as swung too far to other side.

A comment in the news article said that the owner seemed to have a sort of accent, perhaps she was from another country during the purchase? I also wonder why the neighbors didn't alert her but she must not have even met them, probably just bought it, looked at it, and then left. How unfortunate either way. I just hope she's safe in there because that "missionary" seems cuckoo.

Not uncommon, here and around the country. Squatters have rights, more than what they ought IMO, but a "professional" squatter can stay in your house for months while they work the legal system and produce false documents.

There have been advocates of this on this board before.

A lot of the recent upswing in squatter activity is due to Michigan Welfare Rights Organization and the monster that is Maureen Taylor. They cook up some phoney, notarized documents and convince the squatters they have rights to the property. They harken back to an old ordinance, Repair-to-Own, which is on the books, but they don't actually go through the proper legal channels to execute it.

They put families in houses without plumbing, water, heat, or electricity because their idea is that it is better than nothing. In each instance I am intimately familiar with, the properties were all privately-owned by everyone from actual mortgage-holders who owned the property, to real estate agents listing them, or you name it - all privately owned. In each case the squatter behaved, well, like a squatter - threatening neighbors, throwing sewage out the window, allowing the property to rapidly deteriorate, all with the assurance that they own the property.

I sympathize that so many people are without a home but this clearly isn't the solution. Of course the decent homeowners nearby [[the ones who, you know, use toilets) want nothing more than to jump ship, further destroying the neighborhood.

Again, all this is with the blessing and fierce advocation of Maureen Taylor and the Michigan Welfare Rights Organization. Rather than find real solutions they put families in dangerous situations. The squatters inevitably end up thrown out through the [[long) eviction process. I'm virtually certain that this woman in the video is speaking of the same "program"

Squatters Rights are largely a myth. In Michigan you need to occupy a property for 15 years to obtain what is called Adverse Possession. They're just tough to get out because you need to prove they're not supposed to be there [[none of them are), which can be tough when they have official looking documents.

I realize many people need help but if they invested half as much energy in productive activities as they did with phony documents, breaking into houses and changing locks, and fraud then I am sure solutions could be found.

This is not a answer, this is dangerous and who wants to live in a neighborhood with squatters ?
I don't like empty house , but allowing squatter to just move into any open house is not the answer.
they don't have water, electric and heat ? who knows what they are going to do for electric and heat? this is simply a too dangerous .
The city should not allow this they should address the real problems , why not open the old brewsters and allow them to stay in a safe area where they can live decently and find help , allowing them to just move into stable neighborhoods further drives people away from the city .
Not all these people are bad , but in my opinion this is not the answer.
Allowing this sends a signal to other squatter" Detroit is open for business !"
you can just go move into ANY empty house, this laissez faire approach is one reason the city looks the way it does now .
This send the wrong message

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by poobert

The squatters inevitably end up thrown out through the [[long) eviction process.

---

The civil eviction process in Michigan is obviously not an ideal solution for an owner under these circumstances. But it is not a long process compared to other judicial matters. Properly handled by a competent attorney, the process would take about six weeks [[even in 36th District Court).

Here is a similar case in Colorado in which the squatters hired a lawyer. The owners had gotten behind in their mortgage payments and had to move away for eight months to get work. When they came back, squatters had occupied their house. The squatters filed for bankruptcy themselves and that action froze any attempts at moving them out, Meanwhile, the owners are living in a basement elsewhere while the squatters are enjoying the use of their home.

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/color...4#.UHWI-7QjV8s

Squatters' rights is now an United Nation international law after the Allen Greenspan Real Estate Depression of 2008. No law by U.S. Congress, or any foreign nation, state legislatures, city councils, county governments, alderman boards, township or village councils can make into a constitutional amendment prohibiting squatters from living in your property. No police or state trooper or any armed forces can evict them out. They are unwanted pests that are very hard to get rid of. [[like bedbugs!)

However there are some ways to evict squatters:

1. The homeowner MUST apply an eviction notice by the any court of law in that area. This process might take up to 30 to 90 days [[eventually)! You might a lawyer for your case.

2. Call your local bail bond agency. They will come out to your property to check on the squatters' conditions. If they squatter[[s) possess any illegal activity or destruction of property, they must be evicted immediately or face either a citizens' or law enforcement arrest.

3. If a squatter[[s) have chidren they must go school in their district with a doctor's approval of immunization shots. They can't miss more then 80% of absences or face immediate eviction or loss of state or gov't benefits. [[If they have one.)

I am going to squat in Danny's house!

Poobert sez...

"A lot of the recent upswing in squatter activity is due to Michigan Welfare Rights Organization and the monster that is Maureen Taylor. They cook up some phoney, notarized documents and convince the squatters they have rights to the property. They harken back to an old ordinance, Repair-to-Own, which is on the books, but they don't actually go through the proper legal channels to execute it. They put families in houses without plumbing, water, heat, or electricity because their idea is that it is better than nothing. In each instance I am intimately familiar with, the properties were all privately-owned by everyone from actual mortgage-holders who owned the property, to real estate agents listing them, or you name it - all privately owned. In each case the squatter behaved, well, like a squatter - threatening neighbors, throwing sewage out the window, allowing the property to rapidly deteriorate, all with the assurance that they own the property."

"Yes it's true, but not a state constitutional amendment and it can not be passed, becuase its already passed by the international law. There's nothing that the governments of world can do to change Squatters' rights."


"Squatters Rights are largely a myth. In Michigan you need to occupy a property for 15 years to obtain what is called Adverse Possession. They're just tough to get out because you need to prove they're not supposed to be there [[none of them are), which can be tough when they have official looking documents."

"Technically not true, but people can squat in your property if that home is unoccupied for months or years with some adverse possession."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DetroitPlanner

I am going to squat in Danny's house!

---

You can start by squatting at my old home in 16210 Lawton St. north of Puritan, south of McNichols, east of Livernois and west of Log Cabin near the Highland Park border.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Detroitdave

The city should not allow this they should address the real problems , why not open the old brewsters...

---

This is key. Public housing has been largely dismantled.

However I've heard noises from these Michigan Welfare Rights scoundrels that squatters are entitled not just to a place to live but a bona fide house.

Really, though, there is more than one way to skin a squatter. A little goon squad goes a long way.

Someone's going to get hurt over this. Not everybody is going to just call the news and wait it out.

It's not just Detroit though [[in this area), there's a lot of squatters in Pontiac too. I have a relative in Chicago who wants to return to this area and she was being coached on how to squat in a house in Pontiac. She was really considering it, because she's been told - by these other despicable relatives whom I won't break bread with - that she can do it for as long as 2 years because either they have, are, or know someone who is.

This is crazy!!Crazier than the nut who thinks she's entitled to live in Ms.Peterson's house. I applaud the homeowner for taking a stand but I'd be worried for my saftey&the saftey of my baby were I her. The little I saw of the sqatter suggests she's not firmly rooted in reality. The woman looks plain batty!!
One thing has me confused about this entire mess though. How did Ms.Patterson get back into the house after the deranged sqauatter changed the locks? I normally don't condone violence but in this case I'd make an exception. ICAM with those that suggest Peterson get some of her burley family members or friends to escort the squatter out! However I do worry that once Ms.Peterson gets this nut out of her house there will be some kind of retaliation against Ms.Peterson and/or the property.
I've seen a lot in my time here in Michigan but this is one of the strangest things to date!

What I don't get is how are utilities turned on? Last I heard if there are delinquencies on the water, gas or electric you cannot get these things turned on in your name; squatter or otherwise.

So what are the squatters doing when MICHIGAN WINTER comes, what are they doing for sanitation all year?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Detwa

Someone's going to get hurt over this. Not everybody is going to just call the news and wait it out....

---

Ewww. Log Cabin street. Not good. No wonder you want out! Puritan near there is a jewel too!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Danny

You can start by squatting at my old home in 16210 Lawton St. north of Puritan, south of McNichols, east of Livernois and west of Log Cabin near the Highland Park border.

---

"Why would someone buy a home in Boston Edison, and then just leave it for a year, unwatched?
I wouldn't leave a home in that area unwatched for the weekend. A year is just crazy, and you would expect something bad to happen in that timespan.
I mean, she paid 23k for what is probably a mini-mansion. Why does she think it's so cheap?"
"Let's say this squatter never stayed in the house. Wouldn't the owner arguably be worse off?
What would happen to an unoccupied, unwatched home in this neighborhood in the course of a year? At the least, it would be stripped clean."

You're right. WHAT was the owner thinking! Maybe she could reimburse the squatter for her time and trouble. I mean, after all, she is potential Presidential material.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zacha341

Ewww. Log Cabin street. Not good. No wonder you want out! Puritan near there is a jewel too!

---

I and my family left the area in 1985. My dad lost his job and we can't pay the bills. We did not squat! My parents were hard working middle class family taxpayers. Lawton St between Puritan and McNichols was called Martin Park near Palmer Park, Pilgrim Village and University District. It was a very beautiful neighborhood until the DEAD [[C)KRAK HEADS from Highland Park took over and turn it into a ghetto. After I have move out There once was a drug house being formed after the owner died and people squatted in there until the city torn it down. There was a drug house on the middle block of Lawton St next to my aunt and her family. The city finally torn it down. There are plenty of vacant and abandon homes in that area today ready for squatting.

Log Cabin St. from Puritan to McNichols used to be a called "CRACK HEAD ROW." back in the 1980s, the homes were well kept up, but most of them were own by drug dealers and gang overlords [[especially the Young Boys Inc.) Neighbors were warned not to snitch or else get killed! Parents kept their kids out of that area unless the YBI hired them to do drug runs on Dexter-Davison and Joy Rd- Clairmount block. That is why they must be home before the streetlights come on.

Perhaps she doesn't have any of those formidable 'burley' family types? She can borrow some of mine!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trotwood

ICAM with those that suggest Peterson get some of her burley family members or friends to escort the squatter out! However I do worry that once Ms.Peterson gets this nut out of her house there will be some kind of retaliation against Ms.Peterson and/or the property.

---

If there was no outstanding bills then the Missionary just called and turned it on. Every foreclosure wasn't a deadbeat, maybe the previous owners lost the home but moved and transferred their bills honestly, so the new owner didn't have a problem there.

Hey I wasn't even suggesting physical force by loading up the house with big guys, lol, but I figured have them all come and camp out for a long stay! Make Miss Missionary VERY uncomfortable when every room she turns into has a few big guys just hanging out and drinking beers and making themselves at home! After all, its apparently both of their homes now so everything is fair game.

She's only acting like that because Heidi is a tiny little soft spoken white woman.

Yeah, well she best toughin' and 'tighten' up or prepare to be a doormat! Once people perceive weakness and isolation they will bulldoze with impunity - withstanding race!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Detwa

She's only acting like that because Heidi is a tiny little soft spoken white woman.

---

"She's only acting like that because Heidi is a tiny little soft spoken white woman"

Maybe some of us should volunteer to help Heidi out?

I've already volunteered some of my 'take-care-of-business', albeit somewhat estranged family members! ---:cool:---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Honky Tonk

"She's only acting like that because Heidi is a tiny little soft spoken white woman"

Maybe some of us should volunteer to help Heidi out?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zacha341

Perhaps she doesn't have any of those formidable 'burley' family types? She can borrow some of mine!

---

Maybe not. If your folks are busy I'd happily send over a few of mine.
This is a bizarre&ridiculous sitauation.

My question is why can a bank evict a "squatter" but a homeowner can't?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by casscorridor

My question is why can a bank evict a "squatter" but a homeowner can't?

---

Sometimes banks can't evict a squatter due to his or her rights by international law. What banks can do is take their petition to court a law for eviction. That process would take 30 to 60 days eventually.

Just change the locks and through her out!! What is the squatter going to do, call a cop [[they may get there sometime next year)? I doubt the squatter has the resources to take her to court.

Thats not a family friendly area by any means. I certainly would move in there if I had a kid. This woman is basically screwed... whats she gonna do? Kick the nutcase out? Woman will burn that house to the ground.

Sounds like a job for the Detroit 300. They could come to the aid of a tax payer. Anyone want to hold their breath?

What a horrible situation.

there was a case like this a few years back where these brothers bought a load of homes from the county and flipped them to unsuspecting buyers. One buyer bought a home and went in to see what repairs needed to be made. While there the crazy skitzo squatter lady came back and threw a Molotov cocktail threw the window almost burning the new home owner alive.

I also follow this Detroit flipper on youtube by the name of Proshea1. That dude Vblogs everything! Last year he tried to evict some drug dealer squatters on the East Side and they burned his house down the next day.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Detwa

She's only acting like that because Heidi is a tiny little soft spoken white woman.

---

Nah. Squatters are pretty non-discriminating. Like anyone, they'll walk all over you if you let them, regardless of race.

I'm not sure Heidi has all her marbles either, though. If you're buying a broken down old BE mini-mansion, in a sketchy part of BE, for $23k and that's all you've got...you're already in trouble, regardless of your strung out ghetto squatter tenant/presidential candidate.

Interestingly the squatter apparently leaves[[ I imagine to hit the campaign trail) since the news caught her pulling up, which would be an ideal time to change all the locks and sit on the porch with a loaded gun and a baseball bat. When squatter returns, inform them you have never seen them before and that they're going to have a bad day if they try to set foot on said property.

A lot of times squatters will squat with a bunch of people and never leave the house empty, just so you couldn't conjur up such a scenario.

Now, really, if I were living in a house with a squatter with my child, I would find a way to end said sqatter really quickly. Don't murders go unsolved like 70% of the time in Detroit? Grind up some glass for her gumbo and you've only got a 30% chance of getting caught.

Somebody remind me to stay on Poobert's good side. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gnome

Sounds like a job for the Detroit 300. They could come to the aid of a tax payer. Anyone want to hold their breath?

---

I hadn't thought of that but good idea.
When I saw the story I couldn't help but think Maureen Taylor's crew should lend a hand to get the squatter out of Peterson's house.

every part of BE is sketchy. Its surrounded on all sides by desperate areas. A bad neighborhood with cool homes. Best way to maintain what little integrity it has left would be throwing a large fence up around it and restricting entrance to 1 or 2 streets with a guard that lifts a gate. you may wonder why I think this way. BE is smack dab in the middle of a drug area. Probably been this way 40 years. Addicts in this area arent of the functional variety either. That gas station at woodward and trowbridge is an open air drug market. I made the mistake of stopping there not too long ago. Some kid approached me right away. Pretty sure he thought I phoned him to meet up since he was surprised that I didn't know what he wanted. Inside the station i was solicited again by what looked like a 8 year old. People that live in BE are assumed to have some money. Seems like the best way to preserve and turn BE around would be to keep those who dont belong in the neighborhood out. We all know whats going on in the police dept. They cant/wont show up. Even if they do what are they gonna say? Someone stole your radiator and everything of value while you were gone? Sorry to hear that. We will take a report but dont expect anything. With all the investment going on downtown if BE was secured I bet people that could afford to keep these homes up would move in. Make it a gated community. Why not?

& yea. Heidi didn't think this one through

Sounds like the squatter was taking a page out of the book of Columbus. Move in and say it's your place now. See how that worked out for the Natives in this part of the world?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zacha341

What I don't get is how are utilities turned on? Last I heard if there are delinquencies on the water, gas or electric you cannot get these things turned on in your name; squatter or otherwise.

So what are the squatters doing when MICHIGAN WINTER comes, what are they doing for sanitation all year?

---

Almost all have illegal hook-ups of gas and electric. If you think they sit there and freeze all Winter you're wrong. Think about that the next time you open up your gas bill.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by softailrider

Almost all have illegal hook-ups of gas and electric. If you think they sit there and freeze all Winter you're wrong. Think about that the next time you open up your gas bill.

---

While many times they do, when DTE finds out [[you can call their theft reporting line) they cut it off at the pole. Sometimes that gets rid of the squatters. Remember, though, that virtually every Detroit home has a fireplace. Between that [[usually burning all the irreplacable woodwork in the house first) and an insanely dangerous kerosene heater, and candles for light, they often STILL stick around. Curl up by the fireplace, burn the banister, poop in your bucket - you're good to go.

Here's a very insightful WSJ article about the problems in Boston-Edison caused by the very bad surrounding neighborhoods. It was a profile of a woman who walked away from her home there:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...248715858.html

poop in your bucket - you're good to go That's just what the squatters next door to my house were doing. Bad water thrown out a second floor window every morning. Me with my hose out over the fence as soon as they left.

I was so stunned that I didn't leave right then. The neighbor on the other side immediately put her house up for sale but couldn't find a single buyer three years ago. maybe now if she tries again.

WOW THIS IS CRAZY!! If I came home and some looney tune was in my house the gun would be out and so would she. Fuck the cops. Fuck the courts. She's got 10 seconds to back herself out the front door [[10 because its a giant BE house). I'll gladly throw her crap into a box and set it out for her right before I barracade the doors and nail the windows shut. Let the cops deal with it if they bother to show up.

There's a boat load of reasonable doubt that can be concocted involving Castle Law, trust me.

I went back and reread the story and noticed something that I didn't notice earlier:

Quote:

---

As our story was going to air, we had a chance to talk to the alleged squatter. She denied that she was squatting and said she has a lease.

"I have a construction lien for the repairs that I put into the house. Someone had [[broken) into the house on July the Fourth and they stripped the radiators and I made a report," she added.

"In February 2011, we had to vacate because the boiler was damaged," she continued. "I took all my books and my writings, but my [[furniture was) still left in [[there)."

We also asked her whether she thinks there is a program where anybody can go into Detroit, take over an abandoned house and live there.

"I'm an advocate for affordablehttp://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/icon1.png housing. That's a part of my campaign," she said. "I've believed that since the first time I met her when I was running for state Senate [[in) 2010 and she was also running for a political office, that was a part of my belief. I signed an oath pledging that I would fight for affordable homes."
We're told Peterson leased the house to tenants in 2010, including this alleged squatter, but had to evict everyone when it was found not fit to live in.
We're also told the alleged squatter filed papers with the city claiming the property was abandoned.

---

I was under the impression that these two didn't know each other at all, and she just came home to find this nutjob in her house and now she's sleeping in there with her child. Well, only part of that's true - according to this, Peterson and Nutjob did already know each other and were previously landlord/tenant. So did Nutjob get evicted, then decide to come back on her own after she saw the house remained empty? Still not right, but not quite the nightmare that it sounded like at first.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gnome

Sounds like a job for the Detroit 300. They could come to the aid of a tax payer. Anyone want to hold their breath?

---

Detroit 300 can't evict squatters out of the somebody's property unless that squatter[[s) did any illegal activity.

Now I hear on the evening news Peterson said she rented the woman a room back in '10 but had to evict her.
The more I hear of the story the more bizarre it seems. Maybe we're not getting the whole story here

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by poobert

While many times they do, when DTE finds out [[you can call their theft reporting line) they cut it off at the pole. Sometimes that gets rid of the squatters. Remember, though, that virtually every Detroit home has a fireplace. Between that [[usually burning all the irreplacable woodwork in the house first) and an insanely dangerous kerosene heater, and candles for light, they often STILL stick around. Curl up by the fireplace, burn the banister, poop in your bucket - you're good to go.

---

There's guys out there who turn the utilities back on as a type of side job. They'll strap the spikes on their boots and climb up the pole like a Gazelle and re-attach to the house. As far as the gas service goes, just or fun one day I drove up Archdale from Joy road to Fenkell, I lost count of the illegal hook ups, 15- 20%, maybe more then that. I think about it most of the times I take out my checkbook to pay my gas bill.

This is going to be the last I post on the subject. It's all a bit too odd for me&too many missing pieces but I found this statement from the missionary squatter on Fox2's site: "In February 2011, we had to vacate because the boiler was damaged," she continued. "I took all my books and my writings, but my [[furniture was) still left in [[there)."

Now WTH is we?? Did she,Peterson&others live in the house together?Did Peterson lease the house out to a group of people&this presidental candidate was one of them?This is all a bit too strange for me.
No matter the outcome I hope Ms.Peterson&her little girl remain safe.

How could you tell the gas was hooked up illegally? Just curious...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by softailrider

There's guys out there who turn the utilities back on as a type of side job. They'll strap the spikes on their boots and climb up the pole like a Gazelle and re-attach to the house. As far as the gas service goes, just or fun one day I drove up Archdale from Joy road to Fenkell, I lost count of the illegal hook ups, 15- 20%, maybe more then that. I think about it most of the times I take out my checkbook to pay my gas bill.

---

Ah yes that hidden 'subsidy' fee... wonderful!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by softailrider

Almost all have illegal hook-ups of gas and electric. If you think they sit there and freeze all Winter you're wrong. Think about that the next time you open up your gas bill.

---

Yeah this is boiling down to a bad 'landlord/ tenant' you-can-have-the-back-bedroom deal gone worse!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Detwa

I was under the impression that these two didn't know each other at all, and she just came home to find this nutjob in her house and now she's sleeping in there with her child. Well, only part of that's true - according to this, Peterson and Nutjob did already know each other and were previously landlord/tenant. So did Nutjob get evicted, then decide to come back on her own after she saw the house remained empty? Still not right, but not quite the nightmare that it sounded like at first.

---

Landlord/ tenant back fire... not much more to it perhaps...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trotwood

Now I hear on the evening news Peterson said she rented the woman a room back in '10 but had to evict her.
The more I hear of the story the more bizarre it seems. Maybe we're not getting the whole story here

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trotwood

Now I hear on the evening news Peterson said she rented the woman a room back in '10 but had to evict her.
The more I hear of the story the more bizarre it seems. Maybe we're not getting the whole story here

---

Ah, of course, the dreaded other side of the story. It's hard to discern what the facts are, when both people are kinda strange.

Cuz the lady who owns the house, on camera anyway, didn't seem wrapped too tight either.

Grab a gun and get her the fuk out,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zacha341

Landlord/ tenant back fire... not much more to it perhaps...

---

Maybe you're right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by detroitsgwenivere

Ah, of course, the dreaded other side of the story. It's hard to discern what the facts are, when both people are kinda strange.

Cuz the lady who owns the house, on camera anyway, didn't seem wrapped too tight either.

---

Yeah the truth does seem a hard nut to ferret here.
Truth be told I'd have said you were way off about the homeowner and how she looked on camera.........until I heard she was living in the house with the squatter. Once I heard that I started looking at her in a different light[[if that makes any sense?). I'm inclined to agree with Detwa. This is still a bad situation but not quite the horrendous mess I original thought.
Thanks Detroitsgwenivere&Zacha341 for your time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trotwood

Yeah the truth does seem a hard nut to ferret here.
Truth be told I'd have said you were way off about the homeowner and how she looked on camera.........until I heard she was living in the house with the squatter. Once I heard that I started looking at her in a different light[[if that makes any sense?). I'm inclined to agree with Detwa. This is still a bad situation but not quite the horrendous mess I original thought.
Thanks Detroitsgwenivere&Zacha341 for your time.

---

I agree with Trotwood 100%. We obviously dont have the whole story here...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zacha341

Landlord/ tenant back fire... not much more to it perhaps...

---

So, turns out it's a good thing you, trotwood and Honkey Tonk didn't gather up some "burley family members" to go over there and straighten things out?
Seemed like such a sensible solution yesterday.

Until the next knee-jerk...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KOMPOST

So, turns out it's a good thing you, trotwood and Honkey Tonk didn't gather up some "burley family members" to go over there and straighten things out?
Seemed like such a sensible solution yesterday.

Until the next knee-jerk...

---

We'll see you then:p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by p69rrh51

Just change the locks and through her out!! What is the squatter going to do, call a cop [[they may get there sometime next year)? I doubt the squatter has the resources to take her to court.

---

Can't. She's a legal resident of the property if she's claimed residence for 30 days. If the locks are changed on her she could have the cops come to give her access again. The property owner has to go and get an eviction order, just like if she was a landlord trying to evict a tenant from a property.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by detroitsgwenivere

Ah, of course, the dreaded other side of the story. It's hard to discern what the facts are, when both people are kinda strange.

Cuz the lady who owns the house, on camera anyway, didn't seem wrapped too tight either.

---

Yeah, both seemed kinda "cray". They also don't seem to be strangers either.

"So, turns out it's a good thing you, trotwood and Honkey Tonk didn't gather up some "burley family members" to go over there and straighten things out?"

HEY! Let's not get too carried away. I just planned on sitting there in my undies, drinking beer and watching Judge Judy.

OMGoodness! Just jokes --:rolleyes:-- No one is sending out their family posse!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KOMPOST

So, turns out it's a good thing you, trotwood and Honkey Tonk didn't gather up some "burley family members" to go over there and straighten things out?
Seemed like such a sensible solution yesterday.

Until the next knee-jerk...

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by honky tonk

"so, turns out it's a good thing you, trotwood and honkey tonk didn't gather up some "burley family members" to go over there and straighten things out?"

hey! Let's not get too carried away. I just planned on sitting there in my undies, drinking beer and watching judge judy.

---

lmao!!!GOLDEN!!

There was a point to the a Warner Bros. cartoon starring Bugs Bunny and Yosemite Sam. Bugs Bunny lives a hole out in Southern Texas desert. Yosemite Sam brought that land and built his ranch under the hole and home where Bugs Bunny lived. Bugs came out and argued with Sam about property rights. Sam kick Bugs out. So he took Sam to court and the courts decide that Bugs must squat in Sam's ranch.

This sounds like a goofy WB cartoon, bus most of them have points.

Squatters have a right to invade your property if you're not living in that property when you have moved out in between sale. Or the property has not been sold for a number of years.

I can hear him now.... "Squatters... them ig-gallutin' varmints".... :cool:

this thread makes me crave me some dope

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GUSHI

Grab a gun and get her the fuk out,

---

That's what I was thinking. If someone was in my house refusing to leave and said that they were going to live there without my permission, that would be the end of them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Detwa

I went back and reread the story and noticed something that I didn't notice earlier:



I was under the impression that these two didn't know each other at all, and she just came home to find this nutjob in her house and now she's sleeping in there with her child. Well, only part of that's true - according to this, Peterson and Nutjob did already know each other and were previously landlord/tenant. So did Nutjob get evicted, then decide to come back on her own after she saw the house remained empty? Still not right, but not quite the nightmare that it sounded like at first.

---

I don't believe nutjob knew her prior as a tenant because if you listen to the video the newreporter states that they asked nutjob for a copy of the lease to prove her claim and nutjob refused to provide it. If there's any validity, point me to an article proving there was lease.

If someone defamed your reputation publicly by claiming you are a squatter and not a tenant, wouldn't the first you do is bring out a copy of the lease or rental receipts signed by the owner to show it to the reporter to exonerate yourself. Shouldn't take longer than 15 minutes to do that. Nutjob is at her house. The reporters waited there all night to speak to nutjob so what's waiting another 15 minutes for her to prove the home owner's allegations are false? How hard is it to go inside and bring out a copy of the lease or even rental receipts? Why refuse to provide it? That's not something a sane person would do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jerrytimes

That's what I was thinking. If someone was in my house refusing to leave and said that they were going to live there without my permission, that would be the end of them.

---

It would be the end of you too - unless you like prison. In all likelihood, that's where you would end up if you shot someone and it wasn't self defense.

Looks like there's a bit more info on the story... like perhaps the squatter feels JUSTIFIED to live there, per a report this AM. She claims property was ABANDONED in her video interview with reporter! Owner claims otherwise and feels: "She thinks that this is a program in Detroit to take people's homes and fix them up and then she gets to keep them," Peterson said....

Was this part of the original article or truly updated? It's a mess of an article and vid. which in part suggests that the Tracey Blair was a tenant, or broke in? This is gonna be a long court fight! And no I am not writing her in for president on the ballot!

http://www.myfoxdetroit.com/story/19...use-woman-says

Squatter in the house? Buy a sharp saw, a locking freezer for the basement, and some plastic sheeting.

What's the plastic sheeting for dare I ask?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zackdog

Squatter in the house? Buy a sharp saw, a locking freezer for the basement, and some plastic sheeting.

---

"Was this part of the original article or truly updated? It's a mess of an article and vid. which in part suggests that the Tracey Blair was a tenant, or broke in?"

I rememeber when National Inquirer type reporting was the exception and not the norm.

"And no I am not writing her in for president on the ballot!"

I'm withholding my opinion until I hear her debate Obama.

"What's the plastic sheeting for dare I ask?"

Now you don't want to make a mess in your new freezer, do you? I prefer the 3 mil thick contractor bags.

Hah! I heard that... shucks she may give Obama a run for his money in a debate and it could NOT be said she was a brand-A-repub doing it! ---:cool:---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Honky Tonk

Zacha341 wrote: "And no I am not writing her in for president on the ballot!"

HT wrote: I'm withholding my opinion until I hear her debate Obama.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zacha341

Looks like there's a bit more info on the story... like perhaps the squatter feels JUSTIFIED to live there, per a report this AM. She claims property was ABANDONED in her video interview with reporter! Owner claims otherwise and feels: "She thinks that this is a program in Detroit to take people's homes and fix them up and then she gets to keep them," Peterson said....

Was this part of the original article or truly updated? It's a mess of an article and vid. which in part suggests that the Tracey Blair was a tenant, or broke in? This is gonna be a long court fight! And no I am not writing her in for president on the ballot!

http://www.myfoxdetroit.com/story/19...use-woman-says

---

The article says updated, which is what threw me at first too because I read the link when it was posted and I didn't see that. Then when I went back, I read the part about her being a former tenant.

From reading some of the comments posted, it appears that they did know each other previously, and this "squatter" rented the house from her, along with others. Is this a multi-family flat? I couldn't tell, but it seems there were multiple tenants who were all evicted because of the house failing inspection. Then this squatter returned after the house sat empty for whatever amount of time, and she began to fix it up and claim it for herself.

Still bizarre. But at least not as bizarre as we assumed. I still wouldn't be sleeping in there with my baby, and this squatter still has no rights to that house, no matter how lax the owner might have been in taking care of her business.

Yeah sounds more and more like a soft 'agreement' rental where not real papers are drawn up. This occurs all over the city: people renting from people, in their homes, a room or two and paying as they can, when they can.

I wonder why Patterson purchased such a huge house initially in the first place unless she was planning to live their with someone? I'd not want to be alone in such a huge house in Detroit, where as I've stated before you don't want to do in ISOLATION. Just the utilities alone would wipe you out. And the squatter claims the grass was over grown and what not, so thus abandoned.

A 23K house considered a 'deal' purchase comes out very expensive on many levels. Especially when you have no further resources. And alone!! I would not have done it. Not worth the hassle to 'pioneer' that one alone.

The heating system was the first thing to go out. Yep a common situation...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Detwa

From reading some of the comments posted, it appears that they did know each other previously, and this "squatter" rented the house from her, along with others. Is this a multi-family flat? I couldn't tell, but it seems there were multiple tenants who were all evicted because of the house failing inspection. Then this squatter returned after the house sat empty for whatever amount of time, and she began to fix it up and claim it for herself.

---

Here is what Mrs Peterson should do; have her relatives, the most rowdy type, to live with her. Play loud music, not loud enough to disturb the neighbors, and constantly do things to get on the squatter's nerve. When the owner is away from the house that relative is still there to get on the squatters last nerve. Change the lock again to the doors so that the squatter would have to ask permission to enter. Turn off the light by removing the fuses when leaving so that the squatter cant enjoy the comforts of having electricity. These relatives, who is nice to the owner but hell on the squatter, should be there at all times until the squatter leave. Close the heat duct that leads to the squatter's room to chill her. Make living there less comfortable for the squatter. Oh yeah, dont forget to have two cars in the garage and whenever the squatter try to leave out in the morning she will discover a old junk car parked behind hers in the driveway and she can't pull out without asking the homeown who is not there at the momentl. hint

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Detwa

The article says updated, which is what threw me at first too because I read the link when it was posted and I didn't see that. Then when I went back, I read the part about her being a former tenant.

From reading some of the comments posted, it appears that they did know each other previously, and this "squatter" rented the house from her, along with others. Is this a multi-family flat? I couldn't tell, but it seems there were multiple tenants who were all evicted because of the house failing inspection. Then this squatter returned after the house sat empty for whatever amount of time, and she began to fix it up and claim it for herself.

Still bizarre. But at least not as bizarre as we assumed. I still wouldn't be sleeping in there with my baby, and this squatter still has no rights to that house, no matter how lax the owner might have been in taking care of her business.

---

What inspection are you referring to that caused tenants to be evicted? I've had dozens of rental houses in Detroit and can't ever remember getting an inspection for anything I didn't pull a permit for. When I bought house it was never inspected to see if it was up to snuff to be a rental. You don't need city certs to rent out a house, just move the people in. [[as far as I know)

^^^ An official seeming reason of some kind is referenced in the article. Section 8 would require functioning heating systems for example and would get around to enforcing it eventually. Or maybe it was a 'DTE' reason, that is more common! Maybe a tenant dropped a dime. I dunno.... the whole thing is a mess. I'd never want to be landlord in Detroit unless I really could verify my tenants. And you cannot be weak as a landlord. You'll never collect more than one months rent. No thank you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by softailrider

What inspection are you referring to that caused tenants to be evicted? I've had dozens of rental houses in Detroit and can't ever remember getting an inspection for anything I didn't pull a permit for. When I bought house it was never inspected to see if it was up to snuff to be a rental. You don't need city certs to rent out a house, just move the people in. [[as far as I know)

---

Wow, you don't need any kind of rental inspection in Detroit? That's amazing to me! I know you do in Macomb County, you have to pass an inspection and there's some kind of other certification for rentals. One house I rented, the landlord didn't want me to send back his mail because he didn't want the city to know he was renting, because he was going to have to pay some sort of fee and pass an inspection. He did it later, he just didn't want to pay for it upfront.

I know you used to have do this in Pontiac years ago, you couldn't just move people in. That actually sounds dangerous. It's one thing if you want to move into an uncertified home but when you allow others to live there, then you've got a lot of potential liability.

Per your question, I don't know the exact inspections, I was referring to the article and comments made in the section. The article said that Henderson had rented the house to several people and then they were forced to move because of problems with the house's safety. I'm wondering if she bought it, didn't fix it, and just started renting it out. A lot of foreclosures have numerous problems from the previous owners destroying it or stripping it out of anger.

^^^ You make some compelling points. Clearly the owner was in wayyy over her head. Probably had visions of multiple 'off the books' cash paying renters and sub-renters to pay the bills and live-free-for-repair folk...

Even with a house that big they probably all got on each others nerves seeings as how that building does not appear to be a two-family unit, so sharing goes hay-wire, then the furnace goes out, folks don't want to pay, everyone moves, including her...

Heck... She's lucky the house was not stripped to the marrow behind all of the mess. Not that I justify the woman who is squatting... I am not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Detwa

Wow, you don't need any kind of rental inspection in Detroit? That's amazing to me!

---

Rental inspections are required in Detroit. Rental properties must be registered with the city as such.

Roommates are different, though. If your homestead is one address [[not a two family) and you rent a room, you don't need an inspection [[aside from your Certificate of Occupancy) or, obviously, rental registration, if you have a roommate.

It's starting to look like we're not getting the whole story here. I'm putting my pants on and going home.......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Honky Tonk

It's starting to look like we're not getting the whole story here. I'm putting my pants on and going home.......

---

ROFL!!!! Too funny!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Honky Tonk

It's starting to look like we're not getting the whole story here. I'm putting my pants on and going home.......

---

LMAO!!!!!Golden!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by poobert

Rental inspections are required in Detroit. Rental properties must be registered with the city as such.

Roommates are different, though. If your homestead is one address [[not a two family) and you rent a room, you don't need an inspection [[aside from your Certificate of Occupancy) or, obviously, rental registration, if you have a roommate.

---

I'm sure that inspection and registration for rental properties is on the books somewhere. I know a lot of property owners, It's a rule that no one I know follows. When you go to court to evict a tenant the judge never brings anything like that up.

What Landlords & Tenants Should Know

The Buildings, Safety Engineering and Environmental Department [[BSE&ED) will aggressively enforce blight violations. Violators should remember that it's not enough to just pay the penalties. Violators must correct problems . If not, a second or third violation may be issued with a higher fine. Review pertinent information below.All rental property owners must register their rental property and obtain a Certificate of Compliance. The certificate is proof that an inspection was performed at the property and found to be in a safe and habitable condition.All renters are entitled to live in housing that is well maintained and safe. Renters are encouraged to report rental properties that require inspection and repair. Tenants can arrange for an inspection [[at no cost to them) by calling 628-2451.Smoke detectors must be installed near all bedrooms. Maintaining smoke detectors with batteries is the responsibility of both the tenant and owner.
http://71.159.23.2/BSEOnline/divisio...n?pageId=10007

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Canthisbe

What Landlords & Tenants Should Know

The Buildings, Safety Engineering and Environmental Department [[BSE&ED) will aggressively enforce blight violations. Violators should remember that it's not enough to just pay the penalties. Violators must correct problems . If not, a second or third violation may be issued with a higher fine. Review pertinent information below.All rental property owners must register their rental property and obtain a Certificate of Compliance. The certificate is proof that an inspection was performed at the property and found to be in a safe and habitable condition.All renters are entitled to live in housing that is well maintained and safe. Renters are encouraged to report rental properties that require inspection and repair. Tenants can arrange for an inspection [[at no cost to them) by calling 628-2451.Smoke detectors must be installed near all bedrooms. Maintaining smoke detectors with batteries is the responsibility of both the tenant and owner.
http://71.159.23.2/BSEOnline/divisio...n?pageId=10007

---

Thank you for that information, I was completely unaware about the need for any certificate of compliance in the city.

Party's over.Closing time. Missionary woman's moving out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trotwood

Party's over.Closing time. Missionary woman's moving out.

---

COO COO #1 has flown the nest. Not sure it's the last we will hear.


http://www.myfoxdetroit.com/story/19...hes-moving-out

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wheels

COO COO #1 has flown the nest. Not sure it's the last we will hear.


http://www.myfoxdetroit.com/story/19...hes-moving-out

---

I think you're right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by softailrider

It would be the end of you too - unless you like prison. In all likelihood, that's where you would end up if you shot someone and it wasn't self defense.

---

Really? I don't think it matters if it's self defense or not if someone is intruding INSIDE your home.

I don't understand why this woman does just throw the squatters belongings out to the curb and change the locks. It would be a cold day in hell before someone would be allowed in my house under 'squatters rights'. If that person is paying rent, that's one thing but after months of not paying any rent... too bad.

This story made Inside Edition [[ch4) and will be on at 4pm.