In 1997, a British construction worker named Keith Best came across a "pie-in-the-sky" good thing.
Best, **from dailymail).
One day while working near Newbury Park in London, he spotted a long-vacant three-bedroom semi-detached house.
After confirming that it was unoccupied, Best moved in, began renovating the house, and moved in with his family in 2012.
Renovated house, **from dailymail).
Best doesn't know who this is or if there is an owner here, but he is not worried because he "has a law to follow".
In some European and American countries, there is a law that has been handed down since ancient Rome called:"Adverse possession".
Said yesIf the landowner fails to occupy or use the land for a long time, the trespasser can enter, occupy, and obtain legal title to the land.
This law has a positive significance, it can make more efficient use of land to achieve the purpose of protecting the economy.
Of course, in order to ensure that people are not "stolen" at will, this law is very strict, and in the case of American law, for example, squatters must meet 5 conditions:
1. Physical ownership: The occupier must actually use the house like the owner, such as decorating the house, trimming the garden, changing the door locks, etc.
2. Exclusivity: The occupier cannot use the land within the legal period (such as 10 years).
3. Uninterrupted: The occupier must continue to possess it for 10 years.
4. Publicity: The occupier must use the land obviously, such as building fences, entering and exiting through gates, posting signs, etc.
5. Hostile nature: The occupier must enter or use the land without permission, such as renting a house for 10 consecutive years, which is not considered encroachment.
In fact, it is not an easy job to occupy a house, but Best finally "persevered".
In 2014, Best filed an adverse possession petition to legally own the home. After repeated trade-offs,The judge ultimately found Best guilty of trespassing, but also awarded him ownership of the house.
The judge said that after all, the original owner had not taken care of the house for at least 10 years.
The encroached house, **from mirror).
Despite being convicted, the Best family is satisfied, after all, they have their own big house.
But there is one person who is not satisfied, and that is the original owner of the house, Colin Curtis.
Curtis and his mother lived in the house until 1996, when his mother died and Curtis left the sad land.
However, Curtis did not give up on the house, he still paid the taxes on the house on time, but he never came back to see it, and he did not know that his house had long since become someone else's home.
Curtis, **from dailymail).
As soon as Best took legal ownership of the house, Curtis appealed.
But the court said, not to mention that Best has occupied the land for more than ten years, in fact, Curtis's mother did not leave a will during her lifetime, so he was not the administrator of his mother's estate in the first place, let alone the house was robbed.
In this way, Curtis can only accept that he has lost his mother's old house ......
A few years later, Best sold the property, and when he first "took over" the house, it was worth around £400,000, which he restored and maintainedIn the end, he bought the house for 540,000 poundsIt's a big profit.
The buyer of the house said he didn't know the history of the house, but his family met with Best twice and said he was a nice guy and the house was good. They ended up closing the deal legally through a lawyer, so he wasn't worried.
But he really didn't quite understand:
How can you just take over an empty house and take it for yourself, isn't that theft?”
The street where the house is located, **from foxnews).
In response to people's doubts, Best said that he had died unjustly.
I was said to be a thief who swindled an old man's home.
But that's not the case, the whole thing is like a nightmare, not only did I lose money, but it also affected my health!”
Best does have a point, although he sold the house for 540,000, according to himOver the years, he has paid £150,000 for repairs to the house, £240,000 in damages to Curtis's granddaughter, and a further £400,000 in legal feesHe lost too much ......
Schematic diagram) Regarding Best's experience, netizens also disagreed.
Some people think that Best's behavior is theft, and that he is a thief without asking himself:
Just because something is legal doesn't mean it's ethical.
*From dailymail).
Just because the house is empty doesn't mean you can move in and renovate at will!It's brazen!Phew!
*From dailymail).
However, some netizens said that Best is not a bad person and should not be prejudiced against him:
Sometimes people are too sensitive to "squatters", which is understandable, because it does seem like a ** thing.
But from a real estate point of view, there may also be many people who feel sorry for someone who owns a perfect house in a nice location and sits it idle for ten years.
*From reddit).
Isn't it better for someone to renovate the ruins of an unattended building and save the environment of the entire area than to return it to its original owner?
*From reddit).
I really don't understand why people are angry, he understands the law, takes some risks, and makes some money. Why should you be so hated when you don't have a victim?
*From reddit).
How to say it, judging from the results, Curtis lost his mother's old home, and Best also lost a lot of time and money, and it feels like everyone has lost a lot of time and money except for the lawyer, ......