A black man who bought a $330,000 dollar house in Texas for $16 has been evicted. The man took advantage of a little known loophole in the Texas real estate law, and he benefited big time; however, now, he lost his home.
Some might say the reason the man lost his home is because the home is an upscale home in a white neighborhood. It certainly looks suspicious, but if poor white man bought a house in an upscale neighborhood, wouldn't the neighbors complain no matter what the man's race is?
I place the video here because one has to consider if the man could keep up the property. Either way, it is sad, and I mean very sad that he lost this house. I see a major lawsuit in this town's future.
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 25
Thanks Carol.
The person who had no connection with the land could peacefully use it for 10 years and if the owner didn't challenge it, the land was his. This kept acreage and abandoned properties in the rural areas in use and earned communities taxes. All the owner had to do was notify the residents that they were not legally occupying it. Owners didn't even have to remove the residents to protect their ownership. It was a win/win situation for the state.
This man isn't a criminal, he's just smart. He saw an opportunity and took it. Hats off to him! Those snotty rich witch neighbors of his need to get off their high horses, get their noses out of the air, and leave the guy ALONE. I personally feel a bit of respect for him. Not everyone would have thought of this.
The problem isn't jealousy, it is the misleading caption. The man didn't buy the house. Adverse possession requires that the man live in the house for 10 years without the true owner taking action to remove him. There was a movement in Fort Worth for a while last year. It's pretty naive to believe a bank owning a home will allow someone to take it away from them.
The guy was smart since he got a lot of publicity, sold some info and had some free rent for a while. He was dumb if he believed he could get away with living there until he owned the home.
And if you do, come please come back and let all us lazy Gatherites know. :)
Neither Carol nor I said there was anything wrong with it. I don't know the case so I am quite unqualified to say whether there is anything amiss. Carol can speak for herself.
Perhaps someone will let us know the outcome. (Personally, I think it's just a "human interest story" and not important in and of itself to the rest of us.)
Actually, I'd like to be a fly on the wall when his attorney tells him that the house was not his, that he'd have to live there 10 years before claiming title, etc.
Elizabeth, how funny it turned out to be so near. For the owner, I'm glad. I'm kinda sorry for the huge disappointment to the guy. Thanks for the info.