TexasCHLforum.com

This should say

The Annoyed Man wrote:But then, I married a remarkable woman(who reads this forum and I have to say nice things about her)

The Annoyed Man wrote:

Commander wrote:We've checked the ownership through the Dallas County Central Apprasal District and it still shows the ex as the owner. Where else might we check? I suspect the Apprasal District's ownership information is not updated that frequently.

I'm not trying to be a wise-guy, but is there some reason why y'all can't just go over there and ask her ex to let you in so she can recover the stuff she would like to keep—before the actual eviction takes place?

if he wont let you have what ever the items may be, odds are you "reclaiming" somethign he has had in his possesion for the last 2 years wont go over well.

Commander wrote:There are a number of things that remain in the house that my girlfriend would like to reclaim if possible. Is there any way to determine when the eviction will occur so she can be ready to rescue the items she wants from the curb?

How about getting them today instead of waiting until the last minute?

Yeah its pretty common for the mortgage company to pay the person in the house a couple of thousand to move out on their own. What I find interesting is that sometimes the foreclosed homeowner rents the house, before they are evicted (and yeah they have a written lease too). The unsuspecting renters pay damage deposit and first and last months rent to someone who used to own the house. Sometimes this goes on for a long time especially after squatters move in.
Its a wonder some times that any house can be resold after a foreclosure.

Teamless wrote:This should say

The Annoyed Man wrote:But then, I married a remarkable woman(who reads this forum and I have to say nice things about her)

My momma didn't raise a fool.

tarkus wrote:

Commander wrote:There are a number of things that remain in the house that my girlfriend would like to reclaim if possible. Is there any way to determine when the eviction will occur so she can be ready to rescue the items she wants from the curb?

How about getting them today instead of waiting until the last minute?

We did go over last weekend and brought back a pickup load. Our concern is that if forcibly evicted and his belongings placed at the curb is that he will simply take what he wants and leave a lot of stuff behind. She just wants to see if there is anything he leaves behind that she would like to have. There may not be, we would just like to have first shot at it.

Can the new owner simply come and change the locks when he's not there?

...legally...prolly so...but all my experiences with LEOs on the street have been that they advise to let the court system grind it out however slowly rather than provoke an emotional, maybe violent confrontation...

speedsix wrote:...legally...prolly so...but all my experiences with LEOs on the street have been that they advise to let the court system grind it out however slowly rather than provoke an emotional, maybe violent confrontation...

Would they feel the same if an intruder was in their house? File a civil suit instead of provoking him.

...don't be silly...totally different values apply...and in the eviction situation, nobody's life is at risk...unless one provokes it...

...surely he is...but the law...our legal system...is set up to remove him in a way that doesn't endanger either the new owner or him...big ole constables or deputies with guns will come and set his stuff on the curb...the likelihood of him getting physical with them is much less than if someone sneaks up, opens the door when he's not expecting it, and he probably doesn't even know...then starts changing the locks...and he pulls up...or even comes out...
...one way minimizes the chance for violence...the other sets up a highly emotional confrontation, takes control of his personal property away from him...and is very likely to result in violence...totally unnecessarily so...your examples are so far different they don't qualify as fair...don't even remotely fit this scenario....this in answer to your post which you removed asking if he was an intruder and likening this situation to a cop's wife and an intruder...
...Hoi Polloi's post shows how far even the mortgage companies go to keep from having dangerous or nasty problems...that's the best way to handle it for them financially...the legal eviction process is the best way to handle it to keep from provoking violence...

Suppose I buy a house, and go to the property after the closing, and there's someone in the house. That someone is not the person/company that owned the house and sold it to me. There's no meaningful difference between that situation and a cop's wife coming home from grocery shopping and finding a prior owner/renter in her house. If one is a "civil matter" then so is the other. If one is "burglary" then so is the other.

...you're absolutely right...but the civil legal sysem has been skewed just like the criminal side to give "them" the benefit and watch out for "their" rights more than ours...it's biased against the law-abiding and towards the one in the wrong...but it's "legal" that the eviction process be completed without a confrontation between the dispossessed owner and the new owner...and the government way of doing it is long and tedious...

...if you go in after closing and find someone NOT the previous owner has gone into the house...he's a criminal...
...but going in to find the previous owner who hasn't been evicted...he's just a weasel...and protected...
...if the cop's wife came home and found a previous owner/renter in her house...he's a criminal...because she had total possession of the house and he had been completely dispossessed of it...

...it stinks...and I would refuse to sign any papers at closing until the previous occupant had been removed, along with his property, and the locks had been changed...it's a recipe for trouble...and I wouldn't buy it...all previous matters are supposed to be finished, paid, cleared, etc, so that the new owner simply moves in without a delay or hassle...

Ameer wrote:Suppose I buy a house, and go to the property after the closing, and there's someone in the house. That someone is not the person/company that owned the house and sold it to me. There's no meaningful difference between that situation and a cop's wife coming home from grocery shopping and finding a prior owner/renter in her house. If one is a "civil matter" then so is the other. If one is "burglary" then so is the other.

Actually it is quite different in the eyes of the law. Someone has to be evicted if they lived there. I went through a nightmare with a house I owned getting someone removed. Didn't matter that they broke almost every rule in our lease, and weren't paying rent. We still had to go through the process.

When someone lives in a house, they end up with certain rights that have to be legally stripped. Remember that when you let someone come stay with you for a few months to get on their feet. They get those rights too.

...I'd like to ask our realtor why the new owner has to do the eviction??? When the bank forclosed, they became the legal owner...and it seems that the bank should have been the one to evict him before they offered it for sale...Austinrealtor prolly knows how they got away with that and can explain it...it just set the new owner up for trouble....