According to lawyers, if homeless people or other people who do not agree to move out, squatters, live in your recently purchased or rented housing, neither the police, nor changing the locks, nor forcefully removing that person or his belongings will help.
In this case, you would face administrative or criminal liability, you would have to pay damages, litigate in court, and most likely cover the costs while strangers lived in your real estate for all those months or years.
The former owner does not maliciously move out of the apartment
In one group of the social network Facebook, a person anonymously told that he bought an apartment from auctions, but the former owner maliciously does not vacate the premises.
He asked what to do in such a case, and the answers in the comments varied.
Some suggested simply breaking the door and changing the locks: “It’s your property, you have to wait until you go to the store, break and change the entrance door with a new lock and that’s it.” If he comes in during change and makes a scene, you call the police.”
Others advised to simply turn off the electricity and water, take out all of that person’s belongings, drag him out of the apartment by force.
However, some commentators warned against doing anything like that, because only the owner himself would suffer the consequences of such actions:
“It is necessary to go to court. But for the entire duration of the litigation, the occupier will live in that apartment, will not pay for utilities and will leave debts that cannot be claimed, because he has no property.”
Neither the police nor changing the locks will help
Edmundas Mikučiauskas, lawyer of the Exproma law firm, stated that the laws protect the owner’s rights to property.
If they are violated by a former owner, tenant or homeless person who settled in the apartment, the person has the right to defend his property, but the means of defense depend on the nature of the violation.
“Active defense, using physical force or other means, without going beyond the limits of necessary defense, is possible when the property is threatened with destruction, damage or theft.
However, neither the former owner who refuses to move out of the purchased apartment, nor the tenant who uses the apartment after the end of the lease agreement, nor the homeless person who occupies the apartment poses such a threat,” the lawyer said.
He noted that the police will not be able to help the owner of the apartment in this case either, because justice in Lithuania is administered only by the court.
Thus, any arbitrary actions by the owner related to the eviction, according to the lawyer, would be considered arbitrariness and could attract administrative or criminal liability.
Lawyer dr. Julius Paškevičius also emphasized – if the owner takes any illegal actions to evict the former owner of the property, the latter can apply to the court.
“Illegal actions are all actions that prevent the former owner of the property from freely entering the premises. For example, changing the lock on the front door, interfering with the use of the living space, when the owner, for example, disconnects the electricity supply.
Or other illegal actions with the former property owner’s property on the premises, such as taking personal belongings outside or taking them to a waste dump,” the lawyer said.
There are more than just fines and arrests for attempted eviction
J. Paškevičius indicated that the former owner of the property may request compensation for damages due to such actions.
In addition, the owner may face administrative liability for the arbitrary exercise of his right without following the procedure established by law.
And if the former owner of the property causes property damage, there may be grounds for criminal liability: fine, arrest or imprisonment for up to 3 years.
The lawyer pointed out that if the former owner of the property is illegally evicted, he can go to court to defend his rights.
In such a case, the owner of the property is obliged to create conditions for the former owner of the property to use the residential premises unhindered until the court decision on eviction from the residential premises and compensation for damages comes into force.
“In all cases where the violation of the rights of the owner of a real estate manifests itself in the inability to use his property due to the fact that another person uses it without any legal basis;
or when such a basis existed but has already disappeared (for example, on the basis of a purchase-sale agreement, on the basis of a lease or use agreement), the owner’s rights are protected by submitting a lawsuit to the court,” explained the lawyer.
She emphasized that the owner cannot legally evict the former owner of the property or another person occupying the premises.
When asked about the most memorable cases of this kind, J. Paškevičius mentioned spouses who were not represented in court, but were obviously consulted by professional lawyers:
“Knowing how to prolong the legal process, they lived in the client’s house for about a year and a half. Finally, when the bailiff came to evict the former owners of the property, they had already vacated the premises and left the door key under the rug.”
Utility charges and court costs
J. Paškevičius did not hide the fact that eviction cases usually last about half a year, but can take longer than a year.
When asked if it is possible that the person occupying the premises will not pay utility bills and the owner will accumulate debt for all this time, until the court decision is made, the interviewer answered in the negative.
“As long as the former owner of the property is using the property, the new owner does not have to pay for the provision of utility services to the residential premises.
After purchasing an apartment or a house, it is important not to rush to conclude contracts with utility service providers, but to inform them about the situation, so that they can take steps to administer payments or collect possible debts”, explained J. Paškevičius.
However, he pointed out that the losing party usually pays the winning party’s costs.
However, this may not be the case in this case, because borrowers whose homes are sold at auctions organized by the bailiff usually have no other assets, so recovering the incurred litigation costs can be difficult.
Hence, in order to evict a stranger from his property, in one case or another, only the owner himself suffers the most, and not the intruder.
It is quite different with intrusion
According to E. Mikučiauskas, how different is it when residential premises are entered illegally.
According to the lawyer’s interpretation, a person’s rights to privacy, and therefore to housing, as part of private life, are protected.
Thus, according to the lawyer, no one is allowed to enter his home without the consent of the resident, except in cases where there is a court decision or it is necessary to guarantee public order, arrest a criminal, save human life, health or property.
The interviewer indicated that the violation of the inviolability of a resident’s home is subject to criminal liability: fine, community service, restriction of freedom, arrest, imprisonment for up to 2 years.
According to him, the Civil Code also stipulates that entering a person’s residence without his consent is the basis for filing a claim for compensation for material and non-material damage caused by such actions.
“The former owner, by refusing to move out of the apartment belonging to the new owner, does not violate the new owner’s right to privacy, since such premises cannot be considered the new owner’s residence.
However, when residential housing is illegally broken into, its legal resident can seek police assistance, regardless of whether he lives in such housing permanently or not,” explained E. Mikučiauskas.
