I have lived in my current house for over 8 years on a 1 year lease. I paid my rent faithfully for 5 years . Then I fell on hard times . I would fall behind at the end of the year, So at tax time I would get caught up only to fall behind again. Then one day we received court papers. We were named in the papers along with with the landlady. We never got her caught up. That was August 2012. We have done many improvements to the home including fence the whole back yard, repair plumbing issues upkeep and maintenance of the house and yard. What are our rights to this property. People have told me to look into squatters rights? We live in St Cloud, Fl. Any information will be helpful. Thanks for your time.

Squatter's rights have nothing to do with this property. This is a case of non payment-late payment and eviction. The papers were served almost 2 years ago. What has happened and why was the landlady also served? Did she fall behind because of your non payment?

You are legal renters, and have no rights to the property.

What type of "court papers" did you receive? Is she being foreclosed ? If so, you may be able to buy the property from the bank.

Why also, in 2 years have you not got caught up with the rent.

But you have no claim to this property,

There are no squatter's rights anymore.
Any renter who spends money improving and repairing a house should have a written agreement with the owner that spells out what all that means. Usually a owner will keep the rent low in exchange for work. Without this, you are throwing money away (although of course you can look at it as a nicer place to live, for about what rent would cost at market rates).
I have never heard of a court naming owner and tenant together in any sort of legal matter, unless a private party is suing, such as a neighbor who feels the property is a blight. Please tell us what it was for.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wentwon

Then one day we received court papers. We were named in the papers along with with the land lady.

---

You need to give more details about these court papers. If you and the landlady were both named as defendants, then what is the suit about? Its not the landlady trying to evict you or a bank foreclosing on the property, is it? In either of those cases you both wouldn't have been listed as defendants.

But whoever told you about squatters rights or gave you any hope that you had rights to to the property doesn't know the law. You are a renter who rented the property starting with a lease. That lease (with the exception of term and rental) remains in force as long as you occupy the property. Therefore, there is no issue of squatting or even one of adverse possession (which is the proper legal term). You were foolish for making any capital improvements or repairs to the property without rent concessions, in writing, from the landlord. Without that you were making a gift to the landlord. So you have no rights to the property except what is conferred as a tenant to occupy the property for as long as the owner allows it.

To help you further we need to know more about the court action.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joypulv

...
I have never heard of a court naming owner and tenant together in any sort of legal matter, unless ...

---

This appears to be an eviction. It is in Florida. Under those circumstances, it would be quite common to name the occupant (OP in this case).

OP should be aware of the Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act. It means that OP will have at least 90 days, after the foreclosure sale, in which to move out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AK lawyer

This appears to be an eviction. It is in Florida. Under those circumstances, it would be quite common to name the occupant (OP in this case).

OP should be aware of the Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act. It means that OP will have at least 90 days, after the foreclosure sale, in which to move out.

---

If I'm following you, you are suggesting that this is an eviction AFTER a foreclosure and that is why both the previous owner and tenant are being named? That would make sense. But the OP really needs to tell us what the court papers are about for us to help.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ScottGem

If I'm following you, you are suggesting that this is an eviction AFTER a foreclosure and that is why both the previous owner and tenant are being named? That would make sense. But the OP really needs to tell us what the court papers are about for us to help.

---

No. In a foreclosure here, normally the tenant (if known) is named as another party defendant (all one case). Thus the case would be titled something like "Last National Bank v. Oscar Owner, Tom Tenant, et al." Once the property is sold, the buyer can ask for a writ of eviction against the tenant, without having to file a new eviction action.

Preceding against the tenant after the sale is quite rare, but that is how I understand it would work. And the buyer would have to send tenant the PTAFA notice, post-sale.

There's also confusion regarding the date of August 2012.

Looks like we have a one hit poster. Hopefully she will be back to give us more info so we can help her more.