Get Premium
Dark mode theme is available exclusively for premium users. Learn more about the benefits of subscribing.
No fees, cancel anytime.
Dark Mode 
No fees, cancel anytime 
then open in external browser
and click "Open in External Browser" 
198
“Where’s The Law?”: Squatters Sue Couple After “Breaking Into” Their NY Home
A couple is being sued by alleged squatters who they say unlawfully occupied their $930,000 duplex in Jamaica, Queens, New York.
The suit has led Juliya Fulman and her husband, Denis Kurlyand, to spend over $4,000 in legal bills, the New York Post reports.
“You can’t really even blame them in a way because it’s handed to them on a silver platter,” Kurlyand said of the “opportunists.”
Highlights
- Homeowners in Queens, NY, were sued by alleged squatters after their $930,000 home was occupied.
- Juliya Fulman and Denis Kurlyand have so far spent over $4,000 in legal bills.
- The alleged squatters utilized NY laws offering protections after 30+ days of occupancy.
“Something needs to be done because the issue is getting worse. People are taking advantage of these laws, manipulating the laws, and our hands are tied,” he added.
The invaders’ actions are reportedly in accordance with New York laws, which allow squatters to access a number of legal protections after they have occupied a property for more than 30 days.
RELATED:
A couple is being sued by “squatters” who they claim “broke into” their $930,000 home in Queens, New York
Image credits: https://www.instagram.com/julie_julz4/
The couple spent $530,000 on renovating the Lakeside Avenue investment property. They had also found tenants for both rental units. However, on March 5, their real estate broker, Ejona Bardhi, noticed that the locks on the duplex had been changed.
When Bardhi approached the property, she saw the silhouette of a man wearing a hooded sweatshirt and holding a drill.
The broker proceeded to call the police and the homeowners to alert them of the situation. During that time, she says she was surrounded by several men who had emerged from the property.
“They were trying to intimidate me,” she said. “It was bizarre.”
When police arrived, the men—identified by the Dailymail as Lance Hunt Sr. and Rondie L. Francis—claimed it was their property, and they had been living there since January. After being asked to provide evidence for their claims, the men said they were YouTubers and left without incident.
For Bardhi, the only solution for this situation was to change the locks again. Only she was warned that the homeowners could get arrested if they did.
“What did we do? Nothing. We put up a property for rent, and that’s it; now we’re dealing with a nightmare,” Kurlyand said.
The men returned shortly afterward, only to be escorted away by police after the owners provided evidence of ownership documents and timestamped videos showing the house had been vacant.
Despite the warning from the police, the homeowners went on to change the locks on the property.
The homeowners were told that they’d get sued if they changed the locks on their property
Image credits: https://www.instagram.com/julie_julz4/
Ten days later, Bardhi received a court order saying the alleged squatters were suing her, the homeowners, and the company handling the site, Top Nest Properties.
The men were granted an emergency lockout hearing on March 22 in Queens Civil Court, during which the couple’s lawyer, Rizpah Morrow, asked Judge Vijay Kitson for a trial, arguing that the men had “perpetrated a fraud,” as per The New York Post.
According to Kurlyand, the men showed up to court with “forged documents” alleging they had legally occupied the property.
“They found whatever they could and threw it all together. The lease they presented is ridiculous; signed on January 1 and starting January 1,” he described.
“Somebody broke into my house, and I’m in court getting sued by them. How can we be here? How is this possible? There have to be safety precautions in place.”
The next scheduled court date is set to take place on April 5. The couple’s tenants haven’t been able to move in yet.
“It could take years to evict someone who illegally broke into your house? Where’s the law in that? Why work hard to pay rent or mortgages when you can break into somebody’s house every couple of years and have luxury living?” Kurlyand added.
“As in any courtroom, you never know which way it’s going to go. It’s scary if the judge decides for whatever reason to rule against us that day. Even if we have evidence, there’s nothing we can do at the end of the day; we still have to fight in court.”
People said that the laws need to be less permissive when it comes to squatters
What do you think ?
Petra 1 year ago
Squatters' Rights has always seemed insane to me. It's like if you break the law for long enough, your breaking of the law becomes protected by the law. It'd be like outlawing 1 murder, but if you commit 5 murders, the law protects you. Squatters are criminals, just like mass shooters and serial killers are criminals. They should be treated as such!
Petra 1 year ago
Squatter should be charged with breaking & entering and trespassing for every day they occupy the building. And charge with property damage if they change the locks or make any other unauthorized adjustment to the building. And fraud if they forge papers. And providing a false statement if they lie to the police/courts (ex. in this case, about being the owners).
Load More Replies...
Cassie 1 year ago
If they can sue the owners for changing the locks, why can't the owners sue them for changing the locks and depriving them of their property? The problem is that the squatters have nothing to lose, but that doesn't mean you handle it on their terms. You don't have to win at every point, you just have to be a bigger PITA to them than they are to you so they'll move on.
SadieCat17 (she/her) 1 year ago (edited)
"Finders keepers" is idiotic, but a lot of people there are misunderstanding what squatting rights are usually used for. It's just that proper use doesn't get news coverage. These laws are made to prevent people from hoarding properties they will never use and wasting houses, so it's actually a bad thing if they're revoked completely. Land is a limited resource everyone needs, so if you aren't renting it out or managing it long term, you shouldn't be allowed to keep it. Although I do agree that the time the house has been unoccupied by the owners should be increased before squatter's rights kick in to prevent situations like this.
The Original Bruno 1 year ago
Also: let's not forget the o-so-recent real estate crash of 2007, when banks were so happy to throw people out of their homes because they missed a few mortgage payments. You had entire neighborhoods completely emptied out. Laws like this (PROPERLY APPLIED) would've stayed the mortgage-holders hands in many cases... or motivated the banks to at least offer dirt-cheap rental rates for a while. Unfortunately, there isn't much overlap between states with squatters' rights and states without rent control.
Load More Replies...
KillerKiwi 1 year ago
Why have I not heard of this sooner?! Brb, I’m gonna go squat in somebody’s house. I’ve been worried about buying a home, but now all my prayers have been answered! Thanks BP
tameson 1 year ago
The original laws were meant to protect people who took over abandoned properties and improved them and/or paid the taxes on them. In most cases you had to be occupying the property for a significant period of time (think 5 to 20 years). The reasoning was that abandoned, deteriorating properties were a problem for communities and that it was better to have people who were living there and taking care of them. I have no idea how that evolved into breaking into someone's home and then suing the real owners, although it seems that in New York squatters do have rights after 30 days. That just seems crazy.
Kerry Carolan 1 year ago
This story is a little misrepresented. The reason they are taking it to court is that the 'squatters' have produced a lease and several texts that seem to point to them being legal tenants...it's possible someone else 'rented' them the house and it's a scam, but it's also possible the couple is trying to illegally evict their own tenants because they changed their minds. It's not uncommon to sign a lease the day you move in, and it is illegal to lockout your tenants. The whole thing is an odd case that's not really indicative of a greater overall trend towards squatting as it's being represented
Petra 1 year ago
Squatters' Rights has always seemed insane to me. It's like if you break the law for long enough, your breaking of the law becomes protected by the law. It'd be like outlawing 1 murder, but if you commit 5 murders, the law protects you. Squatters are criminals, just like mass shooters and serial killers are criminals. They should be treated as such!
Petra 1 year ago
Squatter should be charged with breaking & entering and trespassing for every day they occupy the building. And charge with property damage if they change the locks or make any other unauthorized adjustment to the building. And fraud if they forge papers. And providing a false statement if they lie to the police/courts (ex. in this case, about being the owners).
Load More Replies... Cassie 1 year ago
If they can sue the owners for changing the locks, why can't the owners sue them for changing the locks and depriving them of their property? The problem is that the squatters have nothing to lose, but that doesn't mean you handle it on their terms. You don't have to win at every point, you just have to be a bigger PITA to them than they are to you so they'll move on.
SadieCat17 (she/her) 1 year ago (edited)
"Finders keepers" is idiotic, but a lot of people there are misunderstanding what squatting rights are usually used for. It's just that proper use doesn't get news coverage. These laws are made to prevent people from hoarding properties they will never use and wasting houses, so it's actually a bad thing if they're revoked completely. Land is a limited resource everyone needs, so if you aren't renting it out or managing it long term, you shouldn't be allowed to keep it. Although I do agree that the time the house has been unoccupied by the owners should be increased before squatter's rights kick in to prevent situations like this.
The Original Bruno 1 year ago
Also: let's not forget the o-so-recent real estate crash of 2007, when banks were so happy to throw people out of their homes because they missed a few mortgage payments. You had entire neighborhoods completely emptied out. Laws like this (PROPERLY APPLIED) would've stayed the mortgage-holders hands in many cases... or motivated the banks to at least offer dirt-cheap rental rates for a while. Unfortunately, there isn't much overlap between states with squatters' rights and states without rent control.
Load More Replies... KillerKiwi 1 year ago
Why have I not heard of this sooner?! Brb, I’m gonna go squat in somebody’s house. I’ve been worried about buying a home, but now all my prayers have been answered! Thanks BP
tameson 1 year ago
The original laws were meant to protect people who took over abandoned properties and improved them and/or paid the taxes on them. In most cases you had to be occupying the property for a significant period of time (think 5 to 20 years). The reasoning was that abandoned, deteriorating properties were a problem for communities and that it was better to have people who were living there and taking care of them. I have no idea how that evolved into breaking into someone's home and then suing the real owners, although it seems that in New York squatters do have rights after 30 days. That just seems crazy.
Kerry Carolan 1 year ago
This story is a little misrepresented. The reason they are taking it to court is that the 'squatters' have produced a lease and several texts that seem to point to them being legal tenants...it's possible someone else 'rented' them the house and it's a scam, but it's also possible the couple is trying to illegally evict their own tenants because they changed their minds. It's not uncommon to sign a lease the day you move in, and it is illegal to lockout your tenants. The whole thing is an odd case that's not really indicative of a greater overall trend towards squatting as it's being represented
You May Like
Related on Bored Panda
35
38