How Baltimore City encourages trespassers

[Laura N.]

I am a small real estate investor who does it for a living. I don't have a lot of houses and remodel one by one, selling them for a fair price and trying to always give a good product.

I am another victim of the trespassers in Baltimore City. I bought a house in December 2020 and was going to rehabilitate it, but it was invaded in January 2021. So, I am currently out of work. But even more terrible than being a victim of a crime was to discover that the whole system in this City is built for supporting the criminals, not the victims.

The Policy 807 SQUATTERS AND PROPERTY FRAUD SCHEMES published on 09/13/2017 by Order of the Police Commissioner, literally states: "5. If the Squatter is established as a Residential Victim by producing any documentation (e.g., lease, deed, or other property record), even if the document appears to be falsified, the Squatter will be presumed to have established residence and no action shall be taken. Rather, the property owner will need to initiate the eviction process to have the subject removed from the property. The officer must then refer the owner to the District Court."

The Policy is wrong, mainly for encouraging this criminal activity and also for giving mistaken advice to the owners since the eviction is only for tenants. The proper legal remedy for squatters is the wrongful detainer complaint that at least is a little quicker (but not in this Covid times when the Court is working at the minimum).

Trying to prevent more people to suffer the consequences of this horrible Policy I wrote to the Mayor, to all the Council Members, to all the Baltimore City State representatives, to the State’s Attorney Office and to the same Police Department. Very few people responded. Among them, Councilman Burnett that said was asking the Police to change their Policy and Senator Hayes that contacted the Police for inquiring about the matter.

As a result of the intervention of Senator Hayes, some weeks ago, I received some communications from the Police saying they will review the Policy. Two weeks ago, I asked them how the process was going and I received this answer by one of their Directors:

“Thank you again for reaching out to us. We have not forgotten you or this important issue but I do want to make sure that we are all on the same page as to how we are moving forward in this matter.

First, while we are sympathetic that you and others have had to deal with these types of burdensome circumstance, the fact remains that our officers cannot make the decision as to who is rightfully allowed to possess the property. That is a civil matter that absolutely must be decided by a judge. Any new policy will continue to reflect that stance.

Second, as we discussed in previous messages, we are looking at tweaking the policy to provide greater guidance to our members on what sort of advice they should offer property owners in these instances such as seeking a wrongful detainer complaint vs a complaint for an eviction. That said, since we are under a federal Consent Decree, we are not permitted to simply change our policies without review and coordination from both the federal Monitoring Team and the Department of Justice. That is a lengthy process and will take some time. In the meantime, we are working on other methods of informing our members but that too will take a bit of time.”

And I responded:

“The Policy as it is now, stating that “even if the document appears to be falsified, the Squatter will be presumed to have established residence and no action shall be taken” is outrageous. It allows 3 unfair and unjust situations:

1.- That the Police, going purely on the word of the intruders, deems them residents, as happened in my case at the beginning (later I got the Police to at least ask the intruder to leave, although, afterwards, they gave them almost 3 hours to create a document).

2.- That even if the Police in their trained judgment considers a document to be fraudulent, they are permitting an innocent person to be victimized by a criminal and preventing the victim from regaining what is rightfully theirs. They are complicit. That is more patent in cases, like mine, when the same intruder recognizes that he doesn’t know the owner of the house, so whoever “rented” the house to him (if they really exist and it is not an invention of the intruder) was clearly not entitled to give possession of the house. In cases like these, so plain, there is no necessity for a judge to intervene, as the officer on scene has made a judgment and it is supported by the words and actions of the parties. To make a comparison, it would be like the owner of a vehicle finding that someone is inside their car, calls the police, the intruder shows a document that supposedly entitles him to be in possession of the vehicle, the Police notice it is a fake documentation, but nevertheless allows the intruder to continue in the car and send the owner to begin a lawsuit.

3.- The Policy gives trespassers a lot of confidence that they can produce whatever document they wish to have plenty of time to continue living in the invaded house for free and using utilities for which they don’t pay, and certainly the Police are aware.

Regarding the second topic:

I am glad the Police is taking steps for supporting all victims in this aspect.”

They didn’t answer this message.

As you can see, there is no hope the Police changes the Policy 807 that supports this criminal activity in Baltimore City and no authority (aside of the two mentioned) seems to care.

Regarding the electricity and the gas: after a lot of efforts (because the account was still in the name of the previous owner), I got them to cut the services off but the intruders continue having services in my house (I can see the lights are on at night). I reported a theft of electricity but BGE said that when they went (during the day) they didn’t see any evidence of theft in the pole. Pitifully the meter is inside of the house and later I found out that is very easy to manipulate it for continuing having service, it is not necessary to have cables coming from the pole.

About the water: I spoke with a lawyer in the Maryland Court Help Center and he told me that the squatters don't have the same rights of tenants (you can't cut the tenant's services). So, I asked 301 to cut the service off at the beginning of February, even they told me I had to pay a $109 fee; and supposedly they did. Today I reviewed the water bill website and to my surprise there was water consumption. I called and they told me that “someone” (they didn’t want to give me their name) asked they to turn on the service and they simply did it. Another battle I will begin, now with the Water Service Office. First, I will confirm with another lawyer that I have the right to turn the water off and then ask the City why they act against the law.

As you can see, Baltimore City is a very friendly place for the squatters and not helpful with the victims, we the owners, the ones that pay all the taxes that support this City. That is very discouraging!