A Florida Fake Lease Fiasco
Rose Soltani
Imagine finding out that a person suddenly gains ownership of your property. This would send any person into a frenzy. But that is exactly what the doctrine of Adverse Possession allows. While it doesn’t frequently make headlines, Adverse Possession—sometimes referred to as “Squatter’s Rights”—is a growing concern among property owners nationwide. It essentially enables a non-owner to gain title to land or personal property after the owner fails to recover possession.
One such case recently caught national attention: Patti Peeples, a Florida homeowner, discovered that a pair of squatters had broken into one of her investment properties that was up for sale. She only learned about the situation after she sent a handyman to do some repairs on the home and he noticed people living there. When confronted, the squatters claimed they were the rightful tenants, even producing a fake lease. Police told Peeples that she would have to take matters to court to have them removed. It took 36 days and substantial legal effort before she was finally able to reclaim her home.
The issue over adverse possession today is whether this property right once held to grant an adverse possessor fair rights to a piece of land they possessed over a continuous statutory period, is now getting too far. A key case regarding the rights of adverse possessors is the case of Cahill v. Morrow. The adverse possessor in this case had made improvements to a neighbor’s home over a period of time, including planting flowers, taking flood draining measures, and more. However, the mistake here was that Cahill sent a series of letters to the homeowners a few times throughout this ordeal showing interest in buying the property. It was those letters that caught the attention of the court.
To succeed in an adverse possession claim, a squatter must prove that their possession was hostile, exclusive, open & notorious, actual, and continuous for the requisite statutory period. But what do these elements really mean?
Hostility refers to the possessor occupying the property without the owner’s permission.
Exclusivity requires that the squatter possess the property as a sole occupant, without sharing it with others as a typical owner wouldn’t.
Open and notorious possession means the squatter’s presence is visible and obvious.
Actual possession requires the squatter to use the property in a manner that is consistent with how the owner would.
Finally, continuity demands that the occupation is consistent for the full statutory period instead of intermittent. This is usually expected of any property.
Regarding the hostility element, the court found that because she had tried communicating with the homeowners to buy the land this negated the ‘hostility’ element of adverse possession. This was because her sending the letters wasn’t actually showing hostility because she was aware the property was not actually hers despite making various improvements to it. The pertinent inquiry centers on the claimants’ objective manifestations of adverse use rather than on the claimants' knowledge that they lacked colorable legal title and so the letter she sent does not make the possession hostile. The court ultimately ruled that Cahill did not have adverse possession of Morrow’s property.
We then turn to the case at hand, to see whether the five elements of adverse possession are met: the squatters here were treating the house as an exclusive piece of property. They were not sharing it with anyone else. Here, the squatters’ presence was also open and notorious. They weren’t trying to hide that they were here, and neighbors in the area could have believed that these people were really supposed to be there. Even having their dog lying out on the front porch strengthens this element because there was no concealment of it. Similarly, the squatters were using the house in a way the owner would. If the owner had pets, maybe they too would be on the front porch at times throughout the day while the owners were inside; that was the case here. We don’t have specific information about how long the squatters were in the house, but can assume that they met that element if they stayed long enough.
Continuity demands that the occupation be consistent instead of intermittent. Based on the facts we do have one can argue that their stay was consistent because of the condition of the house the handyman found it in. Their dog was on the front porch, the house had been damaged in the interior, and it was consistent with the condition one may find a house after people living in it for a longer and consistent period versus intermittent stays. These details satisfy the element of adverse possessors showing actual possession.
Finally, we look at the element of hostility. In the eyes of the court, showing a fake lease in one way may be asserting the hostility required because they have gone out of their way to create a document to claim adverse possession over this property; the lease just happens to be fake. However, because they are presenting a ’lease’ and not a ‘deed’ the court may look at this as the squatters knowing they do not own possession of this house like a property owner would. And because it is fake and not legitimate, the court may find that this fake lease is not enough to satisfy the hostility element.
These cases raise a crucial question: Where do we draw the line between a squatter and a legitimate adverse possessor? A squatter often takes advantage of a temporarily vacant property, perhaps due to foreclosure or an owner’s absence. Their presence is opportunistic, not born of necessity or a long-standing connection. In contrast, a true adverse possessor may have invested time and effort into a property over many years, even where they were unaware of the boundary lines or legal title issues. Someone like Cahill, who maintained land and made improvements in good faith, arguably deserves greater legal recognition than someone who simply moves into a home and fakes tenancy.
Ultimately, adverse possession must be applied with some nuance. While it can serve a legitimate purpose—encouraging land use and penalizing neglect—it must not be abused to the detriment of rightful property owners. That wouldn’t be a good representation of a free market society either. Courts and legislatures must work to clarify this distinction. Property rights are a cornerstone of legal stability, and clarity in ownership is vital—not only for individual homeowners but for entire communities. As housing challenges and economic uncertainty continue to grow, the law must adapt to protect both investment and fairness.
Rose Soltani is a law student at the American University Washington College of Law.
Image: Phillip Pessar, Old Home Little Havana - Miami Florida November 20223.
