The homeowner in California accuses squatters of burning at home while the family was still inside

There is a warning tale for mobile homeowners everywhere.

A Fresno, Ca, the family is homeless after a fire destroyed their trailers in the early hours after July 4 .. now, there are few.

Speaking to the emergence of local news Ksee24, Solorzano shared how he managed to get his family before the fire included the house. He also shared his doubts about the cause of the incident: squatters.

Now, the question is: how does a mobile home owner rebuild like Solorzano-and who is responsible for the damages?

Problem with squatters

When asked how the fire began, Solorzano said he believed that a group of homeless individuals who had set up the camp in the park were to blame.

“There are always fraud. Wealth managers are always, you know, trying to remove them, but they always seem to continue to come back,” he said.

He found the squatters of squatters immediately near his home shortly after the fire, he added. Meanwhile, Fresno’s fire officials told Outlet that the incident is being ruled by accident. They confirmed that the fire began in a bunch of nearby items that then spread to the trailer and Solorzano.

However, they could not determine exactly what ignited the fire.

In California, expulsion expulsion can be a complicated process. State Senate Bob Archuleta sponsored a law, which was adopted in 2024, allowing property owners to submit a “without violation” notice to the local police.

This gives the law enforcement the authority to respond and remove the teams, though it does not prevent them from returning.

In California, however, teams have legal protection that prevent their immediate removal from a property. Before avoiding a rogue, you must first serve them with an expulsion notice or notice to leave, as described in section 1007 of the Civil Code in California.

If an attack on your property occurs and refuses to leave, they may call on the rights of fraudsters -and in some cases, even try to submit a claim of the opposite possession, which allows someone who opened and uses property without the permission of the owner, for a certain period of time, to strengthen the legal ownership of that property.

Reconstruction without insurance

Adding family challenges is the fact that while they owned trailers, they rented the land on which he sat -and Solorzano said he had no tenants’ insurance.

“For now, our most urgent needs are finding temporary housing and replacing basic and essential clothing,” he wrote on the family site.

Possessing a removable home, but renting the land is a “quite common” deal in California, according to Brooke Bremmer, a lawyer specializing in the Law on Asset and Residence in Sweet James.

However, Solorzano would have brought to obtain the security of tenants, as the park policy does not include everything.

“The insurance of the park generally covers responsibility and ordinary areas, while the individual’s policy provides the home itself,” she explains. Moreover, if the family had security, their whole home would have been covered.

“Most homeowner’s insurance police officers are structured to cover fire -induced losses, no matter who began was not the deliberate act of homeowner or otherwise excluded, such as war or nuclear danger),” Bremmer says. “This means that even if a fire were to be caused by the fraudsters, the homeowner would usually be able to submit a request and receive compensation under their policy.”

However, the owners of the mobile park can be responsible for the fire, and given that the family had no insurance, this is important.

“If the owners or managers of the mobile home park know that teams possess a risk and have failed to take reasonable steps to provide facilities, such as failure to maintain fences, gates or patrols, they can be found black,” Bremmer says. “According to the California law, land is tasked with taking reasonable steps to secure property and prevent HARM (Civil Code 1714, general neglect standards).

Moreover, if the owners of the mobile park warned the city authorities and nothing was done with it, another way to explore would be a government claim. Bremmer admits, however, that these are “difficult to prove and subject to the requests of claims presentation within six months”.