Squatter Rights: TikToker Occupies House – Police And Court Initially Powerless

When it usually comes to landlords wanting to get their tenants out of a property at all costs, one often has a very typical image of the situation in mind: the landlord – ideally straight out of a cartoon, complete with top hat, curled mustache, and monocle – storms into the home of a poor family month after month, squeezing the very last crumbs of bread from them before throwing them out onto the street with nothing to their name.

But what if the situation is somewhat different – if the landlady simply wants her unlawfully occupied house back, yet the legal framework initially protects the person who has become the squatter?

AirbnBeggar

A few days ago, the court files were closed on a case that began in the spring of 2024: a TikToker rented a single-family home via Airbnb for 32 days – so far, so unremarkable.

However, after the agreed month had expired, she decided not to leave the property. When the owner contacted the police, they informed her that the young woman had the right to remain.

The case sparked a debate that not only calls into question how self-presentation on social media can distort public opinion, but also casts a critical eye on the legal situation in Washington, where the case took place.

The squatter – an influencer named Shadija Romero – invoked legal protection mechanisms that, in certain cases in the United States, are intended to shield individuals from immediate eviction, and she was initially even ruled in favor of.

Squatter Rights As A Legal Gray Area

The police were accordingly powerless at first and explained to the distressed landlady, Rochanne Douglas, that so-called "squatter rights" essentially mean that if someone lives in rented premises for more than a month, is tolerated there, and pays rent, that person cannot simply be thrown out.

For the homeowner, this meant that despite the agreement having clearly expired, she did not automatically regain access to her property. Thus began a legal process that dragged on for weeks.

At the center of the dispute was the question of whether a person who had rented via Airbnb for a limited period could, under certain circumstances, be considered a tenant with corresponding rights. In many U.S. states – including the District of Columbia – tenants enjoy strong protection against eviction. However, this protection generally applies only to standard rental agreements, not to short-term lodging arrangements.

Self-Presentation As A Victim

In the meantime, the squatter continued to live in the house undisturbed and portrayed herself as the victim of the situation on her social media channels – a narrative her audience initially believed.

At first, Shadija Romero appeared credible with her story. The young woman of color and mother of two daughters, who runs a clothing company that donates part of its revenue, was regarded by her fans and according to various magazine reports as a positive example in society – although most of those reports have since been removed from the internet.

As a result, many initially believed her portrayal of herself as a victim of multiple misfortunes and of a landlady who allegedly refused to honor an agreement. Romero claimed that she had had to leave her previous home due to a fire and that she had verbally agreed with the owner of her current accommodation that she would be allowed to continue living in the house. She also stated that she had generally paid rent, but due to a minor personal crisis had not always been able to do so on time.

In addition, she emphasized that the court had so far ruled in her favor, allowing her to remain in the house – making it clear to her and her followers that Rochanne Douglas was supposedly "the villain."

However, the truth appears to have been somewhat different. While Douglas pursued an eviction lawsuit – at that point the only option left to her – several months passed, as the first court hearing was not scheduled until December 11.

The Truth Behind the Influencer Facade

Douglas, who had fallen into financial trouble due to Romero’s failure to pay rent, even offered a deal in the meantime: if the squatter paid her $2,500 and signed a document confirming that she had never been a tenant, she could simply leave the house and Douglas would withdraw the lawsuit.

Romero accepted this offer, signed the documents, and promised to have moved out by November 15. On that exact date, however, she contacted Douglas again and stated that she had changed her mind and that Douglas should do whatever she felt she had to do.

At the end of November, shortly before the first court hearing, neighbors contacted Douglas and reported that they had seen the squatter loading large bags from the house into a car together with friends and driving away – giving the landlady hope that Romero intended to disappear. Douglas immediately went to her property, had a locksmith change the locks, boarded up all the windows, and disconnected the house from the power supply for security reasons.

While Douglas now believed that the squatting ordeal was finally over after nearly nine months and began considering how to proceed with the property, Romero returned and broke into the house.

Police Side With The Squatter

The landlady arrived with the police, not believing what she was hearing on site: the police sided with Romero and allowed her, on the spot, to call a locksmith to change the locks once again in her favor. Although Romero had no documents whatsoever to prove that she lived there, her confident demeanor apparently misled the officers at that moment.

The following day, Romero received another visit in the now re-occupied house, this time from child protective services. She had brought one of her two daughters into the house, which still had no electricity – a situation the authorities deemed unsuitable for a child.

These new circumstances led to an emergency legal proceeding that was to take place immediately. In the course of this process, further shocking details came to light.

More Truths in Court

Douglas testified that she had been threatened by Romero, who made it clear that she was willing to steal Douglas’s company car unless Douglas admitted that Romero was the official owner of the house. On another occasion, Romero allegedly pushed Douglas off a ladder while Douglas was putting up a sign on her property stating that the occupants of the house were merely squatters.

It also came to light that Romero’s previous residence had not, in fact, been vacated due to a fire. That property, too, had been cleared after Romero had fallen behind on rent payments totaling $50,000.

Romero’s social media content did little to support the image of a desperate mother simply searching for a place to live for herself and her children. Instead, it showed the TikToker attending various events, vacationing in Jamaica, and promoting her clothing brand.

In the end, the judge ruled in favor of Douglas. Among other things, he referred to the document Romero had signed, in which she confirmed that she had never been a lawful tenant.

Airbnb Responds

The following day, Romero was forced to leave the house. When the verdict became public through the media, Airbnb also commented on the matter for the first time. The company stated that its influence extends only to housing arrangements made through its platform, and that anything occurring after the agreed-upon 30 days falls outside its control. Nevertheless, Airbnb announced that it intended to ban Shadija Romero from using its services in the future.

This almost absurd case illustrates how easily a particular narrative can be constructed on social media when content consumers fail to consider both sides of a situation and pass judgment with a strongly preconceived opinion.

At the same time, it also makes clear how legal loopholes and gray areas can be exploited to an extreme degree with sufficient criminal intent – so much so that a 30-day stay can turn into a squatting drama lasting more than a year, in which even judges and police are initially unable to determine who is actually in the right.