California homeowner accuses squatters of burning down home while family was still inside

It’s a cautionary tale for mobile-home owners everywhere.

A Fresno, CA, family is homeless after a fire destroyed their trailer in the early hours following July 4. Victor Solorzano shared the home, located in a mobile-home park, with his wife, two young children, and father-in-law. Now, there’s little left.

In speaking with local news outlet KSEE24, Solorzano shared how he managed to get his family out before the fire engulfed the home. He also shared his suspicions about the cause of the incident: squatters.

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

The problem with squatters

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

“There’s always squatters. The property managers are always, you know, trying to get them away, but they always just seem to keep coming back,” he said.

He found the squatters’ belongings right beside his home shortly after the fire, he added. Meanwhile, Fresno fire officials told the outlet that the incident is being ruled accidental. They confirmed the fire began on a pile of items nearby that then spread to Solorzano’s trailer.

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

In California, evicting squatters can be a complicated process. State Sen. Bob Archuleta sponsored a law, which was passed in 2024, allowing property owners to file a “no trespass” notice with local police.

This gave law enforcement the authority to respond and remove squatters, though it doesn’t prevent them from returning.

However, in California, squatters have legal protections that prevent their immediate removal from a property. Before you can evict a squatter, you must first serve them with an eviction notice or notice to quit, as outlined in California Civil Code Section 1007.

If a squatter occupies your property and refuses to leave, they may invoke squatters rights—and in some cases, even attempt to file an adverse possession claim, which allows someone who openly occupies and uses property without the owner’s permission, for a certain period of time, to potentially gain legal ownership of that property.

Rebuilding without insurance

Adding to the family’s challenges is the fact that, while they owned the trailer, they rented the land it sat on—and Solorzano said he didn’t have renters’ insurance.

“Right now, our most urgent needs are finding temporary housing and replacing basic clothing and essentials,” he wrote on the family’s GoFundMe page.

Owning a mobile home but renting the land is a “quite common” arrangement in California, according to Brooke Bremmer, an attorney specializing in property and habitability law at Sweet James.

However, it would’ve behooved Solorzano to get that renters’ insurance, since the park’s policy does not cover everything.

“The park’s insurance generally covers liability and common areas, while the individual’s policy insures the home itself,” she explains. Moreover, if the family had insurance, all of their home would’ve likely been covered. 

“Most homeowners’ insurance policies are structured to cover losses caused by fire, regardless of who started it (assuming it was not the homeowner’s intentional act or otherwise excluded, like war or nuclear hazard),” Bremmer says. “This means that even if a fire was caused by squatters, the homeowner would typically be able to file a claim and receive compensation under their policy.”

Still, the mobile park owners might potentially be liable for the fire, and considering the family didn’t have insurance, that’s important.

“If the mobile-home park owners or managers knew that squatters posed a risk and failed to take reasonable steps to secure the premises, such as failing to maintain fences, gates, or patrols, they could be found negligent,” Bremmer says. “Under California law, landowners have a duty to take reasonable steps to secure property and prevent foreseeable harm (Civil Code 1714, general negligence standards). If squatters were a known, ongoing issue, the park might have breached a duty.”

Additionally, if the mobile-park owners alerted city authorities and nothing was done about it, another avenue to explore would be a government claim. Bremmer concedes, though, that these are “hard to prove and subject to claims presentation requirements within six months.”