[diggan]

I don't think there is a clear "N amount of days away from the residence means you're not actively living there", the court would look at many factors.

For example, if it's evident the owner is intending to return, there is personal belongings, utility contracts in the owners name and such, courts would (probably) consider it your primary residence even if you take an extended leave from it.

On the other hand, if you're away for several months, there is no clear intent to return and you've removed all furniture/personal belongings, courts can think it looks like it isn't your primary residence anymore, especially if you own other properties that it seems you might be living in instead.

Like most issues in society, there isn't any clear dividing line and no guarantees. That's why we have the legal system we have after all, so nuances can be taking into consideration.

[s1artibartfast]

In what case does it make no difference to me, a person who bought or built a structure, that I can no longer use it and it has been stolen?

[diggan]

I'm not sure what the question is, could you reformulate that?

[s1artibartfast]

You said

>Worth looking up the difference between trespassing on property someone actively lives in, and "okupas" occupying otherwise empty buildings. Once you understand the difference, you'd understand that you can continue living your life like normal :)

I dont see how the duration between my visits means there is not impact on my life if someone steals my 2nd house. Im still out my savings, or retirement funds, or years of work it took to build the house.