Man left shocked as his house is 'stolen' • Hacker News Board

Re: Man left shocked as his house is 'stolen'

#221

Post by WarOnPrivacy » Mon, Nov 01, 2021, 9:27 PM UTC

closeparen wrote: post #85

pjdemers wrote: post #18

In the US, there is title insurance. If the seller didn't have the legal right to sell the house, the house reverts to the legal owner, and the buyer is paid back by the insurance. It's not possible to get a mortgage without title insurance, and a cash buyer would be nuts to not demand it from the seller. In some states (example, California) it can get more complicated, though, because the right to sell a house isn't…

This seems backwards. To evict someone you have to swear up and down that you're going to occupy the place yourself. People get prosecuted for e.g. doing an owner-move-in eviction and then selling to a developer. The old owner doesn't have a legal basis to get rid of the tenant, but the new owner does.

> To evict someone you have to swear up and down that you're going to occupy the place yourself.

Where do you get this from? It's not like any US law I've ever heard of.

For the evictions I've worked on, the homeowner simply wanted the tenants out (non-payment, etc) so they could re-rent or sell the property. They didn't ever have to live there.

Re: Man left shocked as his house is 'stolen'

#222

Post by aqsalose » Mon, Nov 01, 2021, 9:28 PM UTC

ska wrote: post #142

thereddaikon wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds to me like in the UK you cant truly own land if the government can just decide it belongs to someone else.

> cant truly own land if the government can just This is mostly how private property works in practice, everywhere.

In civilized countries, it requires a specific decree or order by some government body, possibly after appeals.

Not just random clerk writing a line in a book when random stranger comes and tells they own a piece of land and are going to sell it.

Re: Man left shocked as his house is 'stolen'

#223

Post by jchook » Mon, Nov 01, 2021, 9:29 PM UTC

Reminded of Victor Lustig, who sold someone the Eiffel Tower.

He impersonated a government official and told a group of scrap metal dealers it was too costly to maintain and that it was set to be demolished and sold as scrap.

The man who purchased it was too embarrassed to go to authorities, lest it ruin his reputation.

Re: Man left shocked as his house is 'stolen'

#224

Post by lazide » Mon, Nov 01, 2021, 9:31 PM UTC

Causality1 wrote: post #70

pmyteh wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's right, I think. The property can be recovered from the fraudster, but not from an innocent subsequent purchaser. There is at least some form of compensation scheme by the Land Registry. And 'selling on behalf of someone who isn't the actual owner' certainly can found a liability claim on the solicitor.

That's wild. Is there any other case where someone gets to keep stolen property as long as they didn't know it was stolen? I have to say if I was in the victim's position, my reaction would probably land me in prison for longer than the fraudster.

I think it’s more ‘if someone goes through an expensive and extensive legal process to purchase at great expense, some real property, starts taking it as their own in good faith, then later what may be the prior legal owner, but who was not who did all the legal paperwork comes back to me and claims fraud - do I have to move?’

The issue is there are scenarios where the person writing the article may not actually be the legit owner - maybe they are delusional, or were squatting, or whatever. Maybe they are in league with the person who took off with the money, etc.

And the person who bought it is out real money on the meantime and is trying to make a home in good faith - it’s a pretty bad situation all around.

Re: Man left shocked as his house is 'stolen'

#225

Post by lazide » Mon, Nov 01, 2021, 9:32 PM UTC

thereddaikon wrote: post #128

dtparr wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe the 'quirk' here is that the fraud was able to get property ownership updated with the Land Registry, so the new owner is the official owner of record.

Sounds to me like in the UK you cant truly own land if the government can just decide it belongs to someone else.

Possession is 9/10ths of the law, and the gov’t likes to claim possession of all real property in it’s borders in some way or another

Re: Man left shocked as his house is 'stolen'

#226

Post by throaway46546 » Mon, Nov 01, 2021, 9:33 PM UTC

2fast4you wrote: post #164

anonymousisme wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If states are complying to federal standards for ID, then it is effectively a federal ID.

But they aren't issued or backed by the federal government. There isn't a national database for it, each state still has it's own system

There is a national database. It is called SPEXS.

Re: Man left shocked as his house is 'stolen'

#227

Post by lazide » Mon, Nov 01, 2021, 9:33 PM UTC

H8crilA wrote: post #183

codyb wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pretty much true everywhere. It’s not like you can take anything with you when you’re dead, owning materials is really just a societal construct no matter which way you slice it.

Possession is a physical/real property of the universe. Ownership is a legal abstraction/construct.

Being allowed to possess something (instead of being drug off kicking and screaming by the cops) is also a societal/legal construct.

Re: Man left shocked as his house is 'stolen'

#228

Post by lazide » Mon, Nov 01, 2021, 9:35 PM UTC

erikerikson wrote: post #203

thesuitonym wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is this really different than any other country? Any government (at least in uncontested territories) can come in and tell you to fuck off, and there's really very little you can do about it.

Quite the opposite. You ask the state to use their monopoly on legitimate use of force to enforce your rights in accordance to law. What you imply is a failed state. The state must maintain the legitimacy of that use to maintain consent of the people, that or it slides into far less prosperous configurations.

Being in a far less prosperous (in a meta sense) configuration is surprisingly not as big a deterrent as one might expect, especially if you are making them angry or the official involved would get far more prosperous (in a direct, concrete way) along the way.

Re: Man left shocked as his house is 'stolen'

#229

Post by WarOnPrivacy » Mon, Nov 01, 2021, 9:35 PM UTC

horsawlarway wrote: post #38

pjdemers wrote: post #18

In the US, there is title insurance. If the seller didn't have the legal right to sell the house, the house reverts to the legal owner, and the buyer is paid back by the insurance. It's not possible to get a mortgage without title insurance, and a cash buyer would be nuts to not demand it from the seller. In some states (example, California) it can get more complicated, though, because the right to sell a house isn't…

Eh - depends on why you're buying the house. There are a lot of rental properties for sale with "tenants in place" in my area. If you want to live in it, then yes - Ensure seller is responsible for removal. If you want to continue renting the property then a lot of times it's easier for both parties to complete the sale and then let the current rental contract conclude before doing reno/construction.

If there's a lease in place, that lease continues unabated.

If the new owner wants the tenants out, the tenants have to agree to break the lease. Otherwise the tenants can continue to live there until their lease runs out.

It doesn't matter whether these are the best options for the owner(s). They're the only options.

Re: Man left shocked as his house is 'stolen'

#230

Post by lazide » Mon, Nov 01, 2021, 9:37 PM UTC

koonsolo wrote: post #195

lbriner wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is the same with a Solicitor but if they followed the correct process and the problem was actually with, say, the DVLA who issued a driving licence in the wrong name, I'm not sure who is liable for the error.

Why would you use a driver's license when everyone can have a digital ID card? In Belgium the notary will always ask for your digital ID card.

Plenty of folks haven’t updated, or don’t like dealing with it, or ‘lost it’ or whatever.

Most people doing notary/certification on stuff like this are used to that kind of situation, so someone having an acceptable but not ideal ID method isn’t going to slow this process down.