11–20 of 244 posts
[flagged]
The law has a concept for that: deed or title theft. "Stealing" is the appropriate colloquial descriptor.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If there's enough fine print to require 3+ hours of reading for someone with high-schools level comprehension... then it can easily hide exploitive terms. For seniors with dwindling mental capacity the situation is even more dire.
If you haven't understood (or even read) what they are telling you to sign you shouldn't sign. What you can't do is sign and then complain about what you signed. That's ridiculous, and the courts agree.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Many of these people have dementia. It's not a fair negotiation.
Contracts signed by mentally incompetent people are generally invalid. So this article isn't about that. Therefore, when the article says the courts accept the contracts as valid they can't be talking about the contracts signed by the infirm, but the article conflates both things maliciously.
It's not as cut and dry as you would like it to be. The following is literally about a "contract signed by the infirm":
>After David learned of the contract, he explained to Evans that his mother had dementia and tried to cancel the sale. Instead of walking away, Evans dug in, recording a notice on the property’s title that essentially prevented a sale to anyone else, which forced the Casanova family into a years-long battle to keep the home. Along the way, Evans disputed that Casanova showed signs of impairment during their interactions.
[flagged]
[flagged]
[flagged]
But even setting that aside, I'm sure you're also absolutely fine with every "Terms and Conditions" you sign up to every time you create a free account online. So if as parodied in the South Park episode, Apple shows up to your house and insists you join their Human Centipad because it was right there in the terms and conditions you signed up to when buying an iPhone, you will happily have your mouth sown to someone else's backside because you agreed to a contract.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Many of these people have dementia. It's not a fair negotiation.
Contracts signed by mentally incompetent people are generally invalid. So this article isn't about that. Therefore, when the article says the courts accept the contracts as valid they can't be talking about the contracts signed by the infirm, but the article conflates both things maliciously.
The lesson here is to marry someone much younger so you have someone to take care of you in your twilight years. Also good to have lots of kids and raise them right. Statistically at least one of them will be able to take care of you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Many of these people have dementia. It's not a fair negotiation.
Contracts signed by mentally incompetent people are generally invalid. So this article isn't about that. Therefore, when the article says the courts accept the contracts as valid they can't be talking about the contracts signed by the infirm, but the article conflates both things maliciously.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Many of these people have dementia. It's not a fair negotiation.
Contracts signed by mentally incompetent people are generally invalid. So this article isn't about that. Therefore, when the article says the courts accept the contracts as valid they can't be talking about the contracts signed by the infirm, but the article conflates both things maliciously.
The buyer has the signature on paper and can proceed with taking the house.
The person who just sold their house _could_ contest it in court... except that they're not mentally competent so by definition they won't be able to mount a defense (i.e., realize that they just got scammed, hire a lawyer, put together a strategy, etc, etc). Brilliant!
If the elderly, mentally incompetent person has _someone_else_ in their life who notices this early and jumps in to clock a lot of hours to stop this from happening, then sure - everything will be fine.
If not, well, the bad guys win.