Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Ugly Truth Behind “We Buy Ugly Houses”

propublica.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 244 posts

Re: The Ugly Truth Behind “We Buy Ugly Houses”

#21

Post by cratermoon »

abvaw wrote: post #10
paulryanrogers wrote: post #9

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.

How anyone these days can have any faith in the legal system and not see the ways the courts favor money over justice is beyond me.

Re: The Ugly Truth Behind “We Buy Ugly Houses”

#22

Post by schainks »

ftxbro wrote: post #8
abvaw wrote: post #2

[flagged]

> "Propublica reveals homeowners with advanced dementia who signed their shaky signatures to transfer their homes for a fraction of their market value. They show how Homevestor targets neighborhoods struck by hurricanes, or whose owners are recently divorced, or sick. One whistleblower tells of how the company uses the surveillance advertising industry to locate elderly people who've broken a hip: "a 60-day countdown…

There is a nuclear waste disposal site next to aboriginal villages on Orchid Island off the coast of Taiwan because someone handed a contract to a Chinese-illiterate person and said, "sign this and we will build a cannery and help your local economy, trust us."

What do you call volition without symmetrical information? What happens when other people's livelihoods rely on your volition? Should vulnerable people deserve additional protections?

Your comment suggests that _anyone_ has volition enough to decide whether to sign these contracts or not, and I don't see how that's the case here.

Re: The Ugly Truth Behind “We Buy Ugly Houses”

#24

Post by bdw5204 »

abvaw wrote: post #2

[flagged]

A "contract" where one party is clearly not of "sound mind" is supposed to be null and void according to basic principles of contract law[0]. Tricking an elderly person with dementia or a mentally handicapped person into selling their house for half of its fair market value is reasonably characterized as "theft" or "attempted theft".

The fact that a company is able to get away with stealing homes from elderly people who have dementia without these contracts being quickly voided as obviously fraudulent is all the evidence you need that the legal system is currently badly broken. These are not hard cases for a judge or a juror to consider.

[0]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/sound_mind_and_memory

Re: The Ugly Truth Behind “We Buy Ugly Houses”

#25

Post by AndrewKemendo »

schainks wrote: post #22
ftxbro wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "Propublica reveals homeowners with advanced dementia who signed their shaky signatures to transfer their homes for a fraction of their market value. They show how Homevestor targets neighborhoods struck by hurricanes, or whose owners are recently divorced, or sick. One whistleblower tells of how the company uses the surveillance advertising industry to locate elderly people who've broken a hip: "a 60-day countdown…

There is a nuclear waste disposal site next to aboriginal villages on Orchid Island off the coast of Taiwan because someone handed a contract to a Chinese-illiterate person and said, "sign this and we will build a cannery and help your local economy, trust us." What do you call volition without symmetrical information? What happens when other people's livelihoods rely on your volition? Should vulnerable people deserv…

In fact the op doesn’t even go as far as to discriminate on context!

So no matter what, if you signed on the dotted line, you’re liable case closed.

Re: The Ugly Truth Behind “We Buy Ugly Houses”

#26

Post by HEmanZ »

abvaw wrote: post #10
paulryanrogers wrote: post #9

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 linked examples literally contain cases where the signer had diagnosed dementia or was tricked in an extremely dubious way (e.g “oh this is the exact same contract as last time just sign it”). And the contracts were upheld.

Idk if it warrants a story beyond “existing laws not being upheld in some cases”, meaning I don’t know how much these cases apply to the whole market or most courts, but it looks like there are a fair number of seriously messed up contract scams getting through in this industry.

Re: The Ugly Truth Behind “We Buy Ugly Houses”

#29

Post by ttyprintk »

jjulius wrote: post #13
abvaw wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I would suggest that you read the ProPublica article that is the source of the claim, which details a years-long legal battle that then ensued, before you continue. 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 walki…

Convenient link to the original:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35901056

Post reply on HN