Live data from Hacker News

221 Cannon is Not For Sale

fredbenenson.com

161–170 of 278 posts

Re: 221 Cannon is Not For Sale

#161
post #154
post #6

What about sinking 3 2x4s into the ground and nailing a 4x8 sheet of plywood with a tastefully painted sign indicating the property is not for sale? It won't stop everyone but any realtor doing due diligence will likely see it. If is lasts long enough, it will show up on Google street view as well.

I think these days the easiest thing is to take a HELOC loan backed by the property. Do not withdraw money from HELOC and pay the $125/year fee. This puts a lien on the property. (The article alluded to this solution by noting these scammers avoid properties with a mortgage).

I eas thinking of purposefully not paying some kind of invoice to trigger a lien but this way seems more legitimate

Re: 221 Cannon is Not For Sale

#162
post #2

> He also provided a fake email for my brother: alexanderedwardenenson@out-look.com. Notice the subtle misspelling — “Benenson” without the second “n” in the email, and the hyphenated “out-look.com” domain. Surely you meant "'Benenson' without the “b” in the email, and the hyphenated 'out-look.com' domain"?

I had to re-read the email twice and concluded the same.

Re: 221 Cannon is Not For Sale

#163

1. Author lost me at his first sentence: "Like most people, I’ve had my identity stolen once or twice in my life." I am careful and aware of this possibility, but AFAIK I have not experienced this, nor have "most people" I know. o_O Crazy times. 2. I don't even understand how a title transfer could happen without verifying ownership. Is the title system in the USA decentralized or that much different than elsewhere?…

In the dark old days before Apple Pay, where it was common in America to hand your credit/debit card to some rando at a restaurant and have them disappear with it for a few minutes, about once a year my bank would call me to ask if I'd been using my card in some far-off locale: "Hi! Are you in Tijuana?" "Not since 1993. Why? What's up?" "So you didn't just try to buy gasoline at a PEMEX there?" "Nope, I'm in San Fran…

I think tap-to-pay terminals that the server carries now eliminate more of this. but occasionally I have to give my card over.

On the other hand, stolen credit cards were kept by the restaurant and they got a reward.

Nowadays I don't think there is ANY checking of whose card is being used.

Re: 221 Cannon is Not For Sale

#164
post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> in the Torrens system, whatever the government records say are final First, it doesn't seem like that's always the case, based on another post upthread talking about a land ownership case that went to the high court because of an error in the government's records. Second, since there is no single government for the entire world, any government trying to implement a Torrens system is still going to face the problem…

> First, it doesn't seem like that's always the case, based on another post upthread talking about a land ownership case that went to the high court because of an error in the government's records. I don’t know what High Court case they are talking about-they didn’t give a citation just a vague recollection-they might be remembering wrong. But the assumption in the Torrens system is the government database is correct…

> if you don’t lodge them with the land title registry, they don’t legally exist as far as land titles go.

As I pointed out in another post downthread, that is also the case in US jurisdictions that record deeds: if the deed transferring ownership isn't recorded with the county clerk, the transfer doesn't legally exist.

The difference, at least in many US jurisdictions, as I pointed out in that other post, is that in those US jurisdictions the county clerk does not guarantee that the deed is final, any other legal challenges notwithstanding. For example, I think someone else upthread gave the example of someone making a will in a different state that left property to their children instead of their spouse. When that person dies, yes, whoever is supposed to inherit the property would need to record a transfer deed in the county where the property is located to effect the transfer. But their legal right to do so depends on a will executed in a different state.

In many US jurisdictions, the county clerk is not responsible for checking to see if the person recording the transfer deed has the legal right to do so; that's up to other parties involved. But under the Torrens system you describe, it seems like the government land registry would have to do such a check in order to make the guarantee it makes. But how can it? It doesn't control or have access to things like wills in other jurisdictions that determine who has the legal right to take title to a property.

Re: 221 Cannon is Not For Sale

#165
post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"No, the United States doesnt have a central land registry [..]" Fascinating, how is ownership established if there is no single source of truth? I feel the answer to this is also crucial to understanding OP. It could be a minor annoyance or the real possibility to lose your land.

patio11 wrote a bunch about this: ( https://www.bitsaboutmoney.com/archive/working-title-insuran... )

I couldn’t keep reading this. Why is that thing so insane?

Re: 221 Cannon is Not For Sale

#166
post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That jives with the number of unauthorized transactions I've had on my cards. 62/260 million adults = about a quarter of adults each year. On average I probably average a fraudulent transaction in a quarter of the years.

> On average I probably average a fraudulent transaction in a quarter of the years. I’ve had one fraudulent charge in my entire lifetime. Once a quarter seems insane. Are you putting your card info into random websites or something?

He meant once every 4 years not once every quarter.

Re: 221 Cannon is Not For Sale

#167

> Like most people, I’ve had my identity stolen once or twice in my life. Is there a term for this deceitful language tactic? “Everybody knows that…” “It’s obvious that…” I think this one aggravates me the most because I feel targeted and lumped in with a group I’ve put effort into not being a part of.

maybe "appeal to popularity"

It suggests that a claim is true simply because many people believe it to be true

Re: 221 Cannon is Not For Sale

#168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The federal government doesn't manage any national credit agencies.

I don't see how that matters, the point is that we don't need the federal government's mandate in order to have a national clearinghouse of title data.

Since title events, like marriages, can happen outside the US, that only helps a little.

Re: 221 Cannon is Not For Sale

#169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yet another example where "we can't have nice things" because entrenched businesses profit from keeping things not-nice. Title Insurance shouldn't even be a thing. This should be solvable by a database.

There is a database. The insurance covers things that aren't in the database. Claims are exceptionally rare, so it's pretty cheap.

For the risk assumed by the title insurance, it's one of the most overpriced insurance around.

Re: 221 Cannon is Not For Sale

#170
post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> First, it doesn't seem like that's always the case, based on another post upthread talking about a land ownership case that went to the high court because of an error in the government's records. I don’t know what High Court case they are talking about-they didn’t give a citation just a vague recollection-they might be remembering wrong. But the assumption in the Torrens system is the government database is correct…

> if you don’t lodge them with the land title registry, they don’t legally exist as far as land titles go. As I pointed out in another post downthread, that is also the case in US jurisdictions that record deeds: if the deed transferring ownership isn't recorded with the county clerk, the transfer doesn't legally exist. The difference, at least in many US jurisdictions, as I pointed out in that other post, is that in…

> In many US jurisdictions, the county clerk is not responsible for checking to see if the person recording the transfer deed has the legal right to do so; that's up to other parties involved. But under the Torrens system you describe, it seems like the government land registry would have to do such a check in order to make the guarantee it makes. But how can it? It doesn't control or have access to things like wills in other jurisdictions that determine who has the legal right to take title to a property.

Commonly what happens-in legally complex situations, they’ll refuse to register the change in ownership; and then you have to challenge their refusal in the local jurisdiction’s courts-which are much better equipped to deal with complex legal issues, especially those involving interactions with foreign jurisdictions than the lands title registry is-and if you convince the court, they’ll order the registry to register the title change.

For deceased estates, they want to see an order from probate court telling them what to do before they do anything (if there is a will which nobody disputes, such an order is basically a formality). They don’t accept overseas court decisions; you need to apply to a local court asking for an order for the execution of the foreign judgement, and if the local court grants it, then the land registry will action it.

In your scenario where someone dies in another state, the legal process in Australia is-you apply to the probate division of the Supreme Court of their state of residence for an order of probate. Then you apply to the probate division of the Supreme Court of the state in which the property is located to get an in-state court order endorsing the out-of-state court order as valid. Then you send both court orders to the land title registry, and it will register the change of title in accordance with them. All the land title registry has to do is (a) validate the court order is real (I think they have access to court computer systems to double-check this); (b) in the (very rare) case there is any vagueness or ambiguity in what the court order tells them to do, they’ll reject it and tell you to get another court order with more precise instructions.

Post reply on HN