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

221 Cannon is Not For Sale

fredbenenson.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 278 posts

Re: 221 Cannon is Not For Sale

#261

Post by gwbas1c »

MichaelDickens wrote: post #227
gwbas1c wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It'll work in this area of the country (Connecticut, Massachusetts,) because this is a known scam and relators and attorneys know to keep an eye out for this. The problem is that a 4x8 plywood sign will weather very fast in New England weather. You're better off following the article's suggestion of flagging the property with the court. BTW: When these scams happen, you can sue for the irreplaceable value of trees re…

Who can you sue? The scammer?

Here's a plaintiff's lawyer now explaining all the parties they are suing:

https://massrealestatelawblog.com/tag/title-theft-concord-ma...

TLDR: The real property owner contacted the town to block the building permit, and then contacted the other people involved in the sale, the documents provided by the scam artist were obviously foraged, but the sale still went through and construction started.

The other major difference between this one and the other link I posted is that the owner was very likely going to build a home on the property when they retired; unlike the other link that I posted where the property was most likely an investment and going to be sold.

Re: 221 Cannon is Not For Sale

#262

Post by mindslight »

pdonis wrote: post #253
mindslight wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would characterize that as a patching of some of the problems that arise from the system, not a changing of the system's underlying semantics. By my lay reading of that, it doesn't even actually necessitate recording the deed sooner for it to have those effects - rather it just means that the deed needs to have been recorded some time before you get to court.

"Recorded according to law" refers to separate Florida statutes that specify how that's done--with the county clerk in the county where the property is located. > it just means that the deed needs to have been recorded some time before you get to court. No, before whatever event happens that might trigger a lawsuit. For example (hypothetical as far as I know): say I purchase a property from a fraudulent seller. They…

> before whatever event happens that might trigger a lawsuit

I'll accept that interpretation. But that's still just a patch over the underlying semantics trying to eliminate a lot of thorny cases, not a full change in semantics.

For example, let's say 12/31 is a Sunday. The seller wishes to sell the property this year for tax purposes. The seller executes the purchase agreement and the deed on 12/31, and then only records the deed on 1/2 (when the registry reopens). For purpose of taxes, that is still treated as a sale in the earlier year, right?

> My question would be, how does a closing work in jurisdictions that have Torrens title? Does the closing have to take place at the land registry, so they can confirm that everything is checked and valid and recorded before I get the key to the house?

I have no idea. It seems like the main difference with Torrens title is that when the deed is accepted by the registry then you know it is authoritative. So a closing at an attorney's office with delayed recording has the same ambiguity under both systems. The difference would be that when the deed is confirmed recorded under Torrens, that ambiguity has been fully resolved. Whereas under non-Torrens that ambiguity hangs around indefinitely, insured against by title insurance, and eventually [mostly] extinguished by adverse possession.

Re: 221 Cannon is Not For Sale

#263

Post by thekevan »

gwbas1c wrote: post #225
thekevan wrote: 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.

It'll work in this area of the country (Connecticut, Massachusetts,) because this is a known scam and relators and attorneys know to keep an eye out for this. The problem is that a 4x8 plywood sign will weather very fast in New England weather. You're better off following the article's suggestion of flagging the property with the court. BTW: When these scams happen, you can sue for the irreplaceable value of trees re…

"The problem is that a 4x8 plywood sign will weather very fast in New England weather. "

I live in Rochester, NY. Our weather is no better or worse if you are a sheet of plywood outside 24/7. It will last years.

Re: 221 Cannon is Not For Sale

#264

Post by mindslight »

rationalist wrote: post #242
groby_b wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

LOL. Every single $&@ doctor's intake form: "We'd like to have you SSN".

And none of them have ever complained when I left if blank.

I've seen forms that explicitly say to put in all nines if you "don't have one", so that's what I do everywhere that insists on asking but doesn't have a legitimate purpose (ie tax reporting). To any human it should be obvious that all nines indicates an exception.

Re: 221 Cannon is Not For Sale

#265

Post by kazinator »

> This type of scam targets a very specific vulnerability: vacant land has no occupants to notice a for-sale sign, no neighbors who’d immediately recognize something is wrong, and closings often happen remotely.

Your vacant land could have signs which state that it is not for sale; any online listing is a scam.

It could be something small but easily spotted by a real estate agent or other interested party actually visiting the site, but not so obvious or legible in pictures.

Re: 221 Cannon is Not For Sale

#266

Post by pdonis »

mindslight wrote: post #262
pdonis wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Recorded according to law" refers to separate Florida statutes that specify how that's done--with the county clerk in the county where the property is located. > it just means that the deed needs to have been recorded some time before you get to court. No, before whatever event happens that might trigger a lawsuit. For example (hypothetical as far as I know): say I purchase a property from a fraudulent seller. They…

> before whatever event happens that might trigger a lawsuit I'll accept that interpretation. But that's still just a patch over the underlying semantics trying to eliminate a lot of thorny cases, not a full change in semantics. For example, let's say 12/31 is a Sunday. The seller wishes to sell the property this year for tax purposes. The seller executes the purchase agreement and the deed on 12/31, and then only re…

> For purpose of taxes, that is still treated as a sale in the earlier year, right?

To the best of my knowledge, yes, the date of closing, which is the date on which the deed is executed, is the date of sale for tax purposes. Note, however, that at least in the US, the IRS doesn't check what you claim the date of sale is unless you are audited, and I never have been. What would happen in an audit under your hypothetical, I can't say.

> a closing at an attorney's office with delayed recording has the same ambiguity under both systems.

Yes, that's why I asked if such a closing is even allowed under a Torrens system--it seems like it would defeat a key purpose of the system, which is to make sure that the land registry's records always are the "single source of truth" for who owns what.

Re: 221 Cannon is Not For Sale

#267

Post by mindslight »

pdonis wrote: post #266
mindslight wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> before whatever event happens that might trigger a lawsuit I'll accept that interpretation. But that's still just a patch over the underlying semantics trying to eliminate a lot of thorny cases, not a full change in semantics. For example, let's say 12/31 is a Sunday. The seller wishes to sell the property this year for tax purposes. The seller executes the purchase agreement and the deed on 12/31, and then only re…

> For purpose of taxes, that is still treated as a sale in the earlier year, right? To the best of my knowledge, yes, the date of closing, which is the date on which the deed is executed, is the date of sale for tax purposes. Note, however, that at least in the US, the IRS doesn't check what you claim the date of sale is unless you are audited, and I never have been. What would happen in an audit under your hypotheti…

I've actually personally dealt with a state's tax authority for a situation where the transfer date was significant, and it was never questioned.

> which is to make sure that the land registry's records always are the "single source of truth" for who owns what.

I think you're coming at this from a tech perspective of fully authoritative digital databases a little too much. Look at the ambiguity that remains after a non-Torrens transfer, and after a Torrens transfer. Eliminating that is the main point of Torrens title. It still can't solve the entire problem and be a "single source of truth" the way we see things in the tech world.

That Florida statute would seem to eliminate a good chunk of that ambiguity as well, but not all.

Re: 221 Cannon is Not For Sale

#268

Post by pdonis »

mindslight wrote: post #267
pdonis wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For purpose of taxes, that is still treated as a sale in the earlier year, right? To the best of my knowledge, yes, the date of closing, which is the date on which the deed is executed, is the date of sale for tax purposes. Note, however, that at least in the US, the IRS doesn't check what you claim the date of sale is unless you are audited, and I never have been. What would happen in an audit under your hypotheti…

I've actually personally dealt with a state's tax authority for a situation where the transfer date was significant, and it was never questioned. > which is to make sure that the land registry's records always are the "single source of truth" for who owns what. I think you're coming at this from a tech perspective of fully authoritative digital databases a little too much. Look at the ambiguity that remains after a n…

The IRS is Federal, not state. State tax codes are generally much easier to comprehend. But to describe the US Federal tax code as Byzantine would be to give too much credit for obfuscation to the Byzantines. :-) That's why it's so hard to predict what the IRS would do in the case of an audit (and why there is a thriving industry of tax preparers who claim, with varying degrees of justification, to be able to help you navigate the system).

Re: 221 Cannon is Not For Sale

#269

Post by mindslight »

pdonis wrote: post #268
mindslight wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've actually personally dealt with a state's tax authority for a situation where the transfer date was significant, and it was never questioned. > which is to make sure that the land registry's records always are the "single source of truth" for who owns what. I think you're coming at this from a tech perspective of fully authoritative digital databases a little too much. Look at the ambiguity that remains after a n…

The IRS is Federal, not state. State tax codes are generally much easier to comprehend. But to describe the US Federal tax code as Byzantine would be to give too much credit for obfuscation to the Byzantines. :-) That's why it's so hard to predict what the IRS would do in the case of an audit (and why there is a thriving industry of tax preparers who claim, with varying degrees of justification, to be able to help yo…

That's a weird tangential rant. There is a difference between tax codes and general principles of accounting. I feel pretty confident that if a state tax authority agrees with the deed date being the transfer date, then the IRS would as well.

Also no, state tax codes can be pretty complex as well. On this particular issue, I had trouble finding an attorney who would represent me for less than $10k (while still equivocating about the merits of my position!), so I represented myself. It took a twenty minute phone call with two state tax agents to come to an amicable agreement. A++ would get taxed again.

I've previously been one to echo negative sentiment about government bureaucracy, but the times I've had to deal with it (not the IRS thankfully but rather a few other federal agencies) the agents have been generally helpful and empowered to act authoritatively. They're still part of a bureaucracy of course, with some of the laughable things that entails, but ultimately still human beings with some leeway to act.

For the most part I think the negative narrative has been informed by corporate bureaucracies getting really bad (IVRs, offshoring, bottomless ticket systems, now LLMs, etc) and so we're all assuming that the government simply must be worse. But it's not. (well maybe it is now after the DOGE arsonists brought so-called "corporate efficiency", I don't actually know)

Re: 221 Cannon is Not For Sale

#270

Post by pdonis »

mindslight wrote: post #269
pdonis wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The IRS is Federal, not state. State tax codes are generally much easier to comprehend. But to describe the US Federal tax code as Byzantine would be to give too much credit for obfuscation to the Byzantines. :-) That's why it's so hard to predict what the IRS would do in the case of an audit (and why there is a thriving industry of tax preparers who claim, with varying degrees of justification, to be able to help yo…

That's a weird tangential rant. There is a difference between tax codes and general principles of accounting. I feel pretty confident that if a state tax authority agrees with the deed date being the transfer date, then the IRS would as well. Also no, state tax codes can be pretty complex as well. On this particular issue, I had trouble finding an attorney who would represent me for less than $10k (while still equivo…

> general principles of accounting.

I'm not sure what those have to do with this question, since it's a legal question, not an accounting question.

> I feel pretty confident that if a state tax authority agrees with the deed date being the transfer date, then the IRS would as well.

In many cases a state tax authority wouldn't even be involved, since many states don't tax capital gains (which is what would be involved with a home sale) while the US Federal government does.

> negative sentiment about government bureaucracy

Evidently your experiences with government bureaucracies have been very, very different from mine.

Post reply on HN