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

31–40 of 278 posts

Re: 221 Cannon is Not For Sale

#31

Post by IhateAI »

rationalist wrote: post #25
IhateAI wrote: post #24

This doesn't make sense, earnest money would be in escrow until the title clears. The scammer would never have access to the earnest money, nor would it ever get transferred to them unless the buyer took too long to close, or didn't come up with funds?? Like the title company would almost have to be involved for this to work.

The title is often actually transfered, and it is a mess to clean up. You could walk into a court house and submit paperwork for filing, that transfers the title - all without any kind of sale or verification. It happens.

Hmm, I guess you technically just need to convince a notary that you're the seller and with virtual closings/ mobile notaries I guess that's probably pretty easy.

But still the scammer would never see the earnest money, unless the buyer backed out outside of an option period for whatever reason. Presumably they wouldn't if the land is cheap, and they've agreed to pay cash and put earnest money down.

Re: 221 Cannon is Not For Sale

#33

Post by ryandrake »

jjmarr wrote: post #11
emptybits wrote: post #7

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?…

Unlike most common law jurisdictions, the United States doesn't have a central land registry due to lobbying from the title insurance industry. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torrens_title#United_States

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.

Re: 221 Cannon is Not For Sale

#34

Post by dcrazy »

jjmarr wrote: post #11
emptybits wrote: post #7

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?…

Unlike most common law jurisdictions, the United States doesn't have a central land registry due to lobbying from the title insurance industry. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torrens_title#United_States

No, the United States doesnt have a central land registry because that is not an enumerated power of the federal government. The individual states have sovereignty over their own land and each has its own system for land registration. The article you linked to even names several states that have a partial Torrens title system.

The claim that the title insurance industry is the reason for lack of adoption of Torrens title schemes is uncited, and immediately followed by descriptions of several cases where Torrens title was adopted (often poorly) and later abandoned.

Re: 221 Cannon is Not For Sale

#35

Post by 1970-01-01 »

teeray wrote: post #18
jgoldshlag wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point is that nearly all of the people doing this don't even live in the country where the land is being sold from. A simple sign would probably be quite effective

True, but you can still do a confused deputy attack. The fraudster hires a property manager, informs them that they would like to remove the sign because they wish the list the property for sale. Either that or they con a realtor they're working with into doing it. The unknowing realtor, eager for the commission, knows a guy who can take it down.

Who's paying for it? Are they working for free?

Re: 221 Cannon is Not For Sale

#36

Post by the_fall »

ryandrake wrote: post #33
jjmarr wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unlike most common law jurisdictions, the United States doesn't have a central land registry due to lobbying from the title insurance industry. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torrens_title#United_States

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.

Re: 221 Cannon is Not For Sale

#37

Post by fortran77 »

Analemma_ wrote: post #19
teeray wrote: post #9

Periodic reminder that "identity theft" is the financial system gaslighting you into thinking their poor decisions are your fault.

This is a Mad Libs autopilot reply which has nothing to do with the article.

That's why I downvoted and flagged it -- along with your content-free response.

Re: 221 Cannon is Not For Sale

#40

Post by ghaff »

wrs wrote: post #30
nine_k wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder why a commercial entity that registers ownership / titles for free, and bills for checking, did not spring up. Clearly there is moneyed demand for certainty about title rights, and if you can provide certainty (because the last deal was registered with you), it may be a more desirable product than mere insurance.

It’s turtles all the way down, though — how do you know that last deal had clear title? At some point you’re going to want insurance anyway. In any case, the US system is already that the government records ownership (not for free, but for a small recording fee) and the title company charges for checking, and for insurance in case they get it wrong. As just one example of how it can go wrong, here in Seattle it’s com…

It's complicated. I live on a parcel of a very old property by US standards (early 1800s) that was subdivided shortly before I bought it. Without going into all the details, my neighbor who also lives on a parcel of the original land had a survey done and it turned out there were some significant incursions into other properties.

And we're not talking inches.

But, yeah, even inches (or any liens) can be an issue when it comes time to sell.

Post reply on HN