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

Man left shocked as his house is 'stolen'

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

341–350 of 360 posts

Re: Man left shocked as his house is 'stolen'

#341

Post by sofixa »

dolmen wrote: post #338
forty wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there stories of people getting their property stolen this way? My guess is that in France, if such a story as the article happended, the buyer would be kicked out of the house (and probably lose their money stolen by the fraudsters) but maybe I'm completely wrong.

I remember to have seen a story in France of someone that had bought a house, but someone else did break in and rented it to a family. The people in the house had a rental contract, so they had the immediate right to stay, even it the contract was invalid. Evicting them was a nightmare. Here is a similar story: https://lemans.maville.com/actu/actudet_--nous-sommes-abando...

But a notary isn't involved in renting, so there was noone to check.

Re: Man left shocked as his house is 'stolen'

#343

Post by conductr »

drfuchs wrote: post #236
conductr wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, title insurance is a single premium but gives the owner forever coverage. This is essentially the purpose, to give the buyer confidence that they are protected for anything that may have happened that they wouldn't know about, because the seller may not even know about it and potentially it happened 100s of years ago. Where this gets kind of crazy is if you own a property and have title insurance on it from when…

But what if I'm not the owner anymore? Specifically, I buy a house and purchase title insurance on it. Later, I sell the house to you. You trust me completely, so figure you don't need to buy title insurance. Later, unexpected to all of us, it turns out that my original purchase was somehow flawed, and someone else actually owns the house. You now ask me to now invoke my title insurance, and (since I'm such a nice gu…

> You now ask me to now invoke my title insurance

That's not how it works (at least where I live, US state of Texas). I, having bought from you, would be responsible to have my own title insurance policy. Your policy would have essentially ended when you sold the home. It protects you during your ownership. ANd my policy would protect me during my ownership. Once sold, and title transfers (whether legit or not), you as the seller have no liability (mostly, I'm sure if you committed fraud or something you could be on the hook along with other criminal issues, but my insurance is still going to pay me if I experience a loss of my purchase). So...

> "No, be that as it may, once you 'sold' the house we're off the hook; tell the guy who 'bought' it from you to contact their title insurance company"

Yes, that's exactly what they would say. It's also why it's customary for the seller to purchase the title policy for the buyer during the transaction. Although, it's a hot market the seller could have the power to deny and the buyer would have to buy their own policy.

While you owned the property at some point in time, you never experienced a loss from the title issue because you sold before the title issue was known. Your liability also ended the moment you sold the property. It's always the CURRENT owner that needs protection.

Re: Man left shocked as his house is 'stolen'

#344

Post by conductr »

WarOnPrivacy wrote: post #278
drfuchs wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But what if I'm not the owner anymore? Specifically, I buy a house and purchase title insurance on it. Later, I sell the house to you. You trust me completely, so figure you don't need to buy title insurance. Later, unexpected to all of us, it turns out that my original purchase was somehow flawed, and someone else actually owns the house. You now ask me to now invoke my title insurance, and (since I'm such a nice gu…

It's not rare for crap to come out after a sale, often w/o knowledge of the seller. Liens are the most common (HOA, contractor, tax).

I don't think it's very common. But even if it is, common does not mean expensive.

> Property/casualty lines of business typically experience pure loss ratios well above 10%, approaching 70% or higher at times. Title insurers historically have loss ratios in the 5% to 10% range.

https://www.naic.org/documents/topics_title_insurance_brief....

Also, 2017 in Texas 6% loss ratio. Other states are better in that they don't charge as much for the policy. However, loss ratios are still very low.

https://www.texasobserver.org/entitled-to-profit-in-texas-ti...

Re: Man left shocked as his house is 'stolen'

#345

Post by forty »

dolmen wrote: post #338
forty wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there stories of people getting their property stolen this way? My guess is that in France, if such a story as the article happended, the buyer would be kicked out of the house (and probably lose their money stolen by the fraudsters) but maybe I'm completely wrong.

I remember to have seen a story in France of someone that had bought a house, but someone else did break in and rented it to a family. The people in the house had a rental contract, so they had the immediate right to stay, even it the contract was invalid. Evicting them was a nightmare. Here is a similar story: https://lemans.maville.com/actu/actudet_--nous-sommes-abando...

Absolutely. This is for secondary houses mostly though, it's slightly easier to expel those from your main accomodation.

But I think in any case your ownership of the property is not challenged. It's "just" that you cannot use it, but eventually you can get it back.

Re: Man left shocked as his house is 'stolen'

#346

Post by conductr »

abjr wrote: post #293
conductr wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, title insurance is a single premium but gives the owner forever coverage. This is essentially the purpose, to give the buyer confidence that they are protected for anything that may have happened that they wouldn't know about, because the seller may not even know about it and potentially it happened 100s of years ago. Where this gets kind of crazy is if you own a property and have title insurance on it from when…

>> Where this gets kind of crazy is if you own a property and have title insurance on it from when you bought it, then you do a refinance, you're often required to buy the insurance again because that original policy ends. That's when you ask for the re-issue rate. http://www.insuranceqna.com/title-and-mortgage-insurance/wha...

Still it's "40-60% cheaper" which means it's 60-40% more expensive than it should be. It's exactly zero additional risk and the point of insurance is to manage risk.

Re: Man left shocked as his house is 'stolen'

#347

Post by withinboredom »

Wildgoose wrote: post #332
the_svd_doctor wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn't the UK _not_ have ID cards?

We are looking at an example of just how bad a mismanaged central database can be. I don't want an ID card that gives someone the ability to delete my entire official existence; either accidentally - or deliberately.

Your identity is on the chip and cryptographically signed on the card. Even if they delete your records, you can still prove you are who you say you are because it’s on the card. If they lost the records, that’s not your problem.

Re: Man left shocked as his house is 'stolen'

#348

Post by koonsolo »

lazide wrote: post #230
koonsolo wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would you use a driver's license when everyone can have a digital ID card? In Belgium the notary will always ask for your digital ID card.

Plenty of folks haven’t updated, or don’t like dealing with it, or ‘lost it’ or whatever. Most people doing notary/certification on stuff like this are used to that kind of situation, so someone having an acceptable but not ideal ID method isn’t going to slow this process down.

In Belgium, it's obligatory to carry your ID card everywhere when you are older than 15. So not having it is not allowed.

I would be very surprised if a notary wouldn't demand it. They would not put their own job on the line for some idiot.

Re: Man left shocked as his house is 'stolen'

#349

Post by toolz »

fsckboy wrote: post #339
toolz wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think you'll find anyone who disagrees with the ideal of not burdening the victim but I would suggest it's much healthier for society to praise a victim for doing the extra work to punish antisocial behavior. The reality is we desperately need victims help to expose offenders for many types of antisocial behaviors and while we all want victims suffering to end, maybe as a society we could turn victimhood into…

we don't require murder victims to help out the prosecution of the offender, the state takes that role. the point is, it should be the same here.

No one is suggesting a requirement. Are you making a tangential point or did you interpret me as suggesting we should require victims to participate in helping the prosecution?

Re: Man left shocked as his house is 'stolen'

#350

Post by necovek »

lazide wrote: post #224
Causality1 wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's wild. Is there any other case where someone gets to keep stolen property as long as they didn't know it was stolen? I have to say if I was in the victim's position, my reaction would probably land me in prison for longer than the fraudster.

I think it’s more ‘if someone goes through an expensive and extensive legal process to purchase at great expense, some real property, starts taking it as their own in good faith, then later what may be the prior legal owner, but who was not who did all the legal paperwork comes back to me and claims fraud - do I have to move?’ The issue is there are scenarios where the person writing the article may not actually be t…

I think it's simpler than that, if the claims from the article are true (you still need courts to decide that, and I don't know of a court system where this is suitably fast).

Original proprietor had a furnished house, and the end result should be that they still have the house at no expense and at least trouble: they did not partake in the "sale", so they shouldn't suffer consequences from someone's incompetence or negligence. House is not just a "financial" instrument: it might have large emotional value too (memories, tradition & history, community and neighbourhood...).

Unfortunately, the honest buyer hired a solicitor to act as their agent, and while the solicitor might lose their professional license, buyer should get their damages back from the said solicitor or licensing body, because buyer is a victim of their incompetence/negligence, yet competence and care were guaranteed with the professional license.

Solicitor relies on the Land Registry to be the ultimate arbiter, so they should expect their damages to come from them for the duties they failed to perform.

Regardless of what the law is anywhere, that's how it should work IMHO. Unfortunately, the practicalities of how long it takes courts to (dis)prove a fraud make some of these hard to effectively achieve in a timely manner.

Theoretically, courts could make the process more expedient in cases of inhabiting-properties by "pausing" the transfer and putting the property into government custody, giving temporary use rights to the more likely resulting owner from the preliminary hearing (hey, fake document was involved, sorry, original owner gets to live there for the time being: everyone, please keep all receipts for any work done on the property and about your legal representation so you can be fairly compensated).

Post reply on HN