2 unrepentant about selling Katrina gift

[windovervocalcords]

I don't think the community regrets their generosity; they regret their generosity was wasted on these ungrateful, IMO scam artist.

Also, I believe what this couple had that the other 49 didn't was a pack of deceitful lies IMO, of course!

Why not just focus on the Churches generosity?

What posters are paying more attention to is the apparent "ingratitude" and the appearance of "rip off" . Paying more attention to the negative.

What you pay attention to you tend to get more of.

 

[czechmate7]

Why not just focus on the Churches generosity?

What posters are paying more attention to is the apparent "ingratitude" and the appearance of "rip off" . Paying more attention to the negative.

What you pay attention to you tend to get more of.

The thread is about "2 unrepentant about selling Katrina gift". I was focusing on the title...
I would have to disagree with you though on your last statement. If you "out" scam artist you achieve 2 things: people will be less likely to scam and more "naive" people will be more careful about their givings...It doesn't mean they will give less...just more wisely

 

[2sisters]

It is absolutley wonderful that a church and it's people would do this, there is no mistaking that. I think it shows the best of people. Then these 2 sleaze bags came along and showed the worst of people. Ihpoe there is some way that the church can sue these 2 and get the house back or the money and give a new house to a truly needy family who will be grateful.

 

[windovervocalcords]

The thread is about "2 unrepentant about selling Katrina gift". I was focusing on the title...
I would have to disagree with you though on your last statement. If you "out" scam artist you achieve 2 things: people will be less likely to scam and more "naive" people will be more careful about their givings...It doesn't mean they will give less...just more wisely

That is true. I am just waiting for the evidence to prove they scammed the Church. I do not see fraud yet. Dishonesty, yes.

What if you knew that you would be betrayed in the future by someone you had an opportunity to help now? Would you help that person?

I ask this because I have met a wise man who had the ability to read the intentions of someone he had an opportunity to help KNOWING full well the individual would betray him later. He chose to help because he saw that by doing so he would plant a positive seed within the individual by making this connection that would ripen later.

This was most inspiring to me. Later, when the betrayal happened he was at peace because he knew he had benefited this young man and that in the future this man would pull out of his negativity.

 

[BirdieBoo]

Again, not sure what the particular law is where this house is. (Man, that's a terrible sentence but I'm way tired so I hope everyone can understand it.) Something interesting came up in my real estate class last night though. We were reviewing mortgages and deeds. I don't remember what part of the mortgage or note it is (I can look it up later) but somewhere, you make a declaration that YOU WILL BE INHABITING THE PROPERTY. I wonder if, when she signed the promissory note/mortgage, there was a clause stating they had to live in it.

Regardless of how this turns out, they lied about something. In the interview, they show the deed shows Ms. X (forget her name, too lazy to look), A SINGLE UNMARRIED WOMAN. The camera crew asks the guy why his "wife" would list herself as an unmarried woman and he has no answer. Either they're married or they're not. To the best of my knowledge, you cannot change your marital status on your real estate just because you want to do so.

About inhabiting the property, that part is in the mortgage. And some mortgages don't require it. As in, if you are buying investment property, obviously you are not going to live there. Nevertheless, I am not sure that this woman ever signed the mortgage, since it was paid for by someone else. However, I am still interested to see if she misrepresented her marital status and if that can be used as a basis for fraud charges.

 

[JBean]

Again, not sure what the particular law is where this house is. (Man, that's a terrible sentence but I'm way tired so I hope everyone can understand it.) Something interesting came up in my real estate class last night though. We were reviewing mortgages and deeds. I don't remember what part of the mortgage or note it is (I can look it up later) but somewhere, you make a declaration that YOU WILL BE INHABITING THE PROPERTY. I wonder if, when she signed the promissory note/mortgage, there was a clause stating they had to live in it.

Regardless of how this turns out, they lied about something. In the interview, they show the deed shows Ms. X (forget her name, too lazy to look), A SINGLE UNMARRIED WOMAN. The camera crew asks the guy why his "wife" would list herself as an unmarried woman and he has no answer. Either they're married or they're not. To the best of my knowledge, you cannot change your marital status on your real estate just because you want to do so.

Owner occupied and non-owner occupied status has to do with the mortgage, not how title is held.It affects interest rate and type of loan. I think this property was owned free and clear, hence no mortgage or concern regarding occupying the property.
Regarding her marital status, one can own property sole and separate from one's spouse, but she would not be referred to as an unmarried woman. My guess is that she is unmarried and they presented themselves as married.

 

[Melisinde]

Owner occupied and non-owner occupied status has to do with the mortgage, not how title is held.It affects interest rate and type of loan. I think this property was owned free and clear, hence no mortgage or concern regarding occupying the property.
Regarding her marital status, one can own property sole and separate from one's spouse, but she would not be referred to as an unmarried woman. My guess is that she is unmarried and they presented themselves as married.

Thanks JBean and BirdieBoo. I don't know why it slipped my mind that the house was paid for by the church! Duh for me!

RE: the marital status. Yeah, I know you can own property separately because I own my house with my father. I'm married and my husband and I live there, but my husband isn't on the title; it's just my father and I.

I think where I'm trying to go with the whole thing (final exams week in my 6 classes, so I'm burnt out) is that most churches frown on couples that live together but are not married. (Out on a limb here) It's possible that the church would not have given them the house had they know they were unmarried but living together so it would kind of be like receiving the house under false pretenses. I have no idea what this particular church's stance is on marriage. I'm just saying that it's possible they might not have given them the house had they known the couple was "living in sin." (Church words, not my words.)

 

[JBean]

Thanks JBean and BirdieBoo. I don't know why it slipped my mind that the house was paid for by the church! Duh for me!

RE: the marital status. Yeah, I know you can own property separately because I own my house with my father. I'm married and my husband and I live there, but my husband isn't on the title; it's just my father and I.

I think where I'm trying to go with the whole thing (final exams week in my 6 classes, so I'm burnt out) is that most churches frown on couples that live together but are not married. (Out on a limb here) It's possible that the church would not have given them the house had they know they were unmarried but living together so it would kind of be like receiving the house under false pretenses. I have no idea what this particular church's stance is on marriage. I'm just saying that it's possible they might not have given them the house had they known the couple was "living in sin." (Church words, not my words.)

I think you raise some excellent points Melsinde.
Good luck on your finals!!

 

[Melisinde]

I think you raise some excellent points Melsinde.
Good luck on your finals!!

Thanks so much, JBean! I need positivity right now heh. I'm flattered and really appreciative re: your compliment on my points. :blowkiss: I'm working on a paralegal degree right now but I really want to go to law school, so having someone tell me I made some good legal points is amazing to me. You totally made my day!

 

[czechmate7]

It's possible that the church would not have given them the house had they know they were unmarried but living together so it would kind of be like receiving the house under false pretenses.

Melisinde~ You bring up a good point...but on a legal standpoint...If you sign legal documents as "married" when you are not isn't there legal ramifications? My boyfriend and I have bought and sold several houses throughout the years and the paperwork is made up before signing..so this isn't just a slip of writing or checking a box...
Also...... I'm wondering if they plan on trying something funny with the IRS. The sell papers of the house show it sold for 88K and Delores was trying to "convience" everyone she only sold it for (or received) 60K...doesn't she know those documents are public record!!! geez! I'm not a legal person, but she will have to pay taxes on the 88k, right?

 

[Details]

Even if it turns out this couple ran a scam what is of most benefit? The Church members concentrating on being ripped off victims? Would it be of greater benefit to to examine their assumptions about generosity and use the experience to get clearer on what they intend to do in the future?

Was the house offered with or without strings? It appears to have been offered with strings. The community regrets their generosity and that is most unfortunate.

The Church screened this couple over the 50 other families that applied. Why? That in itself is worth a look at. What was it this couple appeared to have over the other 49 families?

I heard it said they presented themselves as "humble". Why were the other families rejected?

All I am saying is there is a way to take this loss and turn it on its head and really grow stronger by examining it from the basis of all the assumptions that went into the charity.

It is a wonderful project this Church sponsored. I only wish for them that their generosity be increased tenfold--even a hundredfold. That can happen more by taking the higher road with this loss IMO.

By having positive wishes for this couple's happiness even if they are so negative as to have run a ripoff scam will only increase the Church members positive qualities.

If this couple ran a scam due to being negative they do so because they are deluded into thinking they can only be happy by ripping someone off. They would not be ripping people off (and I am still not convinced completely that this is what happened) then if they were truly happy there would be no need to steal.

I think they might well disagree with you. I bet that couple was very happy to get all that money, stolen or otherwise. People who do this don't care, and thinking about how they feel from the perspective of how you would feel or a normal person would feel is - well, one of the things I had to learn too. It's good to think about how you would feel and react, to empathize with other people, but there are plenty of people completely and totally different than you and I - not only in a criminal way, but just different people.

Just saying, 'oh well, lesson learned' does have it's problems. The church has learned a lesson, but prosecuting the people who stole provides a good example for others tempted to do the same. Talking about it publicly, exposing these people helps other future victims learn about them and people like them.

And hopefully they do learn how good con artists are at reading people, and projecting whatever you want to hear - 'humble' in this case, other attributes in others.

 

[Melisinde]

Melisinde~ You bring up a good point...but on a legal standpoint...If you sign legal documents as "married" when you are not isn't there legal ramifications? My boyfriend and I have bought and sold several houses throughout the years and the paperwork is made up before signing..so this isn't just a slip of writing or checking a box...
Also...... I'm wondering if they plan on trying something funny with the IRS. The sell papers of the house show it sold for 88K and Delores was trying to "convience" everyone she only sold it for (or received) 60K...doesn't she know those documents are public record!!! geez! I'm not a legal person, but she will have to pay taxes on the 88k, right?

Well, here's the thing. It depends on the state law. Going off of what I know of Pa. law.... Two married people who own a house own in as tenancy in the entireties. This means that the property cannot be divided except by a court or the IRS. ONLY married people can hold this kind of title, and it is the highest (strongest) title you can hold. Say Barbie and Ken buy a house and they are not married. For whatever reason, the title clerk puts them down as tenancy by the entireties, but in reality, they would hold tenancy in common (halves that can be separated). If there's a later resulting legal action against Ken, then they can take his half of the house. It doesn't matter what the paperwork states. It's the legal actuality of it.

So that's for title. Another note on that- my teacher gave this example once to explain that the deed must always state what is legal. (He's a real estate attorney.) He had an engaged couple come to him to draw up a deed. The title clerk wanted to put on the deed "tenants about to be married." It's not possible to do that (and rather silly). As far as legal real estate title is concerned, you're either married or you're not.

As far as fraudulent misrepresentation... that's something that I'd have to look up as I'm sure the state this occurred in has a very specific legal test (with points that have to be satisfied; if one of them isn't satisfied, the whole thing usually fails) that the situation will be put up against. I'm guessing that if they told the church that they were married when they were in fact not married, this constitutes fraud. Fraud is very difficult to prove, but I think it can be done in this case. The law defines fraud as "a successful deceit." It's easy to see that given the circumstances (and if they did lie), the couple successfully deceived the church (who, imo, might have declined them based on moral grounds otherwise ("living in sin.") I do believe there's definitely a possibility for criminal charges because they profited from the deceit.

*goes off to look up state laws and case law involved in this situation.*

 

[BirdieBoo]

Good luck on your final Melisinde

also I wonder if they would legally have a common-law marriage?

 

[JBean]

Well, here's the thing. It depends on the state law. Going off of what I know of Pa. law.... Two married people who own a house own in as tenancy in the entireties. This means that the property cannot be divided except by a court or the IRS. ONLY married people can hold this kind of title, and it is the highest (strongest) title you can hold. Say Barbie and Ken buy a house and they are not married. For whatever reason, the title clerk puts them down as tenancy by the entireties, but in reality, they would hold tenancy in common (halves that can be separated). If there's a later resulting legal action against Ken, then they can take his half of the house. It doesn't matter what the paperwork states. It's the legal actuality of it.

snipped
*goes off to look up state laws and case law involved in this situation.*

You are right,title vesting is differnt from state to state.
here, the typical vestings used are "community property with right of survivorship"( but a married couple doesn't have to hold it that way.),
joint tenants with right of survivorship , tenants in common,or sole and separate property .