2 unrepentant about selling Katrina gift

[Melisinde]

I'm happy to take your word about their asshattedness. I'm not really defending them.

Why were they given title to the house rather than just being allowed to live there, I wonder? If they weren't to sell, they didn't need the title.

Jumping in here, and I'm not familiar with state real estate law where the house is, but... from PA real estate law, they would have had to have the title to the house in order to sell it. You can't sell what you don't own, like a lease.

I dunno, maybe it's just me. I have no religion... but when I read the story, I immediately thought a bunch of nasty things of those people and really can't understand people's defending them and what they did. I've read how it is wrong for the church to be angry and I can understand why people say the church is wrong but... I guess it doesn't really seem a logical viewpoint for me? I dunno- I, like others have said, make sure if I give money, it goes to a decent place. I think most people will say that when they give money to a homeless person, they don't want them to spend the money on drugs or alcohol. *shrug* I'm not sure why I brought that up, but I guess to say that it's almost impossible to give a gift with no conditions. In my mind- the couple (whatever their legal relationship is) is in the wrong and I can't think of it any other way. I shouldn't even be saying that considering that I'm hoping to go to law school one day. I do understand that the couple did nothing LEGALLY wrong IF they didn't misrepresent themselves and their intentions (it seems like they did)... I still hope karma bitchslaps them though.

 

[Karole28]

I still hope karma bitchslaps them though.

Me too. And, I may get a ding in my own karmic retribution for wishing so.
sometimes the price is worth it.

 

[Nova]

Jumping in here, and I'm not familiar with state real estate law where the house is, but... from PA real estate law, they would have had to have the title to the house in order to sell it. You can't sell what you don't own, like a lease.

I dunno, maybe it's just me. I have no religion... but when I read the story, I immediately thought a bunch of nasty things of those people and really can't understand people's defending them and what they did. I've read how it is wrong for the church to be angry and I can understand why people say the church is wrong but... I guess it doesn't really seem a logical viewpoint for me? I dunno- I, like others have said, make sure if I give money, it goes to a decent place. I think most people will say that when they give money to a homeless person, they don't want them to spend the money on drugs or alcohol. *shrug* I'm not sure why I brought that up, but I guess to say that it's almost impossible to give a gift with no conditions. In my mind- the couple (whatever their legal relationship is) is in the wrong and I can't think of it any other way. I shouldn't even be saying that considering that I'm hoping to go to law school one day. I do understand that the couple did nothing LEGALLY wrong IF they didn't misrepresent themselves and their intentions (it seems like they did)... I still hope karma bitchslaps them though.

Meli, I'm sure they had a deed. But my point was that if the church's intention was that these people live in that particular house (in perpetuity or at least for a long time), then why did the church give them the deed? The gift could have easily included a provision that the deed would revert to the recipients after whatever period of residence the givers thought appropriate.

How is this different from exchanging any gift a recipient finds unusable? I may not like it when Aunt Millie exchanges the ugly sweater I bought her, but is she really at fault? Is she obliged to wear the sweater for the rest of her life to avoid hurting my feelings?

ETA: I realize the sweater analogy is imperfect. But in the case of a gift of a house, if we conclude that the recipient must live in it, then we are sentencing that recipient to practical imprisonment in a house/community/city/state where s/he doesn't want to live.

 

[czechmate7]

Meli, I'm sure they had a deed. But my point was that if the church's intention was that these people live in that particular house (in perpetuity or at least for a long time), then why did the church give them the deed? The gift could have easily included a provision that the deed would revert to the recipients after whatever period of residence the givers thought appropriate.

How is this different from exchanging any gift a recipient finds unusable? I may not like it when Aunt Millie exchanges the ugly sweater I bought her, but is she really at fault? Is she obliged to wear the sweater for the rest of her life to avoid hurting my feelings?

ETA: I realize the sweater analogy is imperfect. But in the case of a gift of a house, if we conclude that the recipient must live in it, then we are sentencing that recipient to practical imprisonment in a house/community/city/state where s/he doesn't want to live.

But didn't the wife <~? (still not sure if she's married) actually pick out the house? I thought the interview/article stated that she did....To me, that isn't giving a gift that is not wanted... The church didn't dictate where they were to live...But if a family makes a plea to a church who is giving a home to a family in need seems as though it is the families intention to live or stay in the community .... not to never move in and sell.

Looking at the interview (which I had never seen before) looks like the lady is still trying to deceive people telling them the house was sold for 60k when the papers CLEARLY show 88K.

How does anyone think this is ok???!!

 

[Dark Knight]

How does anyone think this is ok???!![/QUOTE]

That's proving to be one of the great mysteries of the universe, lol!

 

[2sisters]

It is theirs, it was a gift but it is a little tacky don't you think? They could have given it back to the church or something. I would expect nothing more from most New Orleans Katrina victims though.

 

[windovervocalcords]

It is theirs, it was a gift but it is a little tacky don't you think? They could have given it back to the church or something. I would expect nothing more from most New Orleans Katrina victims though.

Tacky it may have been. Criminal? Not enough evidence yet IMO. But making a grand sweeping indictment of New Orleans Katrina victims is patently unfair too.

 

[2sisters]

Tacky it may have been. Criminal? Not enough evidence yet IMO. But making a grand sweeping indictment of New Orleans Katrina victims is patently unfair too.

I never said all were like that just most. It isn't unfair for me to say that at all. Not when after katrina my family waited 4 days for water, rescue and such while everyone dealt with New Orleans. Call me bitter but it is pretty upsetting to sit with no hope while you know rescuers are busting butt getting shot at by ungrateful jerks in New Orleans, and these 2 with the house are just typical of some. To this day the only thing people are concerned with is New Orleans, if only MS could get the same concern.

 

[windovervocalcords]

I never said all were like that just most. It isn't unfair for me to say that at all. Not when after katrina my family waited 4 days for water, rescue and such while everyone dealt with New Orleans. Call me bitter but it is pretty upsetting to sit with no hope while you know rescuers are busting butt getting shot at by ungrateful jerks in New Orleans, and these 2 with the house are just typical of some. To this day the only thing people are concerned with is New Orleans, if only MS could get the same concern.

OK I should have said its unfair to say "most".

 

[2sisters]

I can see where you would find that an unfair statement , wind, I won't argue on that, I hope you can see my point on it also. It isn't just this house, it's the checks, 1000 gift cars, FEMA money for evacuees, free rent, etc. None of it has been enough for some, they keep wanting more and more and nothing is good enough. It is greedy and ungrateful. Some evacuees have been elated and grateful for the gifts and charity they have recieved. They seem to be the minority though.

 

[windovervocalcords]

I can see where you would find that an unfair statement , wind, I won't argue on that, I hope you can see my point on it also. It isn't just this house, it's the checks, 1000 gift cars, FEMA money for evacuees, free rent, etc. None of it has been enough for some, they keep wanting more and more and nothing is good enough. It is greedy and ungrateful. Some evacuees have been elated and grateful for the gifts and charity they have recieved. They seem to be the minority though.

I think some bad apples get alot of press, so much press in fact that it may appear HUGE because of the media coverage.

People really suffered and continue to suffer from this hurricane and its aftermath ( and not just in New Orleans.)

I don't think its fair to characterize numbers of "ungrateful". How do you even measure this?

 

[czechmate7]

People really suffered and continue to suffer from this hurricane and its aftermath ( and not just in New Orleans.)

Yes, they do, and thanks to the couple in this story they will continue to suffer because good, giving people who normally would have no problem helping out now get to question whether they will be scammed or not.

I think some bad apples get alot of press, so much press in fact that it may appear HUGE because of the media coverage.

I'm glad there's media coverage for people who do things like this.....If not, these "bad apples" would continue to scam and grow in #'s!!!!

 

[Dark Knight]

Yes, they do, and thanks to the couple in this story they will continue to suffer because good, giving people who normally would have no problem helping out now get to question whether they will be scammed or not.


I'm glad there's media coverage for people who do things like this.....If not, these "bad apples" would continue to scam and grow in #'s!!!!

Amen!

 

[Nova]

But didn't the wife <~? (still not sure if she's married) actually pick out the house? I thought the interview/article stated that she did....To me, that isn't giving a gift that is not wanted... The church didn't dictate where they were to live...But if a family makes a plea to a church who is giving a home to a family in need seems as though it is the families intention to live or stay in the community .... not to never move in and sell.

Looking at the interview (which I had never seen before) looks like the lady is still trying to deceive people telling them the house was sold for 60k when the papers CLEARLY show 88K.

How does anyone think this is ok???!!

Czech, I'm not sure anyone here thinks it's "okay." What some of us have tried to do is use the specific of this case to explore general questions about the ethics of giving and receiving. Such as:

How does accepting a gift obligate the recipient? For how long? If a gift is given with strings attached, what is the donor's obligation to clearly spell out the strings?

 

[2sisters]

It seems to me that the couple just wanted to make a profit off of the home. You have a right to do what you want with a gift, I return Christmas gifts that I don't like or have no use for. Same as when I had a baby shower, I returned impractical frilly dresses. But these 2 took advantage of the kindness of these folks, that was probably their plan all along. They were part of the set who got money, free rent, clothing and food and it was never enough I am sure. i live in MS and every since that hurricane i have had a belly full of those types taking advantage of good people.They wanted a quick buck. It is tacky and ungrateful and will make people think twice about helping other hurricane victims.

 

[czechmate7]

Czech, I'm not sure anyone here thinks it's "okay." What some of us have tried to do is use the specific of this case to explore general questions about the ethics of giving and receiving. Such as:

How does accepting a gift obligate the recipient? For how long? If a gift is given with strings attached, what is the donor's obligation to clearly spell out the strings?

I understand what we're trying to explore. Does accepting a gift obligate the recipient...of course not!!!! Should a gift come with strings attached??? Sure! I know when I give to a charity or organization the string attached for me is for my gift to go to a needy individual that the charity sponsors and not in the pockets of some organization chairperson to make their Christmas a bit merrier! It's not a cut and dry, black or white answer. I think every gift starts out the same, but the outcome may be different depending on the intentions of the recipient. In this case, the recipient misrepresented themselves for monetary gain.....so I feel the rules of giving and receiving should be different.

 

[Nova]

It seems to me that the couple just wanted to make a profit off of the home. You have a right to do what you want with a gift, I return Christmas gifts that I don't like or have no use for. Same as when I had a baby shower, I returned impractical frilly dresses. But these 2 took advantage of the kindness of these folks, that was probably their plan all along. They were part of the set who got money, free rent, clothing and food and it was never enough I am sure. i live in MS and every since that hurricane i have had a belly full of those types taking advantage of good people.They wanted a quick buck. It is tacky and ungrateful and will make people think twice about helping other hurricane victims.

How do you know any of this? I.e., how do you know what the recipients "planned all along"? How do you know they thought it "wasn't enough"? How is their use of this gift different than your use of gifts you have no use for?

That's what I'm trying to understand.

 

[Nova]

I understand what we're trying to explore. Does accepting a gift obligate the recipient...of course not!!!! Should a gift come with strings attached??? Sure! I know when I give to a charity or organization the string attached for me is for my gift to go to a needy individual that the charity sponsors and not in the pockets of some organization chairperson to make their Christmas a bit merrier! It's not a cut and dry, black or white answer. I think every gift starts out the same, but the outcome may be different depending on the intentions of the recipient. In this case, the recipient misrepresented themselves for monetary gain.....so I feel the rules of giving and receiving should be different.

Last I heard, not even the church was claiming fraud. So how do you know they "misrepresented" themselves?

 

[czechmate7]

Last I heard, not even the church was claiming fraud. So how do you know they "misrepresented" themselves?

Let me re-phrase my comment "In this case, IMO the recipient misrepresented themselves for monetary gain.....so I feel the rules of giving and receiving should be different."

Sorry, making comments like that (in my previous post) is the way these situations get a bad wrap!
I don't think I said the church was claiming fraud....but let me go back and re-read my post....no....nothing about the church claiming fraud.

Hold on...actually....according to the church documents, I believe it stated they were married....according to the sell papers she was "an unmarried woman"....that is misrepresentation right there...Also, they literally "begged" for a place (according to a previous post) but didn't move into the house..do you not consider that misrepresentation????

 

[Nova]

Hold on...actually....according to the church documents, I believe it stated they were married....according to the sell papers she was "an unmarried woman"....that is misrepresentation right there...Also, they literally "begged" for a place (according to a previous post) but didn't move into the house..do you not consider that misrepresentation????

I don't think you were unclear, Czech. I knew you were expressing an opinion, I was just trying to understand how you formed that opinion.

If this is indeed a case of fundamental misrepresentation (as your examples suggest), then sign me up for the "these folks are scum" position.

What was interesting to me was whether the recipients were ethically obligated to live up to the donors' expectations. I'm still not sure that exchanging this house for another is fundamentally different from exchanging a sweater that doesn't fit.