Deceased/Not Found Canada - Alvin, 66, & Kathy Liknes, 53, Nathan O'Brien, 5, Calgary, 30 Jun 2014 - #18

[OutOfTheDarkness]

I wrestle with this a lot about my posts on here - crossing boundaries, being disrespectful to victims in my theories and sleuthing. I can only speak for myself and answer...

I guess I'm curious about finances, not to be nosey really, but more to find any links or connections to motives.

I'm pretty boring, I have a mortgage I pay it. I file and pay my taxes. I pay my bills and credit cards off on time and have no debt (because I paid my student loans and cars off) other than my mortgage. I don't live beyond my means, I'm not taking trips I can't afford or buying vehicles and houses I can't afford. I'm personally curious a bit about AL's finances, as I guess it's just so different and foreign from my life and wonder why/how this happens to people...Why the multiple bankruptcies? Why the civil suits? Why companies registered the US and Panama? Okay, I know some of these answers, but I don't think the average joe does or deals with these things on a regular basis, it's not typical for most folks.

I'd like to know why AL made some of his choices. Is it my business? No it's not, but I think we all just want some answers as to why this terrible thing happened. It sure doesn't seem worth it just for money, so sad. It seems LE thinks the motive for the crime was business dealings/money, so I think some of us want to know what was done to drive someone to murder.

I don't think you'll get flamed Slebby, as I don't think there's any fire throwers online today

Always lurking...

:devil:

 

[winnnancy]

I am interested in it because I think the sale of the house was done as part of a sequence of events leading up to the dissolving and speculated bankruptcy of Winter Pet. and that the L's were moving out of the home, possibly to Mexico. It is a piece of the puzzle. If it is not acceptable for us to post it here I will remove it.

If I had just lost my family I would not have an ounce of energy to dig for details and I am sure I would have many questions. I think of it a different way. Possibly the family would find this information helpful.

If I was a victim and was reading something on this forum that I found offensive I would ask that it be deleted and I am sure that it would be.

If it is against the rules what I have posted today I apologize and will remove it.

Good point! If I were the family member reading this, it would in no way help in dealing with the loss of my loved ones but at the least, it might help me make some sense of the tragedy.
sometimes knowing "why" helps in getting on with the process. I don't believe any of this is in any kind of spirit of disrespect. I feel people often make choices from among the only options they feel they have at the time. Not knowing ANYTHING is probably the most painful position to be in.

 

[ABro]

As someone who's been very critical in the past about victim-blaming theories, I'm actually not bothered by the land title search.

For me the "Liknes are alive and well in Mexico theories" are truly poisonous because they imply that the grandparents would inflict terrible pain on their daughter. And these theories are based only on wild speculation and contradict facts stated clearly by the chief of police.

But I do think, based on the facts published in the media, that finances are key to unravelling this murder. So if the caveat reveals that the Liknes' finances were in worse shape than previously thought, I do find it relevant.

Also, IMO people make way too much of AL's business dealings being "off." I think it's more that he didn't succeed in business than that he was up to anything shady. People tend to hear about the big entrepreneurial success stories, but the sad truth is that most entrepreneurs fail and AL seems to be one of them. Bankruptcy is common especially in O & G exploration, and mines. There's nothing in AL's business history that strikes me as out of the ordinary given the field he's in and the ambitions he had.

What I find stranger is the KL personal bankruptcy at that stage in life. That kind of thing would usually be triggered by something specific as people just don't become big spenders at her age.

But the really big question for me is how did things turn around for them so that they were able to move to Mexico and, as JO said at the press conference, fly the family down to visit? That's where I suspect Douglas Garland enters the picture.

 

[OutOfTheDarkness]

Good point! If I were the family member reading this, it would in no way help in dealing with the loss of my loved ones but at the least, it might help me make some sense of the tragedy.
sometimes knowing "why" helps in getting on with the process. I don't believe any of this is in any kind of spirit of disrespect. I feel people often make choices from among the only options they feel they have at the time. Not knowing ANYTHING is probably the most painful position to be in.

Or perhaps it may jog a memory, expose a lie, create a dialogue, or even inspire a little sleuthing from the inside. Were I incensed at something personal I read, I would say so.

 

[Krystine]

I would like to ask a question without offending anyone. Can someone tell me, what is the purpose of all this investigation into a caveat on the Ls' home? Does it pertain in some way to the crime? Or a theory of the crime?

I always try to put myself into the shoes of the Ls' and NO's surviving family members, that commentary here is not offensive to them. To me, it seems like so much picking over their bones, so to speak. To be digging through the details of their financial situation and the intricacies of the sale of their home. These people are victims of a horrific crime, and it seems like a further victimization, to snoop through their private details, as though there is something of value to be gleaned from it. Is there?

I just feel it needed to be said, and it is something to consider. The survivors of this mess may well be checking in here. How would it make any of us feel if our murdered parents' financial lives were dug into in this way? I think I personally would hate it.

All this is in my own opinion, and if anyone wants to flame me for it, I am prepared to be flamed.

The caveat issue is no more or less relevant than the layout of the house, or the Likenes family tree, as far as we know. I have thought as you have over some of the issues that have been discussed here, and sometimes I get the willies about the things that have been disected, right down to speculation about JO being pregnant.
We have no way of knowing what will turn out to be relevant, a few of us feel strongly about certain theories.
There has been more than one good solid theory that came out of the land/real estate details that have been sluethed, and one that I believe was deleted that pointed to some type of real estate scam by a popular developer in Calgary and the US.
IMO it's quite possible that money was needed, and it came from equity of the house that was transferred to the owners prior to the closing date of the sale. Whether those funds went to finance some kind of land/real estate investment or to prevent seizure of the equity for back taxes, I guess we'll see.
For all of the sleuthing and man/woman hours invested, IMO this is a very credible clue as to motive.

 

[Krystine]

I am not sure. I think we need an expert to weigh in. I think that possibly the L's were very straightforward with the purchaser as to their financial circumstances and pending and past bankruptcies or the buyer was aware of the risk and so the Caveat was put on to protect the both of them. I assume the buyer and seller agreed to it. I hope it would not be considered a conflict of interest.

It does not strike me as a straightforward sale but I don't have any education on the matter. Possibly the buyer who is a lawyer is very careful in transactions and does this will all land purchases. What I do wonder is say I wanted a house and knew that others could bid on it, can I just walk in and order up a Caveat? There must be some sort of protocol and justification.

The caveat would prevent transfer of title to another person, until a mortgage was disbursed or some other obligation was met, in my understanding... but an accepted offer to purchase would need to exist between the L's and the lawyer (caveator). So no, as long as they owned the home, the L's would be in control of who they would sell it to.

 

[Krystine]

It appears to me that the purchaser is protecting himself against any claim that may have been made against the property. Im not familiar with bankruptcy law in Alberta. What is the timing of this sale with KLs bankruptcy? My feeling is that a house may be kept after filing personal bankruptcy if there is a smaller equity in it? A higher equity may be taken to settle debts?

But early on, we learned that funds were transferred sometime before the closing of the sale. The couple were renting the home back, were they not?
In another possible scenario, the lawyer/purchaser released a portion of the funds but title did not transfer until closing date, which I believe was to be July 30 IIRC. In the second scenario, I could see a caveat being important to protect the purchaser's advance of money to the L's. I have written up a lot of convoluted offers that were mutually agreeable and served all parties...but this would have been very unusual.

 

[LoisLane]

But early on, we learned that funds were transferred sometime before the closing of the sale. The couple were renting the home back, were they not?
In another possible scenario, the lawyer/purchaser released a portion of the funds but title did not transfer until closing date, which I believe was to be July 30 IIRC. In the second scenario, I could see a caveat being important to protect the purchaser's advance of money to the L's. I have written up a lot of convoluted offers that were mutually agreeable and served all parties...but this would have been very unusual.

Wouldn't the closing date be when the transfer of land was processed (Dec. 2013)? I think that the agreement may have been the L's were to vacate June 30th (end of lease or purchase agreement) but I doubt that was officially confirmed. Also, there is a Caveat regarding Assignments of Rents and Leases (Dec. 2013).

 

[LoisLane]

The caveat would prevent transfer of title to another person, until a mortgage was disbursed or some other obligation was met, in my understanding... but an accepted offer to purchase would need to exist between the L's and the lawyer (caveator). So no, as long as they owned the home, the L's would be in control of who they would sell it to.

BBM...When you say the lawyer (caveator) do you mean the purchaser who happens to be a lawyer? Or, that the Caveator would need to be a lawyer?

 

[Lalalacasbah]

Always lurking...

:devil:

"Always lurking" he said with an evil, maniacal laugh :stormingmad: Great emoticon OOTD! :hilarious:

 

[Krystine]

Wouldn't the closing date be when the transfer of land was processed (Dec. 2013)? I think that the agreement may have been the L's were to vacate June 30th (end of lease or purchase agreement) but I doubt that was officially confirmed. Also, there is a Caveat regarding Assignments of Rents and Leases (Dec. 2013).

Yes, the closing date is when funds are in the hands of the seller's lawyer, the date specified on the purchase agreement. So the Caveat re; Rents and Leases would insure that rent would be paid. Maybe in advance. However, I always understood these types of agreements don't "survive" closing. In other words, once the title has changed hands, it's an honor system for any obligations to be carried out, for either party.
I can't imagine a caveat being used, rather than a rental agreement, but I'm not a lawyer.

 

[LoisLane]

Also I will point out that KL was not on title only AL. Would that be because of her bankruptcy?

 

[Krystine]

BBM...When you say the lawyer (caveator) do you mean the purchaser who happens to be a lawyer? Or, that the Caveator would need to be a lawyer?

I meant the purchaser who happens to be a lawyer.
If you want to place a caveat on a property I believe you have to be an unpaid builder/renovator/contractor, or a financial institution holding a mortgage or secured loan...and you would need a lawyer to do it for you.

 

[Krystine]

Also I will point out that KL was not on title only AL. Would that be because of her bankruptcy?

It is illegal to transfer sole ownership to your partner but people do posture for bankruptcy, sometimes years ahead of the event. I don't want to speculate about the deceased, some couples have unconventional agreements about who owns what.

 

[Krystine]

Hhmm, so what do you (and other sleuthers) think this all means?

Was AL in worse or better financial shape than we thought? I've been trying to follow, but get a bit confused with the legal jargon. I love law stuff, so interesting....until I have to read it!

Oh...If the L's were selling their home privately, this caveat could be to insure that they did not attempt to sell the home 'twice'.
Some For Sale by Owners have done this, written up and accepted two or more unconditional offers. It's doubtful that Kathryn would have done this with her background, but it's the only other purpose for this caveat I can think of.

 

[OutOfTheDarkness]

Oh...If the L's were selling their home privately, this caveat could be to insure that they did not attempt to sell the home 'twice'.
Some For Sale by Owners have done this, written up and accepted two or more unconditional offers. It's doubtful that Kathryn would have done this with her background, but it's the only other purpose for this caveat I can think of.

Forgive me as I step out of my depth of knowledge. Would a Caveat issuer of this nature not then have first dibbs on buying the property should it become subject to creditors during something like a bankruptcy?

If that is the case, then hypothetically, if you suddenly got yourself into debt, you could ensure your ability to sell your house at less than market value to your friend, the Caveat holder, settle your bankruptcy, and then have your friend sell the house again for what will be a profit. You pay your friend back, and still get a few hundred thousand dollars out of your house that you wouldn't have if you had just held onto it without the Caveat.

I'm not saying that is what happened here. I would hope bankruptcy law would not allow such a loophole. You'd still be losing the money you received for the sale, unless there is somehow a way to protect that too. I suppose it's all in the timing.

 

[LoisLane]

I wonder if it is possible that the home could have been approaching foreclosure? I am not sure how that works. If it was could that be why the Caveats were attached and I wonder if certain investors know how to seek out these type of properties/homeowners (or the homeowners look for someone who knows how to deal with it) in order to make a purchase before it reaches a foreclosure status. I don't know off hand if the house was sold at market value but it could also be a tough neighborhood to find a teardown to subdivide so it could appear to the right investor as the right opportunity.

 

[deugirtni]

This title search, I believe it was done on the 'property' and not on the family, and therefore it shows things that occurred on the title of the property. To me, it shows the caveat by the lawyer-purchaser was placed on title at the end of September 2013. This would have been done in order to protect the 'purchaser's' interest until such time as the deal was sealed. Then it appears the deal was sealed and the home was transferred into the purchaser's name in December 2013. At that time, the new purchaser put a brand new mortgage on the property, and a brand new caveat was placed on title by the mortgagee, saying that in the event the new purchaser defaulted on the mortgage payments, the mortgagee was entitled to collect any rents that the new owner may be collecting, no matter from whom. The thing that I am not understanding, is why the 2 prior mortgages (which the L's would have had on the property) were not discharged until months after the transfer of ownership and new mortgage were on title. Is that because someone just forgot to put it on title that the mortgages were discharged, or is that because the mortgages were in fact not discharged until later (which would be impossible, wouldn't it, since the home would then be mortgaged for far more than it was worth?)

 

[Krystine]

Forgive me as I step out of my depth of knowledge. Would a Caveat issuer of this nature not then have first dibbs on buying the property should it become subject to creditors during something like a bankruptcy?

If that is the case, then hypothetically, if you suddenly got yourself into debt, you could ensure your ability to sell your house at less than market value to your friend, the Caveat holder, settle your bankruptcy, and then have your friend sell the house again for what will be a profit. You pay your friend back, and still get a few hundred thousand dollars out of your house that you wouldn't have if you had just held onto it without the Caveat.

I'm not saying that is what happened here. I would hope bankruptcy law would not allow such a loophole. You'd still be losing the money you received for the sale, unless there is somehow a way to protect that too. I suppose it's all in the timing.

My understanding of a caveat is that it is placed on the title, to insure that anyone with a financial interest in the equity will be paid when the home is sold. Interest in the property means financial interest, as in a bank having a mortgage against it, or a real estate company that is not sure they will be paid commissions for the work they did. It doesn't mean interested in buying the property, to answer one of your previous questions.

I think it's possible but IMO highly unethical for a lawyer to be a part of such a conflict of interest. It wouldn't be worth his or her ability to practice law to help someone break the law. (re bankruptcy, hiding assets, or hiding from Canada Revenue Service).
I might be naive, but lawyers I have known would not have been tangled up in someone's mess.

It still makes me wonder why the caveat, and why no specific dollar figure was on the document if it was a loan type of arrangement.

 

[deugirtni]

Definition of "Assignment of Leases and Rents"

Sometimes called Assignment of Leases, Rents and Profits or simply Assignment of Rents, this is a document attached to a mortgage loan agreement which entitles the lender to any income (from leases, rents, etc.) derived from the property once the owner defaults on the loan.

http://www.propertyshark.com/mason/text/infopages/Real-Estate-Glossary/assignment-of-leases-and-rents.html