5 ms·

If you haven't understood (or even read) what they are telling you to sign you shouldn't sign. What you can't do is sign and then complain about what you signed

by abvaw 3y ago

If you haven't understood (or even read) what they are telling you to sign you shouldn't sign. What you can't do is sign and then complain about what you signed. That's ridiculous, and the courts agree.

paulryanrogers 3y ago
Many of these people have dementia. It's not a fair negotiation.
- abvaw 3y ago
  Contracts signed by mentally incompetent people are generally invalid. So this article isn't about that. Therefore, when the article says the courts accept the contracts as valid they can't be talking about the contracts signed by the infirm, but the article conflates both things maliciously.
  - jjulius 3y ago
    I would suggest that you read the ProPublica article that is the source of the claim, which details a years-long legal battle that then ensued, before you continue. It's not as cut and dry as you would like it to be. The following is literally about a "contract signed by the infirm": >After David learned of the contract, he explained to Evans that his mother had dementia and tried to cancel the sale. Instead of walking away, Evans dug in, recording a notice on the property’s title that essentially prevented a sale to anyone else, which forced the Casanova family into a years-long battle to keep the home. Along the way, Evans disputed that Casanova showed signs of impairment during their interactions.
    - ttyprintk 3y ago
      Convenient link to the original: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35901056 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35901056
    - wilg 3y ago
      Not disputing this is fucked up shit, but it's unfortunate there's not a super clear explanation of where the legal system is failing here. In general, it seems like a huge problem that people who probably are not capable of signing contracts can in fact sign them and have no real recourse for dealing with it. Seems like a good spot for a safety net.
      - Arainach 3y ago
        There is a very long history of courts having people declared mentally incompetent to enable all sorts of abuse. Being cautious in cases like this is entirely reasonable, even when it's painful.
        wilg 3y ago
        Sure, but I'm wondering if we can come up with a way to solve this problem.
    - wahern 3y ago
      Which part did abvaw not understand?
  - koolba 3y ago
    These scams prey upon seniors who are legally able to enter contracts but do not have the mental state to know what they are doing. Many of them are too scared or embarrassed to get help afterward as they fear they’ll be a bother or have what’s left taken away. The lesson here is to marry someone much younger so you have someone to take care of you in your twilight years. Also good to have lots of kids and raise them right. Statistically at least one of them will be able to take care of you.
  - neurobama 3y ago
    The buyers do not approach those who have been legally deemed incompetent. As you say, such a sale would not be valid. But then again, can the isolated mentally incompetent even bring such cases to court? Vulnerable people who break a hip and can't afford surgery also don't deserve to lose their homes, especially not at a fraction of market value. There are clear gaps in the system which these buyers are exploiting and which you are repeatedly and willfully excusing. There's a chapter in the Bible about this type of behavior involving whips, overturned tables and an angry Jesus.
  - MikeTheGreat 3y ago
    That's what makes this so brilliant, isn't it? The buyer has the signature on paper and can proceed with taking the house. The person who just sold their house _could_ contest it in court... except that they're not mentally competent so by definition they won't be able to mount a defense (i.e., realize that they just got scammed, hire a lawyer, put together a strategy, etc, etc). Brilliant! If the elderly, mentally incompetent person has _someone_else_ in their life who notices this early and jumps in to clock a lot of hours to stop this from happening, then sure - everything will be fine. If not, well, the bad guys win.
  - cratermoon 3y ago
    How anyone these days can have any faith in the legal system and not see the ways the courts favor money over justice is beyond me.
  - HEmanZ 3y ago
    The linked examples literally contain cases where the signer had diagnosed dementia or was tricked in an extremely dubious way (e.g “oh this is the exact same contract as last time just sign it”). And the contracts were upheld. Idk if it warrants a story beyond “existing laws not being upheld in some cases”, meaning I don’t know how much these cases apply to the whole market or most courts, but it looks like there are a fair number of seriously messed up contract scams getting through in this industry.
  - colanderman 3y ago
    > Contracts signed by mentally incompetent people are generally invalid. Yes, that's why the houses are considered stolen.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
josephg 3y ago
I'm pleased to report that the courts don't agree here in Australia. I was taught this story at university - apologies in advance if I've butchered some of the details. As I remember it, there was a famous case decades ago where a bank manager visited the home of an elderly Polish couple. The couple had a mortgage with the bank, and the bank wanted to renegotiate the terms of their mortgage. Only the wife was home, and she barely spoke any English. She understood that the man in the suit from the bank wanted them to sign some paperwork, so she did. As a co-signatory of the mortgage, her signature was enough. The couple eventually lost their home as a result, and the case went through the courts. Eventually the high court (equivalent of the supreme court in the USA) sided with the couple. They said that because the bank has more money and skill, they have more power in a negotiation like this. As a result, they bear proportionately more responsibility during contract negotiations. In this case, it was their responsibility as the powerful party to make sure the borrowers actually understood the terms they were signing. We basically only have 6 banks in Australia because of things like this. Its very difficult and expensive to open a new bank in australia because of regulatory requirements. But my impression is that the banks here are extremely careful when it comes to interacting with unsophisticated investors. They (reasonably) assume the courts will rule against them if they do anything that doesn't pass the pub test. (I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice, etc.)

by abvaw 3y ago

paulryanrogers 3y ago

Many of these people have dementia. It's not a fair negotiation.

abvaw 3y ago
Contracts signed by mentally incompetent people are generally invalid. So this article isn't about that. Therefore, when the article says the courts accept the contracts as valid they can't be talking about the contracts signed by the infirm, but the article conflates both things maliciously.
- jjulius 3y ago
  I would suggest that you read the ProPublica article that is the source of the claim, which details a years-long legal battle that then ensued, before you continue. It's not as cut and dry as you would like it to be. The following is literally about a "contract signed by the infirm": >After David learned of the contract, he explained to Evans that his mother had dementia and tried to cancel the sale. Instead of walking away, Evans dug in, recording a notice on the property’s title that essentially prevented a sale to anyone else, which forced the Casanova family into a years-long battle to keep the home. Along the way, Evans disputed that Casanova showed signs of impairment during their interactions.
  - ttyprintk 3y ago
    Convenient link to the original: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35901056 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35901056
  - wilg 3y ago
    Not disputing this is fucked up shit, but it's unfortunate there's not a super clear explanation of where the legal system is failing here. In general, it seems like a huge problem that people who probably are not capable of signing contracts can in fact sign them and have no real recourse for dealing with it. Seems like a good spot for a safety net.
    - Arainach 3y ago
      There is a very long history of courts having people declared mentally incompetent to enable all sorts of abuse. Being cautious in cases like this is entirely reasonable, even when it's painful.
      - wilg 3y ago
        Sure, but I'm wondering if we can come up with a way to solve this problem.
  - wahern 3y ago
    Which part did abvaw not understand?
- koolba 3y ago
  These scams prey upon seniors who are legally able to enter contracts but do not have the mental state to know what they are doing. Many of them are too scared or embarrassed to get help afterward as they fear they’ll be a bother or have what’s left taken away. The lesson here is to marry someone much younger so you have someone to take care of you in your twilight years. Also good to have lots of kids and raise them right. Statistically at least one of them will be able to take care of you.
- neurobama 3y ago
  The buyers do not approach those who have been legally deemed incompetent. As you say, such a sale would not be valid. But then again, can the isolated mentally incompetent even bring such cases to court? Vulnerable people who break a hip and can't afford surgery also don't deserve to lose their homes, especially not at a fraction of market value. There are clear gaps in the system which these buyers are exploiting and which you are repeatedly and willfully excusing. There's a chapter in the Bible about this type of behavior involving whips, overturned tables and an angry Jesus.
- MikeTheGreat 3y ago
  That's what makes this so brilliant, isn't it? The buyer has the signature on paper and can proceed with taking the house. The person who just sold their house _could_ contest it in court... except that they're not mentally competent so by definition they won't be able to mount a defense (i.e., realize that they just got scammed, hire a lawyer, put together a strategy, etc, etc). Brilliant! If the elderly, mentally incompetent person has _someone_else_ in their life who notices this early and jumps in to clock a lot of hours to stop this from happening, then sure - everything will be fine. If not, well, the bad guys win.
- cratermoon 3y ago
  How anyone these days can have any faith in the legal system and not see the ways the courts favor money over justice is beyond me.
- HEmanZ 3y ago
  The linked examples literally contain cases where the signer had diagnosed dementia or was tricked in an extremely dubious way (e.g “oh this is the exact same contract as last time just sign it”). And the contracts were upheld. Idk if it warrants a story beyond “existing laws not being upheld in some cases”, meaning I don’t know how much these cases apply to the whole market or most courts, but it looks like there are a fair number of seriously messed up contract scams getting through in this industry.
- colanderman 3y ago
  > Contracts signed by mentally incompetent people are generally invalid. Yes, that's why the houses are considered stolen.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

josephg 3y ago

I'm pleased to report that the courts don't agree here in Australia. I was taught this story at university - apologies in advance if I've butchered some of the details. As I remember it, there was a famous case decades ago where a bank manager visited the home of an elderly Polish couple. The couple had a mortgage with the bank, and the bank wanted to renegotiate the terms of their mortgage. Only the wife was home, and she barely spoke any English. She understood that the man in the suit from the bank wanted them to sign some paperwork, so she did. As a co-signatory of the mortgage, her signature was enough. The couple eventually lost their home as a result, and the case went through the courts. Eventually the high court (equivalent of the supreme court in the USA) sided with the couple. They said that because the bank has more money and skill, they have more power in a negotiation like this. As a result, they bear proportionately more responsibility during contract negotiations. In this case, it was their responsibility as the powerful party to make sure the borrowers actually understood the terms they were signing. We basically only have 6 banks in Australia because of things like this. Its very difficult and expensive to open a new bank in australia because of regulatory requirements. But my impression is that the banks here are extremely careful when it comes to interacting with unsophisticated investors. They (reasonably) assume the courts will rule against them if they do anything that doesn't pass the pub test. (I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice, etc.)