3 ms·
That would quality as fraud if the representative knew that the remaining coinheritors would block and if they gained something from the delay (some kickback se
by usrusr 3y ago
That would quality as fraud if the representative knew that the remaining coinheritors would block and if they gained something from the delay (some kickback setup from that back fee? The world we live in is crazy but it's not that crazy). The way you describe it reads as if the inheritor representative might have been just as surprised by the delay. Incompetence, and possibly being on the hook for the bank penalty due to that incompetence (or not, that's far beyond my judicial capability) but certainly not fraud.
Perhaps a more experienced buyer would have added some penalty clause to hedge against the idle money issue (banks don't like a delay between money availability and purchase of the collateral, that's a common issue I think), but since the problem is (was, I hope?) that the contract itself did not happen in time that surely wouldn't be easy (some multi-stage monstrosity, ouch). Unless they lied to get some advantage it can't really be fraud. (and what advantage would it be anyways? If the market price rose during the delay the sellers might even suffer a bigger net loss than that bank penalty ... I guess that would be a way it could become fraud, if they then suddenly refused signing, to sell to a higher bidder, abusing the delay for a safe market bet)
I suspect that this entire class of issues is a common pitfall people who routinely deal with real estate are well aware of, one of the risks kept in check by experience and taking the occasional blow.
- kioleanu 3y agoThat is an almost accurate interpretation. They knew for sure the state of things and were not surprised by the missing documents - this was proven during the pre-trial. I can only speculate as to why they did it, but I am pretty sure that it was to get the whole process started because some of the heirs were in poor health and they needed to sign the contract sooner rather than later, otherwise they would have entered in a potential loop of heirs dying and having to find the heirs of the heir and so on. So they said, let's start this thing now to minimize that risk and work on the rest of the documents later. From this point of view, they were right, as two people died in the months that followed. I am also sure that they've hidden the fact because they knew that in this situation, it would have been nearly impossible to find a buyer willing to take part in the risk. You are right with your remarks about experienced buyers. All in all, I have almost 0 regrets about the whole thing, I learned a lot of stuff in the meantime and got the house eventually
- medo-bear 3y agoI don't know if you had to pay a deposit, but if you did I think you are really lucky that the owners turned out to be honnest sellers. If you took this approach in Eastern Europe with a property that has many owners of distant relations you would have very likely lost your deposit and courts would be unable to help you. If there are more than two owners (husband and wife) my advice is to pay a lawayer around a 1000eur to see you through the whole legal process.
- flumpcakes 3y ago> That would quality as fraud if the representative knew that the remaining coinheritors would block and if they gained something from the delay They already gained something - the sale of the property. > knew that the remaining coinheritors would block This doesn't matter - they said it was done. This was incorrect. It was fraud...