6 ms·

The logical outcome of this kind of predatory practice should be that the "investor" (the purchaser of the liens) gets $5000 out of the $197,000 sale, and the d

The logical outcome of this kind of predatory practice should be that the "investor" (the purchaser of the liens) gets $5000 out of the $197,000 sale, and the debtor gets $192,000. And even that seem predatory, never mind getting all the equity and forcing the person out of their place of residence.

ars 13y ago
That's the law everywhere I've ever checked. Very very odd if it's not the case in D.C.
hansjorg 13y ago
I have a hard time believing this story. If it actually is true, the local government in DC is beyond corrupt.
- theviciousfish 13y ago
  taxation without representation. DC barely has a local government. Its Congress who has jurisdiction. so yes, they are as corrupt as it gets. from wikipedia: "Article One, Section Eight of the United States Constitution grants the U.S. Congress "exclusive jurisdiction" over the city. The District did not have an elected local government until the passage of the 1973 Home Rule Act. The Act devolved certain Congressional powers to an elected mayor, currently Vincent C. Gray, and the thirteen-member Council of the District of Columbia. However, Congress retains the right to review and overturn laws created by the council and intervene in local affairs.[160]"
- bilbo0s 13y ago
  "...the local government in DC..." That might be part of the problem... they really don't have much local government. Congress holds sway in DC. When I lived in Glover Park I thought it was one of the strangest systems I had ever seen. Never really quite understood it completely.
- klt0825 13y ago
  Frankly, this is a bigger problem that isn't nationally recognized. The mayor is under federal investigation for his campaign and I've lost count of how many officials have been arrested or investigated at the federal level. Living near the district, I'm shocked daily by how nobody seems to care that the corruption is so widespread.
jamieb 13y ago
when someone gets your $197,000 house for $134, they can sell it for $71,000 and take $6000 in legal fees, interest etc, as documented in the article. The owner loses $130,000. Don't be surprised if the person buying the house for $71,000 is in on the game too.
- briancaw2 13y ago
  This problem is indicative of how screwed up our legal system is. Lawyers harass regular folks at-will as most people have no recourse (i.e. money to hire their own lawyer, or knowledge of the expanding and complicated laws). Two ways I can think of fixing it - one is offering simple, straightforward hearings in front of a judge with the power to use their own judgement (instead of relying on overly-specific, exploitable laws); the other is to implement some counterbalance punitive fee for wrongly harassing citizens - something that decreases the profit ratio for predators and makes defending people in otherwise unprofitable cases profitable.
  - rayiner 13y ago
    What do you think was happening in the months and months before the lien sale happened? There were a million opportunities to avoid the whole process through a straightforward administrative process, no lawyers involved.
    - gutnor 13y ago
      That assumes you are still capable to follow that process. Apparently the current procedure does not take your present circumstances into account. (like mild dementia, alzeihmer, nursing home example in the article) In Europe, once you get too incapacitated to take care of your stuff, social security take you in charge. After you die, they repossess your property and sell them to recover their cost. What's left is then given to whoever is supposed to inherit. I am not quite sure what would be acceptable with the more liberal US culture, but profiteering of the weak is certainly not an american value.
      - 13y ago
rayiner 13y ago
I'm very skeptical of that part of the article and its a little disappointing to me that HN is so ready to take it at face value. It could be true, but it could be a journalist mangling the story like they do for any technically complicated topic.

ars 13y ago

That's the law everywhere I've ever checked. Very very odd if it's not the case in D.C.

hansjorg 13y ago

I have a hard time believing this story. If it actually is true, the local government in DC is beyond corrupt.

theviciousfish 13y ago
taxation without representation. DC barely has a local government. Its Congress who has jurisdiction. so yes, they are as corrupt as it gets. from wikipedia: "Article One, Section Eight of the United States Constitution grants the U.S. Congress "exclusive jurisdiction" over the city. The District did not have an elected local government until the passage of the 1973 Home Rule Act. The Act devolved certain Congressional powers to an elected mayor, currently Vincent C. Gray, and the thirteen-member Council of the District of Columbia. However, Congress retains the right to review and overturn laws created by the council and intervene in local affairs.[160]"
bilbo0s 13y ago
"...the local government in DC..." That might be part of the problem... they really don't have much local government. Congress holds sway in DC. When I lived in Glover Park I thought it was one of the strangest systems I had ever seen. Never really quite understood it completely.
klt0825 13y ago
Frankly, this is a bigger problem that isn't nationally recognized. The mayor is under federal investigation for his campaign and I've lost count of how many officials have been arrested or investigated at the federal level. Living near the district, I'm shocked daily by how nobody seems to care that the corruption is so widespread.

jamieb 13y ago

when someone gets your $197,000 house for $134, they can sell it for $71,000 and take $6000 in legal fees, interest etc, as documented in the article. The owner loses $130,000. Don't be surprised if the person buying the house for $71,000 is in on the game too.

briancaw2 13y ago
This problem is indicative of how screwed up our legal system is. Lawyers harass regular folks at-will as most people have no recourse (i.e. money to hire their own lawyer, or knowledge of the expanding and complicated laws). Two ways I can think of fixing it - one is offering simple, straightforward hearings in front of a judge with the power to use their own judgement (instead of relying on overly-specific, exploitable laws); the other is to implement some counterbalance punitive fee for wrongly harassing citizens - something that decreases the profit ratio for predators and makes defending people in otherwise unprofitable cases profitable.
- rayiner 13y ago
  What do you think was happening in the months and months before the lien sale happened? There were a million opportunities to avoid the whole process through a straightforward administrative process, no lawyers involved.
  - gutnor 13y ago
    That assumes you are still capable to follow that process. Apparently the current procedure does not take your present circumstances into account. (like mild dementia, alzeihmer, nursing home example in the article) In Europe, once you get too incapacitated to take care of your stuff, social security take you in charge. After you die, they repossess your property and sell them to recover their cost. What's left is then given to whoever is supposed to inherit. I am not quite sure what would be acceptable with the more liberal US culture, but profiteering of the weak is certainly not an american value.
    - 13y ago

rayiner 13y ago

I'm very skeptical of that part of the article and its a little disappointing to me that HN is so ready to take it at face value. It could be true, but it could be a journalist mangling the story like they do for any technically complicated topic.