Comments on: Title office swamped over fraud concern

By: kim

kim — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 22:23:31 +0000

RE:Why don’t they just require the bank or mortgage lender to notify the occupants of the home? That would kill a lot of the fraud right there. Really the mortgage lender should be on the hook if it can be shown that they did not perform due diligence.
the Ontario ruling was based on this. If they sent out an appraiser then the occupants/owners shocked looks would give a heads up!
I’d take the BC ruling to Federal Supreme Court!

Current score: 0 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

By: patriotz

patriotz — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 03:56:05 +0000

what do you mean “same sort of law”? If you authorize a general contractor he then has the right to authorize subcontractors, who have the right to place liens.

What does this have to do with fraudulent sales or mortgages?

Current score: 0 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

By: Drachen

Drachen — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 00:09:34 +0000

“My business law 101 tells me, the owner never enters a contract with the bank (no acceptance, no consideration) why would the contract stand in this case?”

Liens against a property are subject to the same sort of law. For example if you hire a general contractor to do some upgrades on your house and he does not pay the plumber or the electrician, goes bankrupt or skips town you as the property owner are on the hook. This is why people who know their stuff always hold back a percentage of the contractor’s fee until three months after work is completed (liens must be filed within 3 months).

Current score: 0 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 23:30:18 +0000

Is B.C. the world capital of organized crime?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1LY561JCbE

Current score: 0 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

By: blueskies

blueskies — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 22:27:54 +0000

drachen:

good find!

pretty bird… otherwise known
as the red headed double
breasted mattress trasher

Current score: 0 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 22:15:18 +0000

alexcanuck:

Ths for the explaination. It makes everyone happy.

But then, if the judge is only ruling on the title, he should keep his month shut on the mortgage issue.

Also, in a practical sense, what good is the title if there is a mortgage on it?

Current score: 0 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

By: Drachen

Drachen — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 22:06:08 +0000

/dev/null

You just don’t know how to analyse data that’s all. You only need to consider trends in your analysis when they are going the direction you want them to go!

Current score: 0 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

By: /dev/null

/dev/null — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 22:01:18 +0000

Thanks for the link, Richard. I found the stats were presented in a confusing way but maybe that’s just me.

I noticed that they predict Vancouver sales down 20% for the year. By my simplistic calculations we’re down 17% now (Jan->May inclusive) but May was down 29% according to Paulb’s numbers. Seems to me that they’re not considering the trend.

Current score: 0 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

By: alexcanuck

alexcanuck — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 21:54:45 +0000

The way I read that mortgages taken out on the property — even if fraudulently obtained — still stand, I thought the court was not ruling on the mortgage issue, only the title. Rather than affirming the mortgage, pretty much saying the issue at hand was only the title. The separate Ontario case that DID rule on the MORTGAGE was pretty quick to let the scam victim off the hook. Just a case of jurisdiction, seems pretty clear to me.
Judges must be careful not to open cans of worms other than the one in front of them.
Though I am not a lawyer, of course. (My lawyer made me say that.)

Current score: 0 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 21:54:21 +0000

Owner: Didn’t do anything wrong
Bank(Mortagage provider): Didn’t check the Mort. App.

Can someone in the legal profession explain why the owner is on the hook in this case? What legal ground is this decision based on?

My business law 101 tells me, the owner never enters a contract with the bank (no acceptance, no consideration) why would the contract stand in this case?

Not looking for rent! but real explaination.

Current score: 0 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

By: jesse

jesse — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 21:49:45 +0000

There was a big stink involving Maple Trust trying to foreclose on a homeowner in Ontario based on a mortgage obtained fraudulently. kabloona is right: the court said Maple Trust held the bag. I would expect a similar ruling in BC.

Current score: 0 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

By: Drachen

Drachen — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 21:44:30 +0000

I don’t think anyone needed more proof that the Florida market is in the crapper. But here is a Craigslist ad you just don’t see every day.

http://florence.en.craigslist......87925.html

It seems that this offer includes not only the home but the seller is giving herself away to sweeten the deal. Personally I’m not a silicone man so she’s not really my style but some of you may want to put in an offer on this well maintained, double entry, extended terrace gem!

Current score: 0 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

By: kabloona

kabloona — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 21:35:08 +0000

Yup, they would have a lien against the property. By the way, this law was changed in Ontario last year, no reason why it should stand in BC.

Current score: 0 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

By: umdesch4

umdesch4 — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 21:16:35 +0000

Ok, so how far can this go? If the bank’s still have a valid mortgage taken out on the property, can they get law enforcement to forcibly evict you as a squatter so they can repossess the property?

Current score: 0 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

By: Vansanity

Vansanity — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 20:33:13 +0000

Building permits were up this month and sales down, inventory up. Boom is over but there are tons of cranes still working away around town… I wonder what the number is for pre-built units that remain unsold right now. This is going to end ugly. I still think fall of next year is when we’re going to really start to see this all go for a sh**, price wise at least.

Current score: 0 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

By: Johnny33

Johnny33 — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 19:47:10 +0000

And people wonder why criminals love it here? It’s because the victims are on the hook for their crimes while they receive not much more than a slap on the wrist if (big IF) they’re caught. What a joke.

Current score: 0 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

By: anon

anon — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 19:47:05 +0000

I don’t know about Sharapova, but I know that Anna Kournikova was PRICELESS.

Current score: 0 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

By: richard

richard — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 19:42:35 +0000

now it's TD saying the housing boom is over. and recreational property price increases slowing in other news, maria sharapova has been eliminated from wimbledon 2008.

Current score: 0 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

By: Vansanity

Vansanity — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 18:57:50 +0000

Completely Off-Topic - The Dow is getting slaughtered today… currently down 306 pts! The fall has been caused by oil prices continuing to rise and a number of stocks being downgraded in the Auto and Financial sectors.

Current score: 0 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

By: Drachen

Drachen — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 18:31:13 +0000

Why don’t they just require the bank or mortgage lender to notify the occupants of the home? That would kill a lot of the fraud right there. Really the mortgage lender should be on the hook if it can be shown that they did not perform due diligence.

Current score: 0 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

By: patriotz

patriotz — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 18:31:02 +0000

Of course the province of BC has full constitutional jurisdiction over property rights and land titles, and can easily prevent this sort of thing from happening with simple legislation. They can even make it retroactive, because it’s a civil law issue.

Right Gordo?

Current score: 0 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

By: Bubble Lad

Bubble Lad — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 18:09:50 +0000

Tip of the iceberg.

Does this happen anywhere besides BC, or is this another one of the things that makes us “The Best Place on Earth”?

They’re going to be spending the next twenty years in BC just trying to figure out all the RE scams run in the last five.

Has anyone read “McMafia” (Misha Glenny) - there’s an entire chapter on BC - among other tasty tidbits, it states BC has the highest per capita number of gangs IN THE WORLD!” - is that even possible? I’ve been spending the last few days thinking I misread it.

Current score: 0 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

By: Scratchy

Scratchy — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 18:07:12 +0000

“B.C. Supreme Court decision this month ruled that while a true owner could regain title to a property if it was fraudulently transferred, mortgages taken out on the property — even if fraudulently obtained — still stand.”

Good grief - sounds like the banks had the best lawyers as usual. If they are taken in by fraud, *you* are on the hook.

Current score: 0 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)