|
Jastiger posted:Whoa with that house in Minnesota that was a lemon and stuff..I notice that he keeps having inspectors come out and check his work and OK it with the city. It did, he didn't pull the permits before buying. It wasn't done.
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2014 18:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 16:25 |
|
|
FrozenVent posted:It did, he didn't pull the permits before buying. It wasn't done. No I mean the seller. WHy isn't it a law that the seller has to have any kind of reno done before a house is sold? I thought if you were doing any of that stuff, flipping the house, or living in it, it had to be signed off on. Regardless. Right?
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2014 19:22
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:No I mean the seller. WHy isn't it a law that the seller has to have any kind of reno done before a house is sold? I thought if you were doing any of that stuff, flipping the house, or living in it, it had to be signed off on. Regardless. Right? Correct, but the seller broke the law. But it's civil law, so the seller can just declare bankruptcy for his flipping business, shed the liability, and reform a new business. If the seller can even be found.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2014 21:29
|
|
|
http://www.nbcnews.com/business/consumer/60-58-starbucks-frappuccino-drink-sets-new-record-n157256
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2014 21:35
|
|
|
Knyteguy posted:http://www.nbcnews.com/business/consumer/60-58-starbucks-frappuccino-drink-sets-new-record-n157256 I love the casual conflation of "worth" and "cost".
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2014 21:49
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:Whoa with that house in Minnesota that was a lemon and stuff..I notice that he keeps having inspectors come out and check his work and OK it with the city. I can't find the link you're talking about. Can someone remind me?
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2014 23:18
|
|
|
http://www.hoodwinkedhouse.com/#sthash.NFmOAc30.BImYLWw1.dpbs I'm not sure if that's the one, but its still great. This poor bastard.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 00:35
|
|
|
olylifter posted:http://www.hoodwinkedhouse.com/#sthash.NFmOAc30.BImYLWw1.dpbs Holy poo poo. The worst part is that this is still ongoing, so there's no happy ending. Yet. If any will ever come.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 01:17
|
|
|
^He posted a status report in May and he's made pretty good progress on the house itself. There doesn't seem to be any progress on finding the previous owner though.quote:The structural concerns have been addressed.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 02:14
|
|
|
The house didn't even have gutters on all ends of the roof with a downward slope, let alone adequate/appropriate tiling on existing gutters. Pardon me if I don't know more of this dude's previous house experience, but that seems like a simple, easily identifiable red flag that if it's been like that for awhile you might have more serious issues.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 03:49
|
|
|
Dik Hz posted:Correct, but the seller broke the law. But it's civil law, so the seller can just declare bankruptcy for his flipping business, shed the liability, and reform a new business. This is not actually universally true. Code violations are criminal in some areas. From what I see, Minnesota was one of them - up to 90 days of prison per code violation - but that was repealed in 2008. That aside, I'm pretty sure that the fraudulent intent in this particular case is plenty to be criminal anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 05:52
|
|
|
Secks Cauldron posted:^He posted a status report in May and he's made pretty good progress on the house itself. There doesn't seem to be any progress on finding the previous owner though. I know he can't post the progress on the criminal case, but since it's been over a year I doubt anything will come out of it. Otherwise all of the good news has been making progress on fixing what shouldn't have been broken in the first place, and letting it become a pretty serious money sink while not having access to most of the space in your own home. I have trouble calling it a happy ending if all that comes out of this is that he spends a whole lot of money fixing everything wrong with the house.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 12:35
|
|
|
That whole story is just weird to me. How could the other person do that stuff WITHOUT permits and not be automatically found at fault? How is his real estate agency that represented him not immediately found at fault for not assisting in finding someone that committed fraud? I dunno its just a series of terrible happenstances it seems.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 12:53
|
|
|
I'd imagine the hardest part would be wading through the various corporations that owned it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 14:37
|
|
|
Yeah, I kind of don't buy his assertion that the house was legitimately inspected before purchase. An inspector who doesn't notice missing rain gutters?
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 14:37
|
|
|
peter banana posted:Yeah, I kind of don't buy his assertion that the house was legitimately inspected before purchase. An inspector who doesn't notice missing rain gutters? I would guess it was noted, it's not like you're going to get a house inspected and expect there be 0 problems with it. Otherwise you'll be house shopping for a very, very long time. Though I am surprised the inspector didn't catch that the kitchen cabinets that weren't even screwed in. When my brother had his house inspected before purchasing, the inspector noted down every last detail, including electrical outlets that didn't work, thermostats that didn't work, every minuscule crack in the wall, cracks in the driveway, even made a note that the mailbox was rusty. Of course, I'm ignoring the fact that it was recently remodeled here. You'd think installing gutters would be pretty high on the home remodeling priority list.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 14:52
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:That whole story is just weird to me. How could the other person do that stuff WITHOUT permits and not be automatically found at fault? How is his real estate agency that represented him not immediately found at fault for not assisting in finding someone that committed fraud? And why did the victim not just sell the house off to someone else, since that's apparently legal?
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 15:01
|
|
|
Phyzzle posted:And why did the victim not just sell the house off to someone else, since that's apparently legal? There's a legal requirement to disclose any issues, code violations, etc. This guy waved his right for that disclosure. He said it was buried in a pile of paperwork and with their high pressure sales tactics he didn't even know he had signed it. If he would have tried to sell it, he would have had to pay someone to inspect it (probably better than the last chump), then he would have been screwed. What I find interesting is that the home inspector didn't figure out the house was expanded and footers were poured (easy enough because there is only so much basement area to first floor area) and then tried to inspect the foundation access to that expansion. Which, the access was completely obstructed by remodeling work iirc, according to the homeowner. No foundation/crawlspace access + not all of the gutters = this could be poorly maintained. Secondly, if this guy has as many friends as his pictures depict helping him fix it, why didn't he bring them with him to check out the place the first time? Especially his civil engineer uncle. It sounds to me like the guy saved up a down payment, did a very cursory examination including paying a lovely home inspector, waived his right to disclosures of code violations, murders, etc in the home, then moved in and realized that it should basically be condemned. But plenty of people do the same things he did and have no issues. It certainly sucks that he got screwed, but if he would have exercised more due diligence this could have been avoided.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 17:35
|
|
|
Phyzzle posted:And why did the victim not just sell the house off to someone else, since that's apparently legal? The chances of him finding someone as dumb as him are pretty slim.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 17:44
|
|
|
Also, correct me if I'm wrong here, but I'm pretty sure when you first build a house, you need a permit to do so. At that time, you turn over a copy of the blueprints for public record. If he pulled the permits before buying like he said he did, why didn't he compare the original blueprints to the current floorplan? If the home inspector was supposed to do that then it's one thing entirely, but the floor plan is very very different now than before (last permit was issued in 2010, according to pictures he found on the internet significant remodeling was done in 2012 including removal of a load bearing beam) and that would have been a clear-cut indication of shenanigans. If you're ultimately the one buying the place, you are still responsible for vetting it. The home inspector should not be a replacement for your due diligence, but rather a supplement to it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 17:54
|
|
|
Ultimately yes he got shafted but he was a manchild who had no business buying a house in the first place, or he would have noticed some stuff was up.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 18:31
|
|
|
Buncha building experts in this thread. The whole point of hiring an inspector is to catch this kind of thing, it's pretty unreasonable to expect your average person to know these types of things, but it's pretty easy to sit back and call the guy a manchild idiot.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 18:46
|
|
|
Shadowgate posted:Buncha building experts in this thread. An inspector is needed for realizing a cabinet door isn't even attached? In the kitchen? I had no business buying a place when I did, but I still did open and close every single door and cabinet in it and noted any issues as things to be fixed before closing. But hey I guess you're just signing on for a debt worth several times your salary. No big deal. I'd agree you can't expect your average person to know about some of the other issues, but the average person also shouldn't be buying a house. Nail Rat fucked around with this message at 18:51 on Jul 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 18:49
|
|
|
Yeah before reading this thread I had no idea kitchen cupboard doors were supposed to be attached to their cupboard.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 18:50
|
|
|
My point was less about him being an idiot and more how the law isn't like 100% on his side. If he is required to have the city come out and OK everything he's doing, why wasn't the seller? Why did they get a free pass from the city to do whatever, when this guy apparently has to jump through a billion hoops? They can lie to him, but how do they not automatically find the seller at fault for failing to follow the obligations to the city? Also it is mega shady that his realtor isn't helping. His mortgage company should even have an interest in going after them too, I'm surprised he's not getting more help there. Now back to the other stuff for him, I could see missing a cabinet here, or an outlet there. Also remember, they intentionally hid a lot of this stuff with dry wall and wiring. How could he possibly know that the roof was leaking, the plumbing was hosed, or that joists were missing? The inspector should have caught a lot of that stuff like the missing support pillar, some of the wiring and plumbing issues, and the HVAC stuff.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 18:54
|
|
|
Here's a good (sad,, very sad) one: http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/07...d=tw-share&_r=0
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 18:55
|
|
|
Nail Rat posted:An inspector is needed for realizing a cabinet door isn't even attached? In the kitchen? No but any good inspector should do that anyway. It sounds like to me that this guy had a really, really lovely inspector which just made things worse.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 18:57
|
|
|
Nail Rat posted:An inspector is needed for realizing a cabinet door isn't even attached? In the kitchen? I had no business buying a place when I did, but I still did open and close every single door and cabinet in it and noted any issues as things to be fixed before closing. But hey I guess you're just signing on for a debt worth several times your salary. No big deal. I'm guessing the cabinet door was attached but not screwed in place, so things appeared to be fine until the hinge slipped out of the cabinet door. That's not even an significant issue though, but I do suspect the inspector was negligent due to missing some of the major things that should have been caught. Either way it's ridiculous to dog pile on the buyer.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 19:00
|
|
|
Renegret posted:No but any good inspector should do that anyway. True. The guy was very negligent and nonchalant as a buyer considering what a huge step it is to buy a first home with little down, but either the inspector was in on it or he's incompetent.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 19:01
|
|
|
Nail Rat posted:True. The guy was very negligent and nonchalant as a buyer considering what a huge step it is to buy a first home with little down, but either the inspector was in on it or he's incompetent. He mentions he foreclosed and declared bankruptcy 8 years ago due to undergoing a very expensive emergency surgery while uninsured, and that this house was a sort of victory to himself for finally having credit again. That's why he refused to just stop paying his mortgage and let it go into foreclosure, he did it once already. Not like that detail really changes anything, though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 19:06
|
|
|
juche mane posted:Here's a good (sad,, very sad) one: quote:
Jesus christ.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 19:37
|
|
|
that NYT article posted:a growing number of lenders are using new technologies that can remotely disable the ignition of a car within minutes of the borrower missing a payment.  Good lord, Big Brother really is out there now. Hope you aren't on a road trip at the time or anything!
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 20:39
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:If he is required to have the city come out and OK everything he's doing, why wasn't the seller? Why did they get a free pass from the city to do whatever, when this guy apparently has to jump through a billion hoops? They can lie to him, but how do they not automatically find the seller at fault for failing to follow the obligations to the city? Well, from what the guy said, the seller remodeled the place without permits. The buyer waived his right to disclosure about this, limiting his legal recourse for nondisclosure. Then the seller used phony contact info and did an IRS exchange rather than a sale to prevent any additional blowback. The inspector probably told him it an incomplete inspection and included it in the inspection report (since the buyer specifically mentions that the inspector couldn't complete a full inspection), so the inspector doesn't have any liability either. I'm not trying to blame the buyer 100% here, but his negligence was directly responsible for the majority of his lack of legal recourse. Nondisclosure suits would've paid for the house repairs. Most of the time the realtor cannot be sued, but it can be done if you can demonstrate that the seller knew about problems that were not in the disclosure (they obviously did) and the realtor actively concealed this information (they obviously did.) But he waived the disclosure agreement, so that doesn't matter. Anyway, I'm not attorney and none of this constitutes legal advice or accurately represents the laws in your particular municipality.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 20:45
|
|
|
IllegallySober posted:
I'm not a car guy, but wouldn't doing that while the car is driving on the road be potentially dangerous? That sounds like something that should probably be illegal if this is the case.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 20:47
|
|
|
Shipon posted:I'm not a car guy, but wouldn't doing that while the car is driving on the road be potentially dangerous? That sounds like something that should probably be illegal if this is the case. This article has some more information about how it works. Looks like it only disables ignition, doesn't turn the engine off. BigDave fucked around with this message at 20:57 on Jul 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 20:53
|
|
|
EugeneJ posted:Jesus christ. That article has a graph on it of what percent of car loans are subprime. We were at 36%ish in 06 and we're back up to 25% now. It's extremely sad how many people seek out these types of loans because that's all they are eligible for. quote:While his criminal case was pending, the salesman persuaded Mr. Tuhin to buy a used car for 90 percent more than the price he agreed upon. Needing the car to take his daughter, who has a heart condition, to the doctor, Mr. Tuhin said he unwittingly signed for a $26,209 loan with completely different terms than the ones he had reviewed.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 20:58
|
|
|
BigDave posted:This article has some more information about how it works. Looks like it only disables ignition, doesn't turn the engine off. It's still dumb and risky as gently caress. It's basically a lawsuit time-bomb. Think about it: "we were sitting at home and my wife unexpectedly went into labor but I couldn't rush her to the hospital because the lender disabled the ignition on the car."
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2014 00:28
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:It's still dumb and risky as gently caress. It's basically a lawsuit time-bomb. Also it seems like in that case if you couldn't get a ride from family or a neighbor you could just call 911?
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2014 00:39
|
|
|
Some more quality entertainment from the reddit personal finance board. Man doesnt understand interest, or loans, or really anything. and "my friend" has been comiting fraud. quote:I know someone who owns an LLC and sells about 60grand worth of merchandise a year. For the last five years, all purchases during this time have been made with the business card (all personal purchases I mean - groceries, bills, bar tabs, whatever). They have not worked any other jobs, so there are no W2s, nor did this person pay himself through the business. There is also no savings acct as he is living from sale to sale. and of course "I need to go to Australia but nobody will let me borrow money from them." Finally my favorite one "Renting is for plebes." quote:I plan on paying off my credit card debt within 9 months, and then I will concentrate on establishing a savings. I make approximately $1500 a month, so it's not a lot....
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2014 01:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 16:25 |
|
FrozenVent posted:This is relevant to this thread's interest: These articles are always great, and they always boil down to the exact same thing: "We're spending all our money on optional poo poo that could easily be cut or adjusted downward to save us more than the entire income of an average American household. This is the government's fault!" In the meantime, the poors deserve to be poor. If they wanted to be wealthy, they'd curb their luxurious lifestyles and stop wasting money on poo poo like electricity and food.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2014 01:22
|
|
