A man from Fairfield Connecticut, who bought the wooded parcel next to
the home he had grown up in decades earlier and held it for sentimental
reasons, returns to town having been alerted by a friend that a house is
under construction. Looks like the exterior is 2/3 complete.

Nine months earlier, the recording on the land record shows that a man
with the same name as his but from Johannesburg granted power of
attorney to a local attorney to sell the parcel to a developer for
$350,000.

It doesn't appear that the developer was involved in the fraud but I
don't see how the attorney couldn't be.

He's suing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25PIgsJTYMM
https://www.ctinsider.com/columnist/article/house-built-on-fairfield-lot-18261063.php

Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
> A man from Fairfield Connecticut, who bought the wooded parcel next to
> the home he had grown up in decades earlier and held it for sentimental
> reasons, returns to town having been alerted by a friend that a house is
> under construction. Looks like the exterior is 2/3 complete.
>
> Nine months earlier, the recording on the land record shows that a man
> with the same name as his but from Johannesburg granted power of
> attorney to a local attorney to sell the parcel to a developer for
> $350,000.
>
> It doesn't appear that the developer was involved in the fraud but I
> don't see how the attorney couldn't be.
>
> He's suing.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25PIgsJTYMM
> https://www.ctinsider.com/columnist/article/house-built-on-fairfield-lot-18261063.php
>

We have commercials constantly Trying to get you to sign up for a service
for $20 a month. That will tell you if your title has changed hands.

--
The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.

On Sun, 30 Jul 2023 13:42:14 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

>A man from Fairfield Connecticut, who bought the wooded parcel next to
>the home he had grown up in decades earlier and held it for sentimental
>reasons, returns to town having been alerted by a friend that a house is
>under construction. Looks like the exterior is 2/3 complete.
>
>Nine months earlier, the recording on the land record shows that a man
>with the same name as his but from Johannesburg granted power of
>attorney to a local attorney to sell the parcel to a developer for
>$350,000.
>
>It doesn't appear that the developer was involved in the fraud but I
>don't see how the attorney couldn't be.
>
>He's suing.
>
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25PIgsJTYMM
>https://www.ctinsider.com/columnist/article/house-built-on-fairfield-lot-18261063.php

That happened to my grandfather in the early 60s - though in his case
it was uncleared property in a newly subdivided area with lots and
lots of trees about a block for his home. He ended up selling the
builder the lot (at a decent but not appalling markup) and part of the
deal was the builders write him a letter saying he would have been
legally able to say "thank you for building me a nice house".

He was running for federal office (he didn't win) at the time and felt
he didn't need the complication.

On Sun, 30 Jul 2023 06:55:05 -0700, anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net>
wrote:

>We have commercials constantly Trying to get you to sign up for a service
>for $20 a month. That will tell you if your title has changed hands.

We can do that in our jurisdiction through either the municipal web
site (which gives you name and nothing else) or the provincial
assessment authority which gives you owner's name plus current and
previous two years' tax assessment. (Just the final $$$ number, not
the detailed breakdown)

As for the generous price of $ 0.00

On 7/30/2023 9:55 AM, anim8rfsk wrote:
> Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>> A man from Fairfield Connecticut, who bought the wooded parcel next to
>> the home he had grown up in decades earlier and held it for sentimental
>> reasons, returns to town having been alerted by a friend that a house is
>> under construction. Looks like the exterior is 2/3 complete.
>>
>> Nine months earlier, the recording on the land record shows that a man
>> with the same name as his but from Johannesburg granted power of
>> attorney to a local attorney to sell the parcel to a developer for
>> $350,000.
>>
>> It doesn't appear that the developer was involved in the fraud but I
>> don't see how the attorney couldn't be.
>>
>> He's suing.
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25PIgsJTYMM
>> https://www.ctinsider.com/columnist/article/house-built-on-fairfield-lot-18261063.php
>>
>
> We have commercials constantly Trying to get you to sign up for a service
> for $20 a month. That will tell you if your title has changed hands.

Seems you'd need to know if the title was *about* to change hands...

The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Jul 2023 06:55:05 -0700, anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net>
> wrote:
>
>> We have commercials constantly Trying to get you to sign up for a service
>> for $20 a month. That will tell you if your title has changed hands.
>
> We can do that in our jurisdiction through either the municipal web
> site (which gives you name and nothing else) or the provincial
> assessment authority which gives you owner's name plus current and
> previous two years' tax assessment. (Just the final $$$ number, not
> the detailed breakdown)
>
> As for the generous price of $ 0.00
>

Yeah. When the commercial said $19.95 I thought that wasn’t too bad… For a
year. For a month? Forget it.

--
The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.

moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
> On 7/30/2023 9:55 AM, anim8rfsk wrote:
>> Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>> A man from Fairfield Connecticut, who bought the wooded parcel next to
>>> the home he had grown up in decades earlier and held it for sentimental
>>> reasons, returns to town having been alerted by a friend that a house is
>>> under construction. Looks like the exterior is 2/3 complete.
>>>
>>> Nine months earlier, the recording on the land record shows that a man
>>> with the same name as his but from Johannesburg granted power of
>>> attorney to a local attorney to sell the parcel to a developer for
>>> $350,000.
>>>
>>> It doesn't appear that the developer was involved in the fraud but I
>>> don't see how the attorney couldn't be.
>>>
>>> He's suing.
>>>
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25PIgsJTYMM
>>> https://www.ctinsider.com/columnist/article/house-built-on-fairfield-lot-18261063.php
>>>
>>
>> We have commercials constantly Trying to get you to sign up for a service
>> for $20 a month. That will tell you if your title has changed hands.
>
> Seems you'd need to know if the title was *about* to change hands...
>
>
>

That would be nice. You might be able to tell the title company to stop
anybody from taking a loan on it.

--
The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.

The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>On Sun, 30 Jul 2023 06:55:05 -0700, anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:

>>We have commercials constantly Trying to get you to sign up for a service
>>for $20 a month. That will tell you if your title has changed hands.

>We can do that in our jurisdiction through either the municipal web
>site (which gives you name and nothing else) or the provincial
>assessment authority which gives you owner's name plus current and
>previous two years' tax assessment. (Just the final $$$ number, not
>the detailed breakdown)

>As for the generous price of $ 0.00

There is such a thing as an owner's title insurance policy. The seller
provide this insurance to the buyer, which is insuarance against
fraudulent title transfer which can be hard to detect without an expert
in counterfeit signatures. If for some reason you bought the property
without obtaining this, then the buyer can obtain it by paying an
additional fee when he purchases title insurance for the mortgage, as
the latter policy protects the bank's interest only.

On 7/31/2023 5:06 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:
> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>> On 7/30/2023 9:55 AM, anim8rfsk wrote:
>>> Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>> A man from Fairfield Connecticut, who bought the wooded parcel next to
>>>> the home he had grown up in decades earlier and held it for sentimental
>>>> reasons, returns to town having been alerted by a friend that a house is
>>>> under construction. Looks like the exterior is 2/3 complete.
>>>>
>>>> Nine months earlier, the recording on the land record shows that a man
>>>> with the same name as his but from Johannesburg granted power of
>>>> attorney to a local attorney to sell the parcel to a developer for
>>>> $350,000.
>>>>
>>>> It doesn't appear that the developer was involved in the fraud but I
>>>> don't see how the attorney couldn't be.
>>>>
>>>> He's suing.
>>>>
>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25PIgsJTYMM
>>>> https://www.ctinsider.com/columnist/article/house-built-on-fairfield-lot-18261063.php
>>>>
>>>
>>> We have commercials constantly Trying to get you to sign up for a service
>>> for $20 a month. That will tell you if your title has changed hands.
>>
>> Seems you'd need to know if the title was *about* to change hands...
>>
>>
> That would be nice. You might be able to tell the title company to stop
> anybody from taking a loan on it.

I'm wondering how long after the improper transfer until the new owner
is deemed nevertheless to be the "holder in due course".

On Mon, 31 Jul 2023 21:33:47 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

>There is such a thing as an owner's title insurance policy. The seller
>provide this insurance to the buyer, which is insuarance against
>fraudulent title transfer which can be hard to detect without an expert
>in counterfeit signatures. If for some reason you bought the property
>without obtaining this, then the buyer can obtain it by paying an
>additional fee when he purchases title insurance for the mortgage, as
>the latter policy protects the bank's interest only.

True though I strongly suspect most banks would be adverse to being a
co-defendent particularly when most banks have deeper pockets than
fraudsters.

The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>Mon, 31 Jul 2023 21:33:47 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

>>There is such a thing as an owner's title insurance policy. The seller
>>provide this insurance to the buyer, which is insuarance against
>>fraudulent title transfer which can be hard to detect without an expert
>>in counterfeit signatures. If for some reason you bought the property
>>without obtaining this, then the buyer can obtain it by paying an
>>additional fee when he purchases title insurance for the mortgage, as
>>the latter policy protects the bank's interest only.

>True though I strongly suspect most banks would be adverse to being a
>co-defendent particularly when most banks have deeper pockets than
>fraudsters.

The bank wouldn't be the defendant at all but the plaintiff.

On Tue, 1 Aug 2023 19:16:45 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

>The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>>Mon, 31 Jul 2023 21:33:47 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>
>>>There is such a thing as an owner's title insurance policy. The seller
>>>provide this insurance to the buyer, which is insuarance against
>>>fraudulent title transfer which can be hard to detect without an expert
>>>in counterfeit signatures. If for some reason you bought the property
>>>without obtaining this, then the buyer can obtain it by paying an
>>>additional fee when he purchases title insurance for the mortgage, as
>>>the latter policy protects the bank's interest only.
>
>>True though I strongly suspect most banks would be adverse to being a
>>co-defendent particularly when most banks have deeper pockets than
>>fraudsters.
>
>The bank wouldn't be the defendant at all but the plaintiff.

In this situation I would have thought any company who had been
involved in transferring title would be a defendant.

In any case "innocent holder for bond" shouldn't apply when the guilty
party never had title to transfer to the buyer. Allowing the legal
doctrine you suggest (which I do know about) would have the effect of
doubly victimizing the homeowner whose home was stolen.

The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>Tue, 1 Aug 2023 19:16:45 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>>>Mon, 31 Jul 2023 21:33:47 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:

>>>>There is such a thing as an owner's title insurance policy. The seller
>>>>provide this insurance to the buyer, which is insuarance against
>>>>fraudulent title transfer which can be hard to detect without an expert
>>>>in counterfeit signatures. If for some reason you bought the property
>>>>without obtaining this, then the buyer can obtain it by paying an
>>>>additional fee when he purchases title insurance for the mortgage, as
>>>>the latter policy protects the bank's interest only.

>>>True though I strongly suspect most banks would be adverse to being a
>>>co-defendent particularly when most banks have deeper pockets than
>>>fraudsters.

>>The bank wouldn't be the defendant at all but the plaintiff.

>In this situation I would have thought any company who had been
>involved in transferring title would be a defendant.

The bank doesn't transfer title. The buyer obtains title, then instantly
grants a mortgage to the bank. It all happens at closing.

>In any case "innocent holder for bond" shouldn't apply when the guilty
>party never had title to transfer to the buyer. Allowing the legal
>doctrine you suggest (which I do know about) would have the effect of
>doubly victimizing the homeowner whose home was stolen.

With an owner's title policy, he is insured against fraud. The title
insurance exists so that a documents expert watches for fraud. If they
miss something, the owner files a claim.

On Wed, 2 Aug 2023 05:42:00 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

>>In this situation I would have thought any company who had been
>>involved in transferring title would be a defendant.
>
>The bank doesn't transfer title. The buyer obtains title, then instantly
>grants a mortgage to the bank. It all happens at closing.

As a homeowner I obviously know how land titles work. I also know no
mortgage would be advanced without the lending bank being sure on the
documentation.

>>In any case "innocent holder for bond" shouldn't apply when the guilty
>>party never had title to transfer to the buyer. Allowing the legal
>>doctrine you suggest (which I do know about) would have the effect of
>>doubly victimizing the homeowner whose home was stolen.
>
>With an owner's title policy, he is insured against fraud. The title
>insurance exists so that a documents expert watches for fraud. If they
>miss something, the owner files a claim.

I'm clearly going to have to go back and check my own insurance since
having owned my home for a little over 30 years (and made the last
payment about 15 years ago - the missus and I were fanatics about
making the annual principal payments and only made 2 or 3 vacations
during the kids' childhoods - other than that we were pretty indulgent
as were their grandparents)

The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>Wed, 2 Aug 2023 05:42:00 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:

>>>In this situation I would have thought any company who had been
>>>involved in transferring title would be a defendant.

>>The bank doesn't transfer title. The buyer obtains title, then instantly
>>grants a mortgage to the bank. It all happens at closing.

>As a homeowner I obviously know how land titles work. I also know no
>mortgage would be advanced without the lending bank being sure on the
>documentation.

Ok. We're talking about a situation in which the bank hasn't committed
fraud and therefore wouldn't be the defendant. If there's a lawsuit
against the perpetrator of the fraud, the bank would be a plaintiff.

I don't agree with you that the bank was invovled in transferring title.
But BOTH the bank AND the buyer are supposed to have obtained proper
title insurance in order to be protected from a fraudulent title
transfer.

>>>In any case "innocent holder for bond" shouldn't apply when the guilty
>>>party never had title to transfer to the buyer. Allowing the legal
>>>doctrine you suggest (which I do know about) would have the effect of
>>>doubly victimizing the homeowner whose home was stolen.

>>With an owner's title policy, he is insured against fraud. The title
>>insurance exists so that a documents expert watches for fraud. If they
>>miss something, the owner files a claim.

>I'm clearly going to have to go back and check my own insurance since
>having owned my home for a little over 30 years (and made the last
>payment about 15 years ago - the missus and I were fanatics about
>making the annual principal payments and only made 2 or 3 vacations
>during the kids' childhoods - other than that we were pretty indulgent
>as were their grandparents)

I believe you are protected, but in selling, you'd buy a new title
insurance policy to protect against fraud not discovered by closing,
which would protect the buyer.

On Wed, 2 Aug 2023 20:32:46 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

>The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>>Wed, 2 Aug 2023 05:42:00 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:
>
>>>>In this situation I would have thought any company who had been
>>>>involved in transferring title would be a defendant.
>
>>>The bank doesn't transfer title. The buyer obtains title, then instantly
>>>grants a mortgage to the bank. It all happens at closing.
>
>>As a homeowner I obviously know how land titles work. I also know no
>>mortgage would be advanced without the lending bank being sure on the
>>documentation.
>
>Ok. We're talking about a situation in which the bank hasn't committed
>fraud and therefore wouldn't be the defendant. If there's a lawsuit
>against the perpetrator of the fraud, the bank would be a plaintiff.
>
>I don't agree with you that the bank was invovled in transferring title.
>But BOTH the bank AND the buyer are supposed to have obtained proper
>title insurance in order to be protected from a fraudulent title
>transfer.

Didn't say the bank was involved in transferring title - but no
question there's a just a wee bit of "due diligence" on their part
involved. Just a little.

Exempting the mortgagor from any liability removes the incentive for
them to actually do their due diligence.

>>>>In any case "innocent holder for bond" shouldn't apply when the guilty
>>>>party never had title to transfer to the buyer. Allowing the legal
>>>>doctrine you suggest (which I do know about) would have the effect of
>>>>doubly victimizing the homeowner whose home was stolen.
>
>>>With an owner's title policy, he is insured against fraud. The title
>>>insurance exists so that a documents expert watches for fraud. If they
>>>miss something, the owner files a claim.
>
>>I'm clearly going to have to go back and check my own insurance since
>>having owned my home for a little over 30 years (and made the last
>>payment about 15 years ago - the missus and I were fanatics about
>>making the annual principal payments and only made 2 or 3 vacations
>>during the kids' childhoods - other than that we were pretty indulgent
>>as were their grandparents)
>
>I believe you are protected, but in selling, you'd buy a new title
>insurance policy to protect against fraud not discovered by closing,
>which would protect the buyer.

The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>Wed, 2 Aug 2023 20:32:46 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com>:
>>The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>>>Wed, 2 Aug 2023 05:42:00 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:

>>>>>In this situation I would have thought any company who had been
>>>>>involved in transferring title would be a defendant.

>>>>The bank doesn't transfer title. The buyer obtains title, then instantly
>>>>grants a mortgage to the bank. It all happens at closing.

>>>As a homeowner I obviously know how land titles work. I also know no
>>>mortgage would be advanced without the lending bank being sure on the
>>>documentation.

>>Ok. We're talking about a situation in which the bank hasn't committed
>>fraud and therefore wouldn't be the defendant. If there's a lawsuit
>>against the perpetrator of the fraud, the bank would be a plaintiff.

>>I don't agree with you that the bank was invovled in transferring title.
>>But BOTH the bank AND the buyer are supposed to have obtained proper
>>title insurance in order to be protected from a fraudulent title
>>transfer.

>Didn't say the bank was involved in transferring title - but no
>question there's a just a wee bit of "due diligence" on their part
>involved. Just a little.

>Exempting the mortgagor from any liability removes the incentive for
>them to actually do their due diligence.

The bank tries to figure out who the buyer is. I haven't heard that they
have an obligation to attempt to detect fraud in the title chain. That's
why experts from the title company are hired.

I'm just not following why you think the bank is in the wrong here if
title fraud hasn't been discovered, since there are experts who review
documents involved.

When I helped my mother with the massive amount of paperwork to get her
home refinanced a few years ago while rates were still low, the loan
closing took place with an examiner from the title company. They always
check these things. They don't catch all fraud but they do check.

>>>>>. . .