If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Orlando Sentinel)   Before you build your $1.4 million dollar home, you might want to check if there are any mega million dollar liens on the property you purchased first   (orlandosentinel.com) divider line 85
    More: Florida, Todd Kobrin, County Records, Volusia County  
•       •       •

13384 clicks; posted to Main » on 18 Aug 2013 at 4:26 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



85 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-08-18 01:20:34 PM
how is this even a problem?
The lien is against the previous property owner, not the current owner.
What kind of society would ever allow this kind of retardation be law??

oh wait, never mind, I forgot that we live in america, land of the duh
 
2013-08-18 01:30:00 PM

namatad: The lien is against the previous property owner, not the current owner.


The lien is attached to the property. It is security so that if the property is sold, the lienor gets paid before the seller. If you pay the seller in contravention of the lien, you can be personally liable to the lienor. This is not a bizarre or puzzling practice that is somehow endemic to America; it is hundreds of years old and a fundamental component of the law of property and conveyances.
 
2013-08-18 01:33:51 PM
He did, subtard.  What he didn;t do was to make sure the lawyer you have doing the title check and handle the transaction isn't the goddamn son of the guy selling you the property.

Basically, the guy got taken by a bunch of shysters.  I hope his suit goes through, but I doubt he'll get full satisfaction.
 
2013-08-18 01:36:37 PM
While this could have occurred anywhere, I'm now conditioned to respond to the tag thusly:


24.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-08-18 01:50:01 PM

Benevolent Misanthrope: Basically, the guy got taken by a bunch of shysters. I hope his suit goes through, but I doubt he'll get full satisfaction.


If they get hit for fraud (whether actual or constructive) he may actually get more than full satisfaction.
 
2013-08-18 01:53:49 PM
Rich peoples problems.
 
2013-08-18 02:02:47 PM

kronicfeld: Benevolent Misanthrope: Basically, the guy got taken by a bunch of shysters. I hope his suit goes through, but I doubt he'll get full satisfaction.

If they get hit for fraud (whether actual or constructive) he may actually get more than full satisfaction.


I'll believe it when I see it.  The way this is going, the judge will be the lawyer's uncle.

The whole thing stinks.
 
2013-08-18 02:06:15 PM

Benevolent Misanthrope: I'll believe it when I see it. The way this is going, the judge will be the lawyer's uncle.


We represented a plaintiff in a legal malpractice/fraud case a few years ago where his attorney had an undisclosed interest in a parcel of land the client purchased. Attorney got hammered.
 
2013-08-18 02:21:55 PM
Ohhhh the title company really farked that one up. Dayum.
 
2013-08-18 03:01:02 PM

kronicfeld: namatad: The lien is against the previous property owner, not the current owner.

The lien is attached to the property. It is security so that if the property is sold, the lienor gets paid before the seller. If you pay the seller in contravention of the lien, you can be personally liable to the lienor. This is not a bizarre or puzzling practice that is somehow endemic to America; it is hundreds of years old and a fundamental component of the law of property and conveyances.


MORAN
did you miss the final sentence?
nothing personal, but SARCASM is an adult-education class that the sarcasm impaired can take to help them "learn" to detect sarcasm in the wild.

lol
 
2013-08-18 03:02:52 PM

kronicfeld: Benevolent Misanthrope: I'll believe it when I see it. The way this is going, the judge will be the lawyer's uncle.

We represented a plaintiff in a legal malpractice/fraud case a few years ago where his attorney had an undisclosed interest in a parcel of land the client purchased. Attorney got hammered.


did he lose his license and go to prison? and pay millions in fines?
because that would be a good start ...
 
2013-08-18 04:32:10 PM

namatad: kronicfeld: namatad: The lien is against the previous property owner, not the current owner.

The lien is attached to the property. It is security so that if the property is sold, the lienor gets paid before the seller. If you pay the seller in contravention of the lien, you can be personally liable to the lienor. This is not a bizarre or puzzling practice that is somehow endemic to America; it is hundreds of years old and a fundamental component of the law of property and conveyances.

MORAN
did you miss the final sentence?
nothing personal, but SARCASM is an adult-education class that the sarcasm impaired can take to help them "learn" to detect sarcasm in the wild.

lol


nice try

o wait, NOT
 
2013-08-18 04:32:29 PM
This is why you never buy property without some form of quitclaim deed.  And anyway, you never buy property without checking for liens against it.  It's not hard to do, liens are posted with the county.
 
2013-08-18 04:32:53 PM
A million million dollar lien? An extremely good million dollar lien? A lien by a lottery game?
 
2013-08-18 04:34:01 PM
If he had title insurance then why is he suing? The title company pays and then they sue whoever needs to be sued. Note: Always get a damned home inspection and damned title insurance.
 
2013-08-18 04:37:11 PM

Incontinent_dog_and_monkey_rodeo: This is why you never buy property without some form of quitclaim deed.  And anyway, you never buy property without checking for liens against it.  It's not hard to do, liens are posted with the county.


That would involve actual effort on the part of the plaintiff; so, there for and forth with, that's racist toward the plaintiff. Unless the plaintiff is white.
 
2013-08-18 04:37:43 PM
The buyer did everything right.  What went wrong was that the guy he got to ensure that there were no liens on the property had a vested interest in making sure that the property got sold, lien or no lien.

So, he lied and said there was no lien.  It's a basic breach of contract and the seller is going to lose everything.
 
2013-08-18 04:38:25 PM
That is an awesome website. Fullscreen popups that can't be closed are a sure way to get lots of viewers and subscribers.
 
2013-08-18 04:39:32 PM

Incontinent_dog_and_monkey_rodeo: This is why you never buy property without some form of quitclaim deed.  And anyway, you never buy property without checking for liens against it.  It's not hard to do, liens are posted with the county.


Also... who the hell doesn't do a discovery on the property when paying that kind of scratch? That would have turned up 5 minutes in.
 
2013-08-18 04:40:36 PM
TFA: "Somebody missed that ($12.6 million) judgment in the title search,"

That's some fine title searching there, Lou.
 
2013-08-18 04:41:54 PM

LadySusan: If he had title insurance then why is he suing? The title company pays and then they sue whoever needs to be sued. Note: Always get a damned home inspection and damned title insurance.


According to TFA, the buyer *did* have title insurance, but not enough to pay off a $12M lien on a property valued at only $3M.  My guess is that he's screwed - the sellers don't have the money either.
 
2013-08-18 04:44:05 PM

LadySusan: If he had title insurance then why is he suing? The title company pays and then they sue whoever needs to be sued. Note: Always get a damned home inspection and damned title insurance.


Because the buyer has title insurance for $750K.  The buyer has about $2 million in it.  And, the buyer got title insurance.  The problem is, the seller and/or his law firm wrote the policy and failed to disclose the lien.

This will end with the title company paying the $750K policy limit to the lienor, and then suing the attorney.  And probably criminal charges.  And certainly a bar complaint.
 
2013-08-18 04:45:05 PM

Incontinent_dog_and_monkey_rodeo: This is why you never buy property without some form of quitclaim deed.  And anyway, you never buy property without checking for liens against it.  It's not hard to do, liens are posted with the county.


Not all possible liens apparently.   I was getting a mortgage a while back, and had to prove I had no liens against another property I own.   Well, proving a negative is impossible.  I had to get all sorts of different searches done, pain in the ass.  But there were a lot more than just checking with the county, and there still could have been other judgements/liens/whatever against the property that wouldn't have turned up.
 
2013-08-18 04:45:38 PM

Incontinent_dog_and_monkey_rodeo: This is why you never buy property without some form of quitclaim deed.  And anyway, you never buy property without checking for liens against it.  It's not hard to do, liens are posted with the county.


In that sale, Philip Kobrin signed an affidavit - which had been prepared by his son - declaring that there were no judgments or liens that encumbered the property, the suit alleges.

He hired somebody to do that and they farked him.
 
2013-08-18 04:47:50 PM
FTA: One month later, the Kobrins took the title to it in exchange for forgiving Kodsi's $650,000 debt, records show.

So if I get this straight, lawyer's dad owned the property.  He probably knew about the lien, but he found some guy to take the property to forgive 650k in debt, so he was able to get the benefit of the sales without any money going for the property which, if it had been sold, would have immediately had to be paid to the lien owner.

In the end, the lawyer's  father probably doesn't have anything close to 12mil in assets and will just declare bankruptcy or something.  Though what should happen is that him and his son get thrown in jail for fraud and lawyer loses his effin' license.  Not sure how the sucker who took the title will ever be able to get away from that house though.
 
2013-08-18 04:48:35 PM

LadySusan: If he had title insurance then why is he suing? The title company pays and then they sue whoever needs to be sued. Note: Always get a damned home inspection and damned title insurance.


FTFA: "Jensen, ..., said he had title insurance to cover the value of the land but not enough to cover Kodsi's lien. "

Considering that the lien was several times the worth of the property even after the house that the new owner built on it, that sounds pretty reasonable to me, though I'll admit I haven't bought a house and am not well-versed in the intricacies of title insurance.
 
2013-08-18 04:48:47 PM
And this, boys and girls, is what title insurance is for.
 
2013-08-18 04:54:03 PM

jaytkay: TFA: "Somebody missed that ($12.6 million) judgment in the title search,"

That's some fine title searching there, Lou.


^^^^^^^^
 
2013-08-18 04:58:21 PM
Wait, a $12M lien on a $3M property? Is that even legal?
 
2013-08-18 05:04:17 PM

Morpher59: My guess is that he's screwed - the sellers don't have the money either.


I dunno about that... the sellers aren't the people who the $12m judgment was recorded against; they "inherited" the lien from that person. One of the sellers works at a high-powered law firm -- listed as the 190th biggest in the US by number of attorneys by Wikipedia -- so I could imagine that they together have a fair bit of money, especially when you start talking about their liability insurance (assuming it would kick in). Enough to cover the lien? I don't know. But if the buyer can get that law firm in on the judgment, there'd be basically no question that there are enough assets.

I have a silly question though. So he bought the property, then built a house on it. Suppose he wants to sell. If he doesn't actually get enough money to cover the lien, can he just say to the lien-holder "fine, I'll sell it at a loss, but you only get the property valuation and I get the valuation of the house" and if the lien-holder says no, then he burns down the house? Or moves it off-site? Would that be legal?
 
2013-08-18 05:05:22 PM

Jument: Wait, a $12M lien on a $3M property? Is that even legal?


Likely a judgment lien that has nothing at all to do with the property itself.
 
2013-08-18 05:08:26 PM
Ah, real estate. A investment. You own it. And, you should have known this despite paying thousands of dollars to various "professionals" who probably knew this but didn't tell you.
 
2013-08-18 05:09:58 PM
Mobile version is absolutely farked. Can somebody please copy/paste for me?
 
2013-08-18 05:10:32 PM

kronicfeld: Benevolent Misanthrope: I'll believe it when I see it. The way this is going, the judge will be the lawyer's uncle.

We represented a plaintiff in a legal malpractice/fraud case a few years ago where his attorney had an undisclosed interest in a parcel of land the client purchased. Attorney got hammered.


Jurisdiction?
 
2013-08-18 05:13:02 PM

catmander: LadySusan: If he had title insurance then why is he suing? The title company pays and then they sue whoever needs to be sued. Note: Always get a damned home inspection and damned title insurance.

Because the buyer has title insurance for $750K.  The buyer has about $2 million in it.  And, the buyer got title insurance.  The problem is, the seller and/or his law firm wrote the policy and failed to disclose the lien.

This will end with the title company paying the $750K policy limit to the lienor, and then suing the attorney.  And probably criminal charges.  And certainly a bar complaint.


I understand the purpose and necessity of having liens on real property, but what purpose does allowing a $12 million lien on a $750,000 property serve? Wouldn't that basically put the property in limbo forever? Nobody would ever buy the property if they were going to get nailed with that kind of liability (unless, obviously, they got scammed by a crooked lawyer), and the original lien-holder would never get paid. I can see a lien for up to the actual value of the property, and the onus should be on the seller to make sure that the lien gets paid. I realize that's not how the law works, but it seems to me that it should.
 
2013-08-18 05:15:03 PM

ThatGuyGreg: And this, boys and girls, is what title insurance is for.


This, in my opinion the seller sold the property with out revealing the lien on purpose knowing otherwise no one in their right mind would touch it.
 
2013-08-18 05:17:20 PM

kronicfeld: Jument: Wait, a $12M lien on a $3M property? Is that even legal?

Likely a judgment lien that has nothing at all to do with the property itself.


I'm confused too. How can you get a lien on a property that is 4 times greater than the value of the property itself?
 
2013-08-18 05:18:53 PM
Of course the whole point of getting that damn lawyer in the first place is to protect you for that one in 10,000 chance there is some sort of lien or other legal skullduggery (and charge you 1000's to photocopy a bunch of documents)

Of course, it won't help in that one in one-in-10 million chance you wind up with a crooked lawyer....
 
2013-08-18 05:23:12 PM
Jensen built a $1.4 million, 8,500-square-foot home on the lot last year. According to Orange County property records, the land and home are worth $2.2 million. Jensen's suit places its value at $3.45 million.

Jensen's suit accuses the Kobrins of negligence, fraudulent misrepresentation and breach of warranty. It seeks $12.6 million in damages plus interest.


As they say on those TV court shows, court is not a bonanza.  Court is about making you whole.  No way in Hell is he going to get $12,600,000 dollars for a property that's worth $2,200,000 (which is rounded up from the actual $2,160,000).  Assuming he wins, the most he should get is the $2,160,000 that he's out and the title (with its lein) goes back to the owner who can enjoy his new house with zero equity.

Of course, good farking luck getting a penny of any kind of judgement out of the seller because he's obviously a scumbag who doesn't pay his debts.  The money he got in the sale was in the Caymans 24 hours after escrow closed.

And WTF happened to the title insurance?  Isn't that supposed to cover this sort of thing?
 
2013-08-18 05:24:59 PM

MrSplifferton: FTA: One month later, the Kobrins took the title to it in exchange for forgiving Kodsi's $650,000 debt, records show.

So if I get this straight, lawyer's dad owned the property.  He probably knew about the lien, but he found some guy to take the property to forgive 650k in debt, so he was able to get the benefit of the sales without any money going for the property which, if it had been sold, would have immediately had to be paid to the lien owner.

In the end, the lawyer's  father probably doesn't have anything close to 12mil in assets and will just declare bankruptcy or something.  Though what should happen is that him and his son get thrown in jail for fraud and lawyer loses his effin' license.  Not sure how the sucker who took the title will ever be able to get away from that house though.


Other way around: the lawyer's dad took the property to forgive a debt. He might not have known about the lien at the time, but if so it was his idiocy in not checking and he got totally taken by the debtor.

It was kinda confusing because the lawyer and debtor have such similar names.
 
2013-08-18 05:27:16 PM

Day_Old_Dutchie: Of course the whole point of getting that damn lawyer in the first place is to protect you for that one in 10,000 chance there is some sort of lien or other legal skullduggery (and charge you 1000's to photocopy a bunch of documents)

Of course, it won't help in that one in one-in-10 million chance you wind up with a crooked lawyer....


One in 10 million for a crooked lawyer? All lawyers are crooked; but, to differing degrees. I imagine that the majority of lawyers fall under lawful evil. This lawyer, however, falls under chaotic evil.
 
2013-08-18 05:55:20 PM

iheartscotch: Day_Old_Dutchie: Of course the whole point of getting that damn lawyer in the first place is to protect you for that one in 10,000 chance there is some sort of lien or other legal skullduggery (and charge you 1000's to photocopy a bunch of documents)

Of course, it won't help in that one in one-in-10 million chance you wind up with a crooked lawyer....

One in 10 million for a crooked lawyer? All lawyers are crooked; but, to differing degrees. I imagine that the majority of lawyers fall under lawful evil. This lawyer, however, falls under chaotic evil.


Not all lawyers.  Bankruptcy lawyers don't need to be evil.
 
2013-08-18 05:58:31 PM
A lien is not limited by the value of the property because it's set based on the debt the property owner owes. The property value has nothing to do with it, other than whether it's worth putting a lien on it. This example seems extreme, but real estate value can appreciate rapidly. If the lienholder is lucky, it could cover much more of the debt in the future.
 
2013-08-18 06:04:33 PM

Skirl Hutsenreiter: MrSplifferton: FTA: One month later, the Kobrins took the title to it in exchange for forgiving Kodsi's $650,000 debt, records show.

So if I get this straight, lawyer's dad owned the property.  He probably knew about the lien, but he found some guy to take the property to forgive 650k in debt, so he was able to get the benefit of the sales without any money going for the property which, if it had been sold, would have immediately had to be paid to the lien owner.

In the end, the lawyer's  father probably doesn't have anything close to 12mil in assets and will just declare bankruptcy or something.  Though what should happen is that him and his son get thrown in jail for fraud and lawyer loses his effin' license.  Not sure how the sucker who took the title will ever be able to get away from that house though.

Other way around: the lawyer's dad took the property to forgive a debt. He might not have known about the lien at the time, but if so it was his idiocy in not checking and he got totally taken by the debtor.

It was kinda confusing because the lawyer and debtor have such similar names.


Oh, it was Jensen who got screwed and paid 750k for the property.  So did all that money go against the original lien?  Huh, not sure what the hell is happening at this point.  Looks like a bunch of tards playing Monopoly, then.

Seems like the lawyer didn't do proper research since he was involved in both sales, I'm sure they would have never accepted that property as debt payment if they knew it had a lien that was almost 20x what the debt was.
 
2013-08-18 06:06:25 PM

iheartscotch: All lawyers are crooked


Derp.
 
2013-08-18 06:13:58 PM

NutWrench: kronicfeld: Jument: Wait, a $12M lien on a $3M property? Is that even legal?

Likely a judgment lien that has nothing at all to do with the property itself.

I'm confused too. How can you get a lien on a property that is 4 times greater than the value of the property itself?


As he said, it's a judgement lien.

IE, someone sued the owner on an another manner and the judgement from that suit resulted in a lien against all the guy's major physical assets, ie, that property.
 
2013-08-18 06:22:04 PM
I think I remember buying insurance for this type of thing when I bought my place.
 
2013-08-18 06:24:29 PM

jtown: Jensen built a $1.4 million, 8,500-square-foot home on the lot last year. According to Orange County property records, the land and home are worth $2.2 million. Jensen's suit places its value at $3.45 million.

Jensen's suit accuses the Kobrins of negligence, fraudulent misrepresentation and breach of warranty. It seeks $12.6 million in damages plus interest.

As they say on those TV court shows, court is not a bonanza.  Court is about making you whole.  No way in Hell is he going to get $12,600,000 dollars for a property that's worth $2,200,000 (which is rounded up from the actual $2,160,000).  Assuming he wins, the most he should get is the $2,160,000 that he's out and the title (with its lein) goes back to the owner who can enjoy his new house with zero equity.

Of course, good farking luck getting a penny of any kind of judgement out of the seller because he's obviously a scumbag who doesn't pay his debts.  The money he got in the sale was in the Caymans 24 hours after escrow closed.

And WTF happened to the title insurance?  Isn't that supposed to cover this sort of thing?


If he planned to build the house and live in it for some years then he would need the $12m to make him whole. What he should have is ownership of a property with no liens against it, free for him to sell at any time and keep the money. At the moment the only way for him to get that is to get $12m to pay off the debt.
If he lives in the house for ten or twenty years then the house will rise in value but it will all be swallowed up by the lien until the value reaches £12m.
 
2013-08-18 06:29:41 PM

ThatGuyGreg: And this, boys and girls, is what title insurance is for.


Again, he HAD title insurance...just not an assload of title insurance.

Why, yes, "assload" IS a legal term...
 
2013-08-18 06:31:12 PM

DrewCurtisJr: I think I remember buying insurance for this type of thing when I bought my place.


Good...I recommend title insurance to all my clients.

But you probably didn't get fifteen times the property value in title insurance...
 
Displayed 50 of 85 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report