Real Estate Around the State
However, in January 2005 the buyers were served with notice of foreclosure on their properties. According to court documents, [Douglas Wayne] Polley did not disclose that he had taken promissory notes on the properties and told the buyers they did not need title insurance.
“This action induced the victims to refrain from having title checked on the property and allowed Polley the time necessary to obtain additional mortgages on the property,” according to charging information signed by deputy prosecutor Rhett M. Stuard.
The scheme came to light when Landmark Savings Bank foreclosed on the loans Polley had taken out on the properties, said Pat Baldwin, Hendricks County prosecutor.
My question is, is this really a crime, or just bad business decisions. You buy property, you get title search/insurance. If you don’t, you’re a fool. What ever happened to caveat_emptor? Maybe I’m off on this one, but there is a trend in the criminal law to criminalize taking advantage of people’s foolishness. Of course, the prosecutor in this case was probably motivated by the fact that the developer declared bankruptcy after the buyers filed a civil lawsuit.
The reality is that every financial transaction has some level of risk. Being aware of the risks and taking precautions against them is how you avoid unreasonable losses. If you voluntarily decide to enter into a risky transaction, does that make the other party a criminal? If so, then Indiana needs to outlaw casinos taking money from drunk gamblers.
Also in real estate, check out Kevin Leininger’s column in today’s Forte Wayne News-Sentinel “The Tale of Two Barns.” In it, he discusses the dramatically different response 2 property owns got from the Allen County planning commission, despite the fact that they are about 1 mile apart, in similar areas of the county. 1 was zoned residential, one agricultural, though, and the county wants 1 of the barns (in the residential area) torn down. the result is some good discussion about local zoning control:
To be fair, the area surrounding the Tills’ property is not quite as heavily developed as the land near the Rices’ property to the south – although the transformation is beginning there as well. But, in the real world, the projects are not so easily distinguished. Perhaps the law should reflect that.
Sooner or later, the courts will sort out the feud between the county and the Rices, who claim they followed guidelines and are simply being targeted by would-be neighbors who don’t like the looks of their garage. While I was chatting with Rice, a man near the West Autumn neighborhood pool started yelling at him – not all of it printable.
The flap over the Rices’ barn is more proof that local development guidelines need to be tightened. If there was a problem with their project, it should have been caught long before it was – which would have saved the Rices a lot of money and the neighbors a lot of angst.
June 1st, 2006 11:17
I agree it’s foolish on the part of property buyers, but in this case it sounds like the seller was committing fraud. It’s not just that there were liens when he said there weren’t any. It’s that the liens were created by his own actions — he presumably received something of value from taking out the promissory notes; then turned around and knowingly made a material misrepresentation about what he was selling (i.e. lien free property.)
So, I’d say that the buyers are stupid and the seller is a crook.