Judge rules it was OK for widow to lose home over $6.30 in unpaid interest

[Autumnlicious]

Inhumanity over the most trite of debts.

REF: http://www.philly.com/philly/news/201404...9be5a.html

BEAVER, Pa. (AP) - A widow was given ample notice before her $280,000 house was sold at a tax auction three years ago over $6.30 in unpaid interest, a Pennsylvania judge has ruled.


The decision last week turned down Eileen Battisti's request to reverse the September 2011 sale of her home outside Aliquippa in western Pennsylvania.

"I paid everything, and didn't know about the $6.30," Battisti said. "For the house to be sold just because of $6.30 is crazy."

If noncompliance was such a problem (which I doubt – there was no mention of refusing to pay), why not simply throw the defendant in jail for a few days to compel payment?

Rotten judge, rotten county.

[Napoléon]

I would of thought a judge, of all people, would understand the difference between the spirit of the law, and the letter of the law. Okay, so by the letter of the law she didn't pay all her debts, but how the fuck is this in the spirit of the law? Fucking stupid as shit.

[Minimalist]

but how the fuck is this in the spirit of the law?

The "laws" are written by crooked bankers via the lawmakers they bribe.

[Jackalope]

Bloody hell, just fucking shoot me now.

This country needs an enema.

[Anomalocaris]

Well, AFAIK, the judge didn't order the sale on account of the $6.30 in interest in the first place He refused to reverse an sale that was already legally made.

It was unfortunate the sale was made. But it was legal, and it has already been made, and the buyer procures it legally and without doing as far as I can tell anything unconscionable. So why should he/she be done out of his/her legally acquired property when he/she did nothing wrong in favor of someone who has done something wrong?

At what point should a buyer stop worrying that his legal purchases, upon which he may have based many plans and staked many interests, could be reversed merely because the original owner was pitiable?

[Zidneya]

Who was this Stupid Judge? The people has the right to know his name.

[Autumnlicious]

Well, AFAIK, the judge didn't order the sale on account of the $6.30 in interest in the first place He refused to reverse an sale that was already legally made.

It was unfortunate the sale was made. But it was legal, and it has already been made, and the buyer procures it legally and without doing as far as I can tell anything unconscionable. So why should he/she be done out of his/her legally acquired property when he/she did nothing wrong in favor of someone who has done something wrong?

There are inconsistencies with giving due notice. The supposed notice was by First Class mail - not registered mail, which requires a signature.

Dependence on a less reliable form of service has opened up easy ways of overturning default judgments - I've been able to make use of that myself.

There also are alternative methods to obtaining the required funds, which were substaintially less than the net worth of the house.

Ultimately, there could've been a more cohesive and careful process.

But, like predatory lenders have exploited to great effect, it is often easier to try for seizing homes over pursuing debts.

You're not wrong.

But you're an asshole.

At what point should a buyer stop worrying that his legal purchases, upon which he may have based many plans and staked many interests, could be reversed merely because the original owner was pitiable?

Because there are suspicions the owner was vulnerable?

That there may have not been proper notice?

That the process may have been rushed?

It's not the first time courts have made premature judgments?

Nuance isn't your strong point it seems.

All I see from you is how much Pharaoh can harden his heart.

[bennyboy]

I almost had my house (which was a rental unit) sold because the property management company wasn't paying the tax. It turns out they were never supposed to, but I didn't know that.

So about $2000 later, and they were going to sell a $150,000 at auction.

My problem-- they just delivered a couple warning letters IN THE MAIL, without bothering to look up my contact info, or to see if a property management company was involved or anything. At any given moment, they just had to spend a few minutes to find my phone number and give me a call.

This was in Canada, btw, in case everyone thinks only the States is that silly.

[Anomalocaris]

You're not wrong.

But you're an asshole.

......
Nuance isn't your strong point it seems.

All I see from you is how much Pharaoh can harden his heart.

The law can't operate on the basis of imposing a wrong in the interest of being kind. When the purchaser followed the correct procedure, the legitimacy of his purchase can't be overturned merely because someone else was right but an asshole.

A pharaoh needs to harden his heart if softening of hearts means the legally obtained interests become susceptible to seizure for merely sentimentality.

[Autumnlicious]

That's absolute bullshit. Judges often have incredible discretion over a great many things.

You keep on arguing that because it appears to be the correct procedure, then it is absolute. I and others have questioned the integrity of the procedure.