site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1d ago (text post)   1043 thread views

Friday Fun Thread for May 30, 2025

Be advised: this thread is not for serious in-depth discussion of weighty topics (we have a link for that), this thread is not for anything Culture War related. This thread is for Fun. You got jokes? Share 'em. You got silly questions? Ask 'em.

1
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Court opinion:

  • In year 2012, Michael dies. His two sons, Dennis and Roman, don't bother to probate his will, so Michael's house remains titled in Michael's name. Dennis is left in charge of maintaining the house.

  • In year 2017, the property taxes on the house are not paid. In year 2018, a company spends 7 k$ to buy from the municipal government the right to foreclose on the house.

  • In year 2021, the company starts a foreclosure proceeding against Michael, and serves Dennis with the complaint. Nobody responds to the complaint in court, so in year 2022 the judge declares Michael to have defaulted, and the company successfully forecloses on the house by paying off the delinquent taxes of 55 k$. In year 2023, the company sells the house to a third party for 325 k$, yielding profit of 270 k$.

  • Just a few days before the sale, Roman learns that the house has been foreclosed on. Months after the sale, a year after the foreclosure, and 11 years after Michael's death, Roman finally probates Michael's will, is appointed the administrator of Michael's estate, and in that capacity moves to (1) vacate the foreclosure because he had no notice of it and (2) recoup the 270 k$ of profit under the recent federal Supreme Court decision forbidding the "theft" through foreclosure of home equity in excess of the delinquent taxes.

  • The trial judge denies the motion, and in year 2025 the appeals panel affirms. Service of the complaint on Dennis, who resided at the house, was proper. And the Supreme Court decision prohibiting "home-equity theft" is not retroactive.

Man, that really sucks for Dennis.

This case seems like a great metaphor for America these days: Everyone (but Dennis) did everything by the book, and the court seems to have made the right decision based on the facts, but no one had the decency to knock on Dennis's door a couple of times and let him know of his impending legal doom because he didn't check all the right boxes in the right forms.

Life in America sucks for people who can't / won't jump through legal hoops. Basically everyone I know who is on-again-off-again-homeless has a story like this about how the system fucked them over. But the Man oppressing them is just "doing the right thing by the book". I'm sure there were other problems in the 1800s, but at least the downtrodden/not-quite-dregs of society didn't have to deal with paperwork.

The thing that gets me about all this, is that it took a Supreme Court Case to tell the government "No, you can't steal a half million dollar piece of property from someone to satisfy a debt 1/10th of that." And then the shear fucking balls for the government to turn around and go "Ok, well, now we know that... but it doesn't help you"

And then the sheer fucking balls for the government to turn around and go "Okay, well, now we know that... but it doesn't help you."

To be more specific than my summary at the top of this thread:

  • In general:
    • The federal Supreme Court did not mention retroactivity at all in its opinion.
    • The state supreme court has not yet determined one way or the other whether the federal Supreme Court's prohibition of home-equity theft is retroactive—whether fully or only in lawsuits that were still "in the pipeline" when the federal Supreme Court's decision was issued.
  • In this particular case:
    • Roman admitted that full retroactivity would be unworkable, but argued that pipeline retroactivity still should apply.
    • The trial judge pointed out that pipeline retroactivity is not even available in this case, because the foreclosure process had already ended by the time the federal Supreme Court issued the opinion. The appeals panel agreed with this analysis.

So the question of retroactivity technically still is open, at least in this state (New J*rsey).

I mean, I still just think that's bullshit, even with all the caveats? People were getting away with a literal "free money" glitch by buying liens and then repossessing properties for their full value, as opposed to collecting the debt they may have bought for pennies on the dollar, and then paying out the excess of the sale as should have been legally required all along. I'm indifferent on reversing the lien or foreclosure or any of that. Someone "legally" stole almost half a million dollars in equity from these brothers, regardless of how negligent they were. They should be owed the difference between the value of the home and the debt the estate owed, period, no questions asked.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats