[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Uh, what? The second one would obviously not have been a "crime". I doubt the first one would have been, either.

Except in the first one he's accepting money based on the presumption that it is required to remove his name from the title. Something that would be communicated to him.

He had already taken money to do just that, which would be laid out in his original loan agreement, so by accepting that money, he is implicitly stating that he has a right to have his name on the title, or explicitly doing so by signing off on the payment/removal from title of the property.

He isn't entitled to have his name on the title anymore, so accepting payment under the agreement to remove it is straight up fraud.

Having not completed doing the paperwork doesn't entitle him to be paid twice, and it seems to me he is legally obligated to give the money back.