Worst daughter since Lizzie "40 whacks" Borden?

[Bobblehead]

A 91-year-old man wants to stop his daughter from evicting him from the home he built 56 years ago in Zaleski, Ohio, a small community south of Columbus.

Early this year, his daughter and her husband sent Potter an eviction notice, saying they had terminated his "existing lease." An eviction hearing will take place on June 12, during which the judge will have no choice but to evict Potter, Fraley told ABC News.

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/91-ye...6#.UZPy-LXbNQE

I'd like to hear the daughter's side of the story, since this type of issue seems particularly vulnerable to spin, but I don't know what she could say that would make this eviction appear understandable.

From any article I have read, the whole thing is absolutely despicable.

[GGG]

Fraley, a nurse who moved to Columbus, Ohio, from San Diego to be closer to her grandfather, said she has not been on pleasant terms with her mother and stepfather for the last two years or so, when she learned that they had tried to place her grandfather in a nursing home, she said.

So the only way that this would be defensible is if her father needs to go to a nursing home and is refusing to go and she has no other way to get him there other than kicking him out.

Not likely but possible. And it still doesn't explain the deed transfer.

[MoneyGuy]

I thought this thread would have pics of Paulina Gretzky.

[CaptainCrunch]

This is why I couldn't be a judge. I would come out from behind the bench walk up to the daughter and give her an open handed backhand across the mush.

This isn't about the daughter trying to get the Grandfather into Elder care, she defrauded him out of the deed due to the power of attorney and it sounds like she's selling packets of land around the place.

What a horrible thing to do to her father, it sounds like she didn't have the guts to do it personally.

If I was the grandfather, I'd burn the frackin thing to the ground and salt the grass around the place with radioactive isotopes.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by MoneyGuy

I thought this thread would have pics of Paulina Gretzky.

[onetwo_threefour]

I find it interesting that they say that the court would have no option but to evict him. I might try to appeal to the court's equitable jurisdiction to argue that despite the expiry of the limitation period the landlord is not coming to court with clean hands and there has been a judgment that the title was obtained fraudulently. As against her father, her rights in equity should be nil even if she holds legal title. It would be an interesting argument. (/nerd lawyer talk)

Daughter certainly seems despicable based on the article...

[CaptainCrunch]

english damnit

[dissentowner]

Worst daughter ever.

[afc wimbledon]

Thanked for outstanding obscure 19th century crime reference

[onetwo_threefour]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

english damnit

Okay I'll try. The dad should say 'no fair, she stole the house from me and now she wants to kick me out,' and the judge should say, 'well she stole the house from you a long time ago so I can't give you the house back, but I agree she shouldn't be able to kick you out even if you don't pay her any rent, since she did steal it after all.'

I can't charge by the hour for writing it that way though.

(by the way, there are problems with that argument, but it's basically how 'equitable relief' can work. I'm not actually sure how US courts apply equitable principles)

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/91-ye...6#.UZPy-LXbNQE

I'd like to hear the daughter's side of the story, since this type of issue seems particularly vulnerable to spin, but I don't know what she could say that would make this eviction appear understandable.

From any article I have read, the whole thing is absolutely despicable.

Elder abuse plain and simple. I've seen worse, like threatening to withhold relationships with grandchildren unless mom and dad fork over their life savings.

In this case, its basically, "Geez, my dad isn't ever gonna die and I'm not getting any younger. I need my inheritance now while I can still enjoy it."

Pretty disgusting.

Cowperson

[bigtmac19]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

Worst daughter ever.

Good one!

[Rapidfire999]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

Worst daughter ever.

I'm too young to know who this is

[Top Shelf]

Lizzie Borden took an axe
And gave her mother forty whacks.
When she saw what she had done
She gave her father forty-one.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by onetwo_threefour

I find it interesting that they say that the court would have no option but to evict him. I might try to appeal to the court's equitable jurisdiction to argue that despite the expiry of the limitation period the landlord is not coming to court with clean hands and there has been a judgment that the title was obtained fraudulently. As against her father, her rights in equity should be nil even if she holds legal title. It would be an interesting argument. (/nerd lawyer talk)

Daughter certainly seems despicable based on the article...

I like the idea of arguing in equity, no idea if it would work but definitely a good angle.

[ernie]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

Worst daughter ever.

Now now she was acquitted

[Isbrant]

Assuming the information in the article is correct, my understaning is as follows:

The daughter was given power of attorney from her dad. She then transfered the deed to the house to herself which is illegal. The dad realised this in 2010, sued to get the deed back and won. It was appealled and the appeal suceeded because the 4 year statue of limitations for fraud had passed. I read it as the appeal court agreed she had got the deed illegally but beacuse it was a while ago there is nothing they can do. The daughter wants to evict the dad or sell him the house.

Assuming that is true, is there nothing else she can be charged with? If the dad buys his house back can the daughter be charged with sale of stolen goods or something? It just seems very wrong that if everyone agrees she stole the house, there is nothing that can be done about it. Or am I missing something?

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Isbrant

Assuming the information in the article is correct, my understaning is as follows:

The daughter was given power of attorney from her dad. She then transfered the deed to the house to herself which is illegal. The dad realised this in 2010, sued to get the deed back and won. It was appealled and the appeal suceeded because the 4 year statue of limitations for fraud had passed. I read it as the appeal court agreed she had got the deed illegally but beacuse it was a while ago there is nothing they can do. The daughter wants to evict the dad or sell him the house.

Assuming that is true, is there nothing else she can be charged with? If the dad buys his house back can the daughter be charged with sale of stolen goods or something? It just seems very wrong that if everyone agrees she stole the house, there is nothing that can be done about it. Or am I missing something?

Odds are he knew about the transfer at the time, in most places the statute of limitations would not start running until someone had, or should have had, knowledge of the fraudulent act. The court basically said 'you knew for 4 years and didn't do anything about it so now it's too late'.

Once someone has valid title in property it's very difficult for a court to change that, property rights are really at the heart of common law systems. She has valid title now, and there doesn't appear to be any way to defeat that. What onetwo_threefour said above provides a possible solution by appealing to equity, which is basically a way for courts to avoid strict legal outcomes that would result in unfair outcomes. I'm not sure how that would work here, possibly by denying the daughter the ability to evict or the ability to retain profits from a sale.

[CaptainCrunch]

No judge would send a 92 year old man to prison if in a state of old guy confusion he accidentally set her house on fire making her homesless after burning his own house down.

When I get ready to check out, I'm totally employing a scorched earth policy.

[Isbrant]

[QUOTE=valo403;4250856]Odds are he knew about the transfer at the time, in most places the statute of limitations would not start running until someone had, or should have had, knowledge of the fraudulent act. The court basically said 'you knew for 4 years and didn't do anything about it so now it's too late'.
QUOTE]

Looks like you are right and the article is wrong. According to Ohio law, the statute of limitations for fraud starts when the fraud is discovered. From here:

http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2305.09

It still sucks for the dad but makes the whole thing more understandable from the legal side of things.