https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvice/comments/16pubsd/elderly_father_was_convinced_to_sign_over_the/
This fuckhead is probably only mad about it because he wants it for inheritance.
Why is an elderly man with memory loss depending on parasitism for income? He should be receiving assistance from the state, his old job, and/or children. Capitalists show this type of shit to me and smugly stand there waiting for me to admit that they are moral and upstanding people.
his old job
He should be collecting a pension from all those years working at the land factory
Just because he owns rental property now doesn’t mean it was always the case. The average American dreams of being and landlords for passive income when they become old because retirement benefits are a joke
The average American dreams of becoming the ultimate parasite throughout their entire life. Landlord is next to giving up for them.
Read the first paragraph and thought this was going to be some predatory scam company robbing a mentally unsound old man of his home and thought "What the fuck, why would you laugh at that"
Then I read the rest and was like
man who lives in this rental property convinced him to to sign over the deed to the rental house
Based, landlords like the Reddit thread’s OP deserve :gulag:
Nah this aint the take here, yeah landlord bad but with no social safety net what can the elderly man actually do otherwise?
Execute his will’s provisions now while he’s still alive and live off the state and any remaining Social Security checks. US policy only really gives help when you’ve finally ran out of money…
I would not want to live off of United States social security if I had severe short term memory loss
The alternative for the market is just someone else probably renting the building out anyway. Would rather have a disabled old man as a landlord than some corporate slime
disabled old man as a landlord
Perhaps, but what happens when he passes away?
ghoul son takes over sure but I still think it's bad to con a disabled person out of their only viable income...
Why is this random stranger expected to support this old man until death instead of the old man's family or the government? Its on them to figure out a way to support the old man now that he can't extort someone for a living. Like what are they even offering this guy in exchange for taking care of their father? Nothing but litigation? Guess the old man wasn't that important.
Here it is disabled old man as landlord, or owning the goddamn house yourself though.
Does something immoral become moral because a disabled person is doing it? Wouldn't tricking an able bodied/minded landlord into giving up their property be good? Or do you think we have to just be better than our enemies at all moments?
Landlords delenda est
Correct. If I somehow had the chance to persuade Biden to leak state secrets while he was sundowning, I would.
What is this take? He can do the same as anyone in his position who doesn't own an extra house does. Why should some random person be expected to support him? The tenant could do more good donating the rent money to a charitable organization helping elderly in need - but then we should ask why we're asking that of that tenant specifically. We don't know what the elderly man's financial situation looks like but it's obviously not the tenant's responsibility to support him.
What is this take? He can do the same as anyone in his position who doesn't own an extra house does.
This is only really available in hindsight. The old man doesn't have the time nor money to figure out a new retirement strategy, especially if a rental property was just signed over. The best situation would be to sell the house and hopefully live off the investment from that until he passes. What's not good is is removing a source of retirement income from someone when they don't have a fallback.
Removing landlords as an occupation while ensuring a minimum standard of living is good. Swindling an old man out of his retirement plan for personal gain and possible throwing him into the streets without a safety net is not.
Absolutely ridiculous. That's like saying we shouldn't free elderly people's slaves because they need them to care for them. The elderly man isn't going to be "thrown into the streets" because he already has a home. Again, you have no basis to assume that this is his only source of income or that he doesn't have sufficient savings. He at the very least has family, like the person who made this post.
And what about the tenant? For all we know they could be elderly and disabled too, only they weren't rich enough to "plan for retirement" by setting up a situation where they can steal rent from someone else. They could be saddled with medical debt, they could be a single mother trying to support a family, if you get to speculate about the landlord's situation then I get to speculate about the tenant's.
Completely bizarre pro-landlord takes on Hexbear, can't believe what I'm seeing. It's not the tenant's responsibility.
The elderly man isn't going to be "thrown into the streets" because he already has a home. Again, you have no basis to assume that this is his only source of income or that he doesn't have sufficient savings. He at the very least has family, like the person who made this post.
Property taxes, medical expenses, etc etc. Being retired and owning a home doesn't mean you suddenly stop having to pay for things. They presumably live in shithole america where if you don't have the money to retire when you get older you just die in the streets. It's very reasonable to assume that if a significant source of your income disappeared overnight you wouldn't be in a great place.
And what about the tenant? For all we know they could be elderly and disabled too, only they weren't rich enough to "plan for retirement" by setting up a situation where they can steal rent from someone else.
Even in this situation, it would just be someone poorer fucking over someone else for personal gain. Stocks are unethical too, but if your retirement account was stolen by someone to pay for their medical expenses you'd still feel it unjustified. Landlords as a class should be eliminated, but that doesn't mean literally senile landlords should be left with no safety net.
It's not the tenant's responsibility.
It's an unequal exchange that could end up in the elderly man losing his home due to loss of income. If the tenant had paid the cost of the house in rent, you'd be more justified in thinking this. If the tenant had only been living there for a few years, then it's a different story. You don't get to play "not my responsibility" when one party is directly responsible for the state of the other.
if your retirement account was stolen by someone to pay for their medical expenses you'd still feel it unjustified.
Which is exactly why I don't approve of the landlord stealing rent.
You don't get to play "not my responsibility" when one party is directly responsible for the state of the other.
Oh, I didn't realize the tenant was the one collecting property taxes, causing the landlord's disabilities, or crafting policy such that they wouldn't have a safety net.
The tenant is not directly responsible for the landlord's state. He's just not relieving the landlord's state by giving him money out of his own pocket. He is no more responsible for giving him money then you are. You could track down the user and offer to venmo them every month, and the fact that you're not doing so makes you exactly as "directly responsible" for his state as the tenant's actions.
It is like comunism has a specific bias against rent seeking behavior and the system of lordship that still remains as a remnant fo the feudal order.
That's not comparable. The 401k is not extracting value from one specific person who could then end that exploitation by obtaining it, like what's happening here.
Swindling an old man out of his retirement plan for personal gain and possible throwing him into the streets without a safety net is not.
If the old man is a landlord, yeah it is. It's the least he deserves.
yes haha funny but the conditions are clearly different, this guy owns one property compared to a farmstead with acres and slaves and the ability to kill or take your daughter's with impunity. If the state dispossessed the guy of his home to give him an actual social safety plan it would be completely fine.
So, in the meantime, it’s cool that the burden of paying for this man’s retirement plan is placed onto the proletarians who pay the rent?
If a homeless person were suddenly gifted the deed to a house, would it be okay if they started renting it out for passive income? After all, there’s no social safety net, and this is the one opportunity they’ve been granted to gain stability. What are they supposed to do? Not take advantage of that? Call me a utopian, but yeah, they shouldn’t.
Renting out a property simply shifts the burden that you take onto the less fortunate. It’s a fundamentally capitalist act. I’m not sorry for being a dick to this old man. If he planned to retire using the funds siphoned from people simply seeking shelter, he should have understood the inherent risks that come with such a plan and the burden he has thus shifted over to his tenants.
Finding yourself oppressed in a capitalist system is not some magical moral hand-wave that allows you to conscientiously take up the position of the oppressor. Is he a victim of circumstance? Maybe. Sucks for him. Shouldn’t have staked his retirement on landlordism
for me, it depends if the homeless person is capable of other work
I'll just leave it at personally it's not something I would be able to do unless the old man was a truly vile human.
I was told landlords did a lot of work to earn their money? If he's clearly well enough to do such intense labor like owning property then he must be in good mental condition.
Totally agree. But I wouldnt like it if someone misled my parents like this and took the house they actually live in, so I dont like this.
It was not depriving someone of ownership of the house they lived in but precisely the opposite of that, granting someone that ownership.
The problem is your orginal statement. "Wanting the law to be upheld only in situations you like" would cover your parents. A law system that would not invoke such a desire cannot exist in a society that still has landlords.
Yeah, we should ban landleeches. Unfortunately that wont happen cause money talks.
Who the fuck wants racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, and anti-worker capitalist laws upheld?
'The rule of law' is a cloud of toxic farts youve been sniffing your whole life while the ruling class hang out on their mega yachts and in their towers (breaking any and all 'laws' they want)
all landlords should be given the choice between immediate execution and having their property expropriated, and having their property expropriated
Who the fuck wants racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, and anti-worker capitalist laws upheld?
Not me. Do you?
‘The rule of law’ is a cloud of toxic farts youve been sniffing your whole life while the ruling class hang out on their mega yachts and in their towers (breaking any and all ‘laws’ they want)
Totally agree.
all landlords should be given the choice between immediate execution and having their property expropriated, and having their property expropriated
Thats fine. Everything youve said has fuck all to do with everything Ive said...
U said "u can't just not want the law to be upheld in some situations" so his question "do u want racist, sexist, etc laws to be upheld" Is a relevant question I am curious abt ur answer btw because uve given 2 seperate answers
We cant just want the law to be upheld in situations we like dude.
If your stance is the destruction of the state, then using or avoiding its legal system by whatever means necessary to further the project of undermining it is a coherent position.
You don't have some hot take. You have no idea what you're talking about. Literally no one here only wants renters to only take possession of their homes in special cases, nor do we give a fuck about laws that protect landlords.
Do you have no reading compreshension? Take the landlord element out of it.
Because I have reading comprehension I understand that you made am ambiguous statement. In my generosity I interpreted you as saying something much less dumb. If your take is that we need to obey the laws that benefit the rich and powerful because if we don't how are we going to enforce drunk driving or age of consent that's some real smooth brain shit.
So yeah sorry for giving you the benefit of the doubt don't worry it won't happen again
This is so well written I can't disagree with it. My original concern still remains, however.
This particular property was neglected because I didn't know he owned it until I gained access to his accounts and saw the monthly rental payments
Oh I just forgot that I had a fucking deed and tenant lying around
/r/legaladvice
This sub is probably mostly cops and maybe some law students. Their takes are extremely pro cop and often objectively wrong. Actual lawyers would face getting disbarred for giving out anonymous advice on the internet, even if giving advice based on Reddit posts wasn't incredibly negligent in the first place.
My father's estate lawyers have been notified...
Then what the actual fuck are you doing on Reddit asking for legal advice? Talk to the qualified and trained professional, you idiot.
Redditors believe Redditors are the smartest group of people that exist that's why
Because when his land leech father lost the sons inheritance, his second most important thought was about the upvotes.
This sub is probably mostly cops and maybe some law students.
From what I remember almost all of the moderation team are cops yeah.
If memory serves, the head mod is a former cop, not a lawyer, and there’s been drama about them getting pissy when people point out their sage legal opinions are horseshit.
The funniest outcome of this would be the father putting his foot down and being all “Jim’s been a good tenant, he deserves that house more than my dead beat son!”
Maybe dad's just try to right his wrongs before he goes to meet his maker.
