BUYING HOUSES REALLY CHEAP: GREAT DEALS WITH BAD TITLE? BUYER BEWARE

Above: The Brooklyn Bridge (always
for sale at a good price). 
Source: PublicDomainPictures.Net

Have you heard (or read) the news feature that is zipping around the web -- homes around the country that can be purchased for less than the cost of a car?  Homes for $100,000; $50,000; even $7000?  (Read all the mouth-watering details here.)

Well, it's tempting to start surfing around for the bargains.  However, before you get serious here there's a little, teensy legal issue to consider:  solid legal title to the property. 

The whole thing about this ForeclosureFraud scandal is because it's not always true that the person selling the real property has legal title to it, no matter how sincerely they think that they do.  Likewise, there are mortgage-holders that are paying monthly payments (or negotiating because they can't make those payments) with institutions who have no legal right to be involved; they don't have a legitimate assignment of the loan.

It appears that most of these bargains are bank-owned, and they are selling the properties with lots of verbiage tagged to the deal (things like "as is," the buyer has to investigate homestead status, etc.). 

Consider the case law coming out of Massachusetts now, with lots of other states possibly following their lead:  there, people that were foreclosed upon years ago are being held to still hold legal title to the property ... even if it's changed hands once or twice and the current "owners" innocently think that they own the home.  They don't.  They own a lawsuit against several entities, though. 

So, be careful out there. 

If it's a beautiful beachfront condo, fully loaded, and it's 35K -- then run.  At the very least, run to a lawyer and get this checked out.  Bad title is a very bad thing.

Nancy Grace Enters Search for Missing Baby as Mystery of New Braunfels' Joshua Davis Unfolds

Joshua Davis is 18 months old and very cute.  He has big button brown eyes and a wide, expecting smile.  He is also missing, and has been for over a week now.  His mother is very pregnant, and this prevents her from taking a lie detector test.  Meanwhile, Joshua's daddy has taken several lie detector tests, and passed. 

According to WOAI-TV reporting (see Nancy Grace media link below), so has everyone else who was in the home that day - except for one individual who remains unidentified. 

Today is the 8th day that he's been gone.  

The baby disappeared during some of the coldest weather we've seen in Texas for decades.  Talk of snow.  Days where we didn't go above freezing.  It's too hard to ponder whether or not it's merciful that those first few hours of searching around the home late last Friday and into that next chilly Saturday morning -- in culverts, underneath the houses and cars and in the wooded areas -- didn't turn up a body.  (For awhile, they were calling it a recovery effort - thinking that the toddler had strolled away from his home and in the sub-freezing temperatures could not have survived the night.)

The baby's daddy told reporters that he was glad; he believes his boy is still alive and that he's been snatched.  The mother cries; she tells everyone that he was wandering in and out of the room where Toy Story was on the TV and no, the door wasn't open.  But it wasn't locked. 

And, his mom says that Joshua couldn't open the door.  Nine people in the home; mommy and daddy watching television in different rooms; and there's reportedly no trace of the baby outside of the home itself.

They've brought in the bloodhounds.  They've got the FBI and the Texas Rangers on the scene.  The Heidi Search Center and other community volunteers have helped combed an ever-expanding search area: latest we were told a two-mile radius, and been gone over like a fine-toothed comb. 

No Joshua.

Today, there will be a massive flier outreach, with parents and friends and family and volunteers trying to reach as many people as possible in communities along IH 35, from San Antonio to Austin, with papers giving information and a big photo of the little guy. 

And, Nancy Grace has joined the team.  Her first report on the Mystery of Joshua Davis - gone without a trace - aired this week.   

Nancy Grace?  Yes, and I welcome her interest - though others may not.

Of course, Nancy Grace coverage will be unwelcomed by some, who will see her involvement as self-serving and an open invitation for media exploitation of a newstory that is growing bigger by the day.  Personally, when a baby has literally disappeared from his home then any help should be welcome. 

Nancy Grace can bring a huge national spotlight to this little, beloved community north of San Antonio - and it seems to me, that right now this is a very good thing for Joshua Davis.  I welcome her interest. 

If you know anything about little Joshua Davis - where he is, where he might be, any clue as to what has happened to him -- please call the New Braunfels, Texas, police at 830-221-4100.

CrimeStoppers of Comal County, Texas, is offering $5000 for information that leads to finding Joshua Davis.  You may call anonymously and give your tips to 830-620-TIPS (8477) or 800-640-8422 or just text COMAL along with your info to CRIMES (274637).

Trial by Media: Michael Jackson Doctor, Conrad Murray, Will Be Tried On TV - Should He Be? Do the Pros Outweigh the Cons?

TMZ is reporting today that the trial of Dr. Conrad Murray in California, where he is facing manslaughter charges in the death of Michael Jackson, will be televised.

Now, I recognize that if there's gonna be any place in the country where putting stuff on the screen seems like no big deal, it's Los Angeles. And I understand that there's a lot of profit here by doing so -- big audience, big advertising dollars, I get it.

I still don't know that this is a good idea. First of all, the job of the defense is to air a lot of dirty laundry. Yes, Michael Jackson will be tried in this case -- it's a strategy honed by my mentor Racehorse Haynes long ago, in the Cullen Davis murder trial.

No smart criminal defense attorney is going to forego introducing as much evidence as possible that puts Jackson in a bad light in defense of Dr. Murray's actions that day. It's gonna happen.  (There's already scuttlebutt about a Michael Jackson suicide defense.)

Not fair to his kids. Not fair to his mom. Won't matter. We're going to learn things that will hurt them in this trial, and it's gonna go all over the world instantaneously in this televised trial.

Meanwhile, there are all those conspiracy theories out there (yes, there are Michael Jackson sightings now) as well as the potential of new ones if this trial is not put out there for public scrutiny. People may debate the trial in its aftermath, but they'll have the evidence presented and that's a different scenario than the omission of cameras and worldwide suspicions of evildoing in the courtroom. This is a plus to televising this thing.

However, I'm not a fan of televised trials. Perhaps in the early days, when the process was put onto our screens in sort of a CSpan approach -- but now, it's become so much more akin to reality TV.

Trial by media is a real concern, as well. Can Dr. Murray get a fair trial? I don't know, but if he's convicted there is that possible appellate argument.

Do the pros outweigh the cons? I don't think so in this case. In my opinion, Dr. Murray's trials should not be televised.