Does the developer have a case? Can you be convicted for being an undesirable presence?
This "Megans Law" stuff seems to be having some unanticpated real world consequences if sex offenders are going to be followed and communities warned of their presence every time they move.
The developer has an easy out that the court is sure to recognize. It will only cost him $250,000 to buy back the house, not 2 million. That does not seem unreasonable to me at all.
grienspace-
How can you say that when you don’t know how much the host cost originally?
Is it even legal to refuse to sell a house for the sole reason that it would be to a sex offender?
Ya know, I’m not a fan of serious SO’s. But this case should not have moved forward. Just because of the guys presence it’s ok to sue now? I hope Collins stays strong and wins. This is absurd.
Well, we can pretty well assume that the developer is concerned about a relatively new home that I would be surprised could be offered at less than $200,000 dollars just to recover all the current development and construction costs.
Thus I would assume the offer representing moving costs (which totalled over $20,000CDN when I moved ten years ago)as well, is quite reasonable and affordable especially foir a developer.
My point is that 2 million suit is bullshit.
“Collins then called the developer and offered to move for $250,000, “or he would stay there and kill their subdivision,” the suit alleged.”
What’s the legal definition of extortion in Arkansas?
I saw that also, but quite frankly I can’t imagine there weren’t a number of back and forth conversations between the parties involved predicate to that offer being made. That he would call them out of the blue demanding 250K seems a bit unlikely. If it was a planned scam I hardly think they would have gone to the trouble of settling on the house and incurring the substantial expenses involved. If the house is in the mid to upper 100’s pricewise. $ 250,000 would not (IMO) be an unreasonable amount to demand if someone wanted you to pack up and relocate because they found your presence bad for business.
People have to live somewhere. I’m sure there was a time when any number of classes of people hurt property values, but here we recognize the right of people with the means to afford it to get basic needs like food and housing.
There problem is the law itself which is utterly pointless and vindictive and protects no one.
I also think that certain kinds of offenders should be locked up for life to begin with but that’s a separate argument.
IANAL but I believe that extortion requires a threat of criminality- of some kind of force or threat to wrongfully harm the victim unless the victim pays up. I don’t think that a person simply saying he will not move out of his home unless he is paid can reasonably be seen as a “wrongful threat.” He has every right to live in his own home. If somebody else wants you to do something (as is the case here) then it is no crime to request compensation for it.
I’m inferring from the bits about having to carefully draft the sales agreement that there was some precondition this home not be sold to a sex offender or that sales be reviewed by the developer. If that is the case, the developer may have an ample case for fraud against either the SO or the real estate agent. If not then I’m going to agree with several previous posts that the developer doesn’t have a leg to stand on.
This is true. There was a case at I think the end of the 19th century that established that, legally speaking, people don’t count as nuisances (generally defined as things or activities on one piece of land that hurt others’ use of their own land, or the value of it) as long as they’re “well-behaved”. The case in question involved a property being subdivided into small units rented to low-income tenants, many of whom were black. Apparently the plaintiff’s property value had dropped, and his wife, furthermore, was so sickly that the mere sight of black people out her window was having a deleterious effect on her health. It’s one of the important cases in urban planning law because it established that people can’t be nuisances even if their presence does have a tangible effect on property value. Folks conspired in other ways to keep their neighborhoods free of undesirable types (Catholics, Jews, and Blacks being the most frequent targets.)
So have we all now officially agreed that registered sex offenders are second class citizens in the eyes of the law? :rolleyes:
I’m expecting someone will soon use the guise of “family values” to propose “relocation camps” for all of society’s undesirables – sex offenders, drug abusers, homosexuals…
Hadn’t we agreed that all along?
Or am I being wooshed?
Did they have a duty to disclose the existance of a nonfinancing spouse, probably not. Is it relevent financially wise that the husband was a 3cSO, no.
Normally, no. Carmen Collins would have had to go through some hoops to buy a house as a “married person, purchasing as a single person” if it’s in a community property state, but there is no law against doing that. (caveat, I have some mortgage experience in California, things are probably different in Arkansas.
The one line that gives the developer a case is the one about give me 250k or I’ll stay and destroy the subdivisiion. That sounds like extortion. And last time I checked extortion is illegal.
I don’t think so. Otherwise, everytime one of my brethren in the litigation department wrote a demand letter, they’d be guilty of extortion.