>>>>>http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/03/23/landlord.foreclosure/index.html
>>>>>
>>>>>My father in law said to me when we bought our house, "...assume nothing when dealing when agents/brokers/landloads. Get it in writing".
>>>>>
>>>>>I feel for her. I wish her well in small-claims court. I hope she get at least some of her money back.
>>>>
>>>>We agree. You'd think that someone taking over a house would have to live with any contracts that are already in force. And the former owner should be jailed.
>>>
>>>The person taking over the house had no say in any contract that came before the time the house was 'assumed'. Therefore, any existing contract - unless they state otherwise - have no binding quality on subsequent parties.
>>
>>I know that, I'm just saying that's bad law. Try not taking over the property taxes or the mortgage when you take over a house. The only reason the law is the way it is, is because the tenant has no clout and can be pushed around without much effort.
>
>Your mention of "clout" is absolutely correct. If fraudsters go to criminal court then number of them would be much smaller. The whole "idea" of fraud is to make it and then, at worst, go to small-claim/civil court with assets already protected. One should have very serious clout to get district attroney "interested" in the case and bring criminal charges. System is overloaded and only those more equal than others can get through.

We are in accord. Like the man says, "Never steal anything small."