Whistleblower: Apartment buyer gets nasty surprise

  • Article by: Randy Furst , Star Tribune
  • Updated: February 7, 2012 - 11:37 AM

Real estate investor spent $47,621 on four-plex without knowing that it had been condemned and would soon be demolished. "I feel like they've robbed me," she said.

  • 27
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
getcrazyJan. 14, 12 5:03 PM

This is definitely a case of fraud on the part of the Bank of New York and any agent that had knowledge of this. They knew about the problems and didn't disclose the information. The bank needs to pay up. This is why we don't trust banks. Seems there are possible felony criminal charges that need to be filed as well.

96
7
william2mnJan. 14, 12 5:56 PM

While I believe that of course people need to do what they can to protect themselves, the seller also needs to disclose reality. To me this sounds like the seller obviously knew they had a problem and hide that fact to dump the property. And banks wonder why they are becoming one of the least trusted industries in the United States?

81
3
teddytwotoneJan. 14, 12 7:15 PM

Why on earth wouldn't the city stop the demolition when they knew there was a new owner! This is government at it's worst.

42
15
kenw1952wJan. 14, 12 7:36 PM

If an individual owner had sold this property under these circumstances, they would be held liable for not disclosing the information but since it was a "bank" (insert insurance company, brokerage co., mortgage co. etc.), they get away with a crime.

66
5
brainerdguyJan. 14, 12 8:29 PM

Who says we don't need regulations?!?!?!

47
8
oxboroJan. 14, 12 8:53 PM

Im confused. When does small time real estate investor equate to someone who owns 2 apartment buildings? When did this occur? Is this recent? Isolated? Are there other similiar stories with this bank, this city? This seems sloppy

11
26
jtriceJan. 14, 12 8:58 PM

Banks; not quite as untrustworthy as cops, but darn close.

22
17
ampelmannJan. 14, 12 9:51 PM

The article said the new owner was unknown because the sale documents hadn't been recorded and the property was still in the bank's name. What, was the city supposed to read the bank's and the new owner's minds? The sloppiness was on the part of the bank (which pretty clearly violated MN disclosure law) and the buyer (who failed to do her due diligence before closing).

28
8
DufferHJan. 14, 12 9:52 PM

This building was demolished more than two years. That fact wasn't mentioned til the 18th paragraph, four from the end. Why is this news now and why wasn't reported before?

15
9
masqueanadieJan. 14, 1210:34 PM

"I feel like they've robbed me," she said. --- Banks repeatedly disregard consumer protection laws. Then they get a slap on the hand, say they will do better, and keep all the profits.

29
4

Comment on this story   |  

ADVERTISEMENT

Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT