Unusual Legal question

[Piobaire]

Originally Posted by odoreater

Not even remotely close to true.

No, 100%, incontrovertibly true. That is my experience, and I said it was merely my experience.

 

[Cavalier]

Originally Posted by Piobaire

No, 100%, incontrovertibly true. That is my experience, and I said it was merely my experience.
I believe when a 59 year old man dies with out any known medical conditions it's probably guaranteed that there will be an autopsy performed... I think you might have been assuming he was in his 70's or 80's in which case you're probably right...

 

[odoreater]

Originally Posted by Piobaire

No, 100%, incontrovertibly true. That is my experience, and I said it was merely my experience.

Your experience might be true, but it's irrelevant since it doesn't reflect any kind of reality. If that's your experience, then you haven't had a lot of experience with autopsies. There are a bunch of reasons that autopsies are performed that have nothing to do with foul play or suspicion of foul play.

 

[crazyquik]

Originally Posted by jagmqt

I think slander of title would be worth having an attorney investigate...

jag

That was my first thought, but I think that involves an actual legal cloud/encumbrance on the actual title. Like filing a malicious lien on a property, so that your neighbor can't sell it to anyone else but you.

However, it's pretty well known that the reputation of a 'suicide house' is worse, and will sell for less, than a regular home. And for someone to be spreading malicious rumors about that, well it's got to be some sort of slander/defamation or pre-contract tortious interference.

 

[Piobaire]

Originally Posted by odoreater

Your experience might be true, but it's irrelevant since it doesn't reflect any kind of reality. If that's your experience, then you haven't had a lot of experience with autopsies. There are a bunch of reasons that autopsies are performed that have nothing to do with foul play or suspicion of foul play.

I'll admit I picked a loaded phrase. In my mind, the phrase included drug overdose, poor medical attention, etc. A fall with head wound in a medical facility, and death in the next six months, will trigger an autopsy (or at least ME review of records), which I mentally had included.

To my experience, someone just keeling over, at 50+ years of age, does not automatically trigger a trip to the ME. I've had several family members just keel over, and not a single autopsy.

Now, whether or not this is the law or practice, is another question. But I've had my experiences, counselor, and g'luck getting me on the stand and proving they ain't true.

 

[odoreater]

Only reason I responded is because I've dealt with this issue a lot of times in wrongful death cases. In fact, it comes up in cases where you have to do either a direct or cross-examination of an expert medical examiner. In my most recent wrongful death case, I even hired Dr. Michael Baden (from HBO's "Autopsy" show) to be my expert and learned a ton about the topic.

In many places, autopsies are performed when the cause of death is not immediately evident because officials are worried that there might be an issue that is a threat to the public health. If somebody just keels over and dies, they might have died from something that can spread through the population.

 

[Piobaire]

Originally Posted by odoreater

Only reason I responded is because I've dealt with this issue a lot of times in wrongful death cases. In fact, it comes up in cases where you have to do either a direct or cross-examination of an expert medical examiner. In my most recent wrongful death case, I even hired Dr. Michael Baden (from HBO's "Autopsy" show) to be my expert and learned a ton about the topic. In many places, autopsies are performed when the cause of death is not immediately evident because officials are worried that there might be an issue that is a threat to the public health. If somebody just keels over and dies, they might have died from something that can spread through the population.
Seriously interesting, to call him for a witness. And the very fact you're dealing with a "wrongful death," means someone has a suspicion it wasn't natural causes, correct? I guess we can keep parsing this all day though. I mean, when my father just keeled over, he turned gray, grabbed his chest, and c/o intense chest pain. We stuck him in the ground without an autopsy. If someone had say, a large rash and prominent, unexplained ecchymosis and keeled over, I could see an autopsy. /shrug

 

[Reggs]

Even if the suicide were true, why would they tell potential buyers? Even old lonely women draw the line when it comes to potential financial damage like this.

 

[crazyquik]

Originally Posted by Reggs

Even if the suicide were true, why would they tell potential buyers? Even old lonely women draw the line when it comes to potential financial damage like this.

Some states require you to disclose these sorts of things (whether the house is haunted or had a suicide in it).

Perhaps the pesky neighbors are just confused, and think they are doing the potential buyers a favor.

http://blog.homegain.com/buying-or-s...matized-house/

 

[AR_Six]

Originally Posted by Piobaire

someone has a suspicion it wasn't natural causes, correct?
I sure hope so, because otherwise everyone's wasting a lot of time and money.

 

[jagmqt]

Originally Posted by crazyquik

That was my first thought, but I think that involves an actual legal cloud/encumbrance on the actual title. Like filing a malicious lien on a property, so that your neighbor can't sell it to anyone else but you.

However, it's pretty well known that the reputation of a 'suicide house' is worse, and will sell for less, than a regular home. And for someone to be spreading malicious rumors about that, well it's got to be some sort of slander/defamation or pre-contract tortious interference.

You may be right. I'm not sure of the state standard where the OP resides...but basic hornbook law says:
The term "slander of title" has been defined as a false and malicious statement, oral or written, made in disparagement of a person's title to real or personal property, causing him special damages.

While MI law (where I am) requires a "publication"...

I think the OP is now lost in an argument over an autopsy, so we may both be wasting our time.

jag

 

[crazyquik]

Originally Posted by jagmqt

You may be right. I'm not sure of the state standard where the OP resides...but basic hornbook law says:
The term "slander of title" has been defined as a false and malicious statement, oral or written, made in disparagement of a person's title to real or personal property, causing him special damages.

While MI law (where I am) requires a "publication"...

I think the OP is now lost in an argument over an autopsy, so we may both be wasting our time.

jag

Even under that standard, the slander is to the quality of the title, and not the quality of the underlying property. But maybe it varies by state, or this could be an area for expansion. Or that there is another cause of action.

 

[Cavalier]

So after chewing out my real estate agent for allowing this BS accusation to end up on an offer in my e-mail, he told me to call my lawyer, which I reluctantly (it's sunday after all) did.

He is contacting the bank tomorrow, if they are unwilling to waive their right to claim a deficiency then he said that we could pursue legal action against them.

 

[jagmqt]

Originally Posted by crazyquik

Even under that standard, the slander is to the quality of the title, and not the quality of the underlying property. But maybe it varies by state, or this could be an area for expansion. Or that there is another cause of action.
Good point.

Originally Posted by Cavalier

So after chewing out my real estate agent for allowing this BS accusation to end up on an offer in my e-mail, he told me to call my lawyer, which I reluctantly (it's sunday after all) did.

He is contacting the bank tomorrow, if they are unwilling to waive their right to claim a deficiency then he said that we could pursue legal action against them.
If he files, please share the cause of action he chooses.

jag

 

[Piobaire]

Originally Posted by Cavalier

So after chewing out my real estate agent for allowing this BS accusation to end up on an offer in my e-mail, he told me to call my lawyer, which I reluctantly (it's sunday after all) did. He is contacting the bank tomorrow, if they are unwilling to waive their right to claim a deficiency then he said that we could pursue legal action against them.
You must be a baller man. Not only do I not "have a lawyer," per se, I sure as hell don't have one I could call at home on a Sunday! And just wondering...why would you hold your agent responsible for what another agent wrote?