Current Events > Orlando Bloom and Katy Peryy are suing to take a home away from a 83 yr old vet

(+) Yeah! (+)

Iamdepressed posted...

It doesn't matter. When you're mentally impaired, you can't legally make an offer, therefore you have precedence to disaffirm a contract. It doesn't matter if he can't prove if he wasn't of sound mind on the two days. Mentally ill and children can usually disaffirm a contract no matter how much time has passed. It may seem unfair to the buyer, but it's done to protect them from being manipulated.

Think about it this way. If a mentally impaired person told you that they will do yard work for $10 and a week later they decide they want to play with bees instead, you can't hold them for their initial word. Same applies for the house situation.

Difference being, there are teams of people involved here. If he wasn't of sound mind someone on his side would have stopped the deal. This isn't an under the table cash deal we're talking about, it's a massive multi million dollar transfer of property.

Holy fuck dude why is this topic still going

voldothegr8 posted...

Difference being, there are teams of people involved here. If he wasn't of sound mind someone on his side would have stopped the deal. This isn't an under the table cash deal we're talking about, it's a massive multi million dollar transfer of property.

Teams of people that were only working based on the premise that there was a contract deal. It's not part of their duty to give the man advice, otherwise they can be liable for it later on. Bottom line is, Katy and Bloom's lawyers and the people working on their team should have stopped them from buying the house to begin with. It's really their fault for taking on the risk. Buying a house from an 83 year old with an mental illness has its risks and this is one of them.

Iamdepressed posted...

It doesn't matter. When you're mentally impaired, you can't legally make an offer, therefore you have precedence to disaffirm a contract. It doesn't matter if he can't prove if he wasn't of sound mind on the two days. Mentally ill and children can usually disaffirm a contract no matter how much time has passed. It may seem unfair to the buyer, but it's done to protect them from being manipulated.

Think about it this way. If a mentally impaired person told you that they will do yard work for $10 and a week later they decide they want to play with bees instead, you can't hold them for their initial word. Same applies for the house situation.

But for that to hold up legally, they have to actually be deemed mentally ill. He was living on his own, and he's not even claiming to be mentally ill in his lawsuit. He's claiming he just had surgery and was on painkillers, and that is mainly what made him not be sound of mind, since he claimed to be able to think clearly later on. He's not claiming he can't ever make his own decisions, he's trying to argue that specific decision was the only one he couldn't properly make, which is where the need for proof will come in.

Where his difficulty as a plaintiff comes in is that he was living on his own, and isn't actually claiming he needs assistance on all decisions or anything like that. He's trying to argue that that specific decision (the sale), and ONLY that one, he was not of sound mind only in that instance.

Holy shit another invisible post

Just CE having a normal one.

Was his mental state known to them at the time?

008Zulu posted...

Was his mental state known to them at the time?

Presumably not, since, at the time, he was living on his own and had no outward indications that his mental state had deteriorated to the point that he couldn't make his own decisions.

Though it'd be impossible to know, since his claim isn't that his mental state was the issue from disease or anything, anyway. His claim is that he was on painkillers from back surgery at the time, and that's what caused him to do it.

StealThisSheen posted...

Presumably not, since, at the time, he was living on his own and had no outward indications that his mental state had deteriorated to the point that he couldn't make his own decisions.

Though it'd be impossible to know, since his claim isn't that his mental state was the issue, anyway. His claim is that he was on painkillers at the time, and that's what caused him to do it.

Proving he lacked the mental capacity at the time is going to be close to impossible without a medical diagnosis. He may very well have to sell. At least he will have a nice chunk of change to get a new place.

008Zulu posted...

Proving he lacked the mental capacity at the time is going to be close to impossible without a medical diagnosis. He may very well have to sell. At least he will have a nice chunk of change to get a new place.

He already owns other properties, so he was never in danger of being on the street, anyway. The guy is very rich. His son and daughter-in-law are "Real Housewives" stars. The whole family is very wealthy. This whole case is very much the rich fighting amongst themselves.

StealThisSheen posted...

Presumably not, since, at the time, he was living on his own and had no outward indications that his mental state had deteriorated to the point that he couldn't make his own decisions.

Though it'd be impossible to know, since his claim isn't that his mental state was the issue from disease or anything, anyway. His claim is that he was on painkillers from back surgery at the time, and that's what caused him to do it.

Who posted?

My ass hypothesis is the seller didn't know who the buyers were before the sale and wanted more after he found out. Kinda like the reason Walt Disney purchased land to build Disneyland using shell companies.

Katy Perry and Orlando bloom! Orlando bloom and Katy Perry! Katy bloom and Orlando perry! Orlando Perry and Katy bloom! *hug*

Wolverine posted...

Holy shit another invisible post

Get serious help.

dave_is_slick posted...

Get serious help.

I may be wrong, but I think he's just mocking Mussu.

Who posted 2 - 215?

A_Good_Boy posted...

Who posted 2 - 215?

beats me pal...

StealThisSheen posted...

Presumably not, since, at the time, he was living on his own and had no outward indications that his mental state had deteriorated to the point that he couldn't make his own decisions.

Though it'd be impossible to know, since his claim isn't that his mental state was the issue from disease or anything, anyway. His claim is that he was on painkillers from back surgery at the time, and that's what caused him to do it.

So the case is dependent on the defendant's claim that he wasn't in capacity at the time of sale. Easy to prove. First of all, he can prove that he was on painkillers that day; a simple drug test, blood work can prove that. No judge is going to say, "Okay he was on painkillers, but he's still of sound mind right?"

Iamdepressed posted...

So the case is dependent on the defendant's claim that he wasn't in capacity at the time of sale. Easy to prove. First of all, he can prove that he was on painkillers that day; a simple drug test, blood work can prove that. No judge is going to say, "Okay he was on painkillers, but he's still of sound mind right?"

It's not that easy, since his contention to the sale came within a week later, when he was STILL on painkillers. Thus, he has to somehow prove those two days, in particular, were somehow different.

Also, it's not the defendant's claim. He's the plaintiff, not the defendant, which leaves burden of proof on him moreso than it would, otherwise.