Law suit filed against Extreme Makeover-Home edition-

[Lisa loves Pooh]

I'm looking on EHM's web-site and these families aren't listed in Season 1 or 2.

Anyone got a pic?

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

looks like episode 18 is missing from season 2---but then 2 families are labeled as episode 14.

 

[va32h]

and CAN THEY AFFORD THE TAXES?????

ABC leases the home from the homeowner during the renovation period. Improvements made by a tenant are not taxable - or something like that. My aunt & uncle applied for the show, and that is what the application said.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

ABC leases the home from the homeowner during the renovation period. Improvements made by a tenant are not taxable - or something like that. My aunt & uncle applied for the show, and that is what the application said.

No--but when a home is knocked down--the county/city can reasses the property and property taxes can go up. So while the remodeling is tax free--the tax liability for having the higher appraised property is not. .

 

[Aimeedyan]

I'm sure that ABC is involved because the lawyer recommends that they go after everyone involved.

Very sad situation, regardless of how the story really goes.

 

[tiggerlover]

I saw this when it aired on Extreme Makeover. I sure hope the current story isn't true, if it is, how sad indeed, those poor kids lose their parents and then this happens to them. I am interested to follow this and see what happens.

 

[wfloyd]

looks like episode 18 is missing from season 2---but then 2 families are labeled as episode 14.

This may be because those families lived in a duplex. So if they tore it down, two families would be temporarily kicked out. That project was also one that a homeless coalition owned and once the families could get back on their feet, they would leave and another family would come in.

 

[CarolA]

Ok.. at least some of these kids are over 21 and probably some others over 18.... Got news for the older ones... IT'S TIME TO MOVE OUT! LOL! Sorry, but it's hard to feel sorry for a 22 year old.. maybe they could get a job and support themeselves??? Theres a concept! I did it at that age!

Having seen a family dymamic like this with a former boyfriend who was an Orphan I can say that sometimes the "older" siblings don't think well. Im my case, the older siblings sued for custody of the trust funds before they were legally entitled to them and won... they then "invested" the money and lost it all or blew it on toys!... sued for custody of the youngest kid and his trust fund and LOST. They claimed the remaining relative was investing it TOO conservatively... yeah, he still had it! They lost that battle. The youngest was able to attend expensive private schools, 4 years of college and Medical School with the proceeds from the funds. SO... I always look at situations like this and wonder what else is going on... However, at 18-22 these kids should have been making plans to get on with thier life. Even if these were their parents you don't get to stay forever!

 

[MrsPete]

I don't get why ABC is being sued, it sounds like it's not there fault that the poor orphans were exploited

I get it. ABC has money; the actual exploiters don't. No use suing someone who can't pay (or who doesn't have insurance).

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

This may be because those families lived in a duplex. So if they tore it down, two families would be temporarily kicked out. That project was also one that a homeless coalition owned and once the families could get back on their feet, they would leave and another family would come in.

That explains it.

The family in question on this thread must be the missing episode.

 

[Miss Jasmine]

Deep pockets or not--they should be suing for the home. Regardless who actually owned the home before--it was demolished and rebuilt to accomodate all.

See now I wonder if the 21-year old was put on the deed?

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

See now I wonder if the 21-year old was put on the deed?

I don't know--but given the premise of the show..they do these things for the entire family and not for the purpose of having half the family move and giving big palatial digs to whose left.

I don't know the entire story---just saying that on the litigation part---if they wish to sue--it should be for the house (to be able to reside there) and whatever things were given to them (like the cars--room decor...et cetera). ETA:---b/c they certainly weren't minors in March when all this was done for the "whole" family.

ABC has nothing to do with the family dynamics.

 

[Miss Jasmine]

I don't know--but given the premise of the show..they do these things for the entire family and not for the purpose of having half the family move and giving big palatial digs to whose left.

I don't know the entire story---just saying that on the litigation part---if they wish to sue--it should be for the house (to be able to reside there) and whatever things were given to them (like the cars--room decor...et cetera). ETA:---b/c they certainly weren't minors in March when all this was done for the "whole" family.

ABC has nothing to do with the family dynamics.

You are correct in that ABC has nothing to do with the family dynamics, but I am thinking this may have to do with how the house was deeded, of which ABC would be a part of. I wonder if Smoking Gun has a copy of the Complaint. I guess I'll have to go check it out.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

You are correct in that ABC has nothing to do with the family dynamics, but I am thinking this may have to do with how the house was deeded, of which ABC would be a part of. I wonder if Smoking Gun has a copy of the Complaint. I guess I'll have to go check it out.

oooohhhhhhhhh...I see what you are saying.

I wonder what their protocol is.

I would assume that families with small children--it is in the parents' name.

But families that took in others--and those others are adults....that would get sticky.

I don't think the adult orphans are entitled to own the house but if they were indeed exploited (which that other link with discussions suggest they are not)--that was the point of my statement.

So are you saying that b/c if ABC handled the re-deeding of the property...and in the eyes of the attorney--that could make them responsible?

 

[Miss Jasmine]

So are you saying that b/c if ABC handled the re-deeding of the property...and in the eyes of the attorney--that could make them responsible?

I don't really know, as I am not well versed on property law, but this is what stood out to me:

The network, however, said in a statement that "It is important to note that the episode was about the rebuilding of the Leomiti family's existing home to accommodate the inclusion of the five Higgins siblings, whom the Leomitis had invited into their lives following the death of their parents."

The part about the REBUILDING OF THE LEOMITI FAMILY'S EXISTING HOME... just really stood out to me. It makes me thing that there is some issue as to ownership.

Okay just saw this:

Pardee paid off the mortgage on the new house but the Leomitis retained the title, according to the lawsuit.

Yeah, I am thinking this is going to go as to property rights along with breach of contract, which would involve ABC.

Here is the article I got the info from: http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/state/20050811-0700-ca-homeshowlawsuit.html

 

[Disney1fan2002]

I don't get why ABC is being sued, it sounds like it's not there fault that the poor orphans were exploited

The only thing I can thionk of is, the Title of the new home had the Higigns name on it, not the Leomotis. I think that could be why ABC is being dragged into this.

Who contacted the show and told their story?