>

Technically sure, in practice with how inefficient the land registry is not really.
The article should be saying some poor folks thought they were buying a home only to find out they were being scammed by some impersonators, this article makes it sound like the actual owners no longer have their home and if that’s the case then that’s f-ed up, laws should exist to not let that be the case. >

Isn't this what title insurance is for? >

You'd be surprised how many people turn down title insurance thinking it's "too expensive." >

A friend of mine bought a house.  It later turned out the house was built on the wrong property. So they purchased a house but the title showed they owned the land next to the one their house was on.  
Title insurance kicked in and the insurance paid for the land the house was sitting on. >

Did they get to keep both set of land? >

Ok I didn’t want to go there but there was some real legal wrangling and fighting.  And to my fucking astonishment yes, he got to keep the parcel of land that was next to the house that he actually bought thinking he was buying the parcel under the house.  
He got both tracts of land.  He paid for the tract next door and the title insurance paid for the tract under his house. >

Wow I thought it was a possibility but you would think there would be a clause where the title insurance would keep the tract he isn’t using. >

Yeah me too.  There were technicalities involving presumption of fraud due to that state’s laws regarding real estate which made the damages recoverable be more than the value of the land so that’s how it came to be a greater sum than was necessary to put him whole again. >

Thank you for this anecdote, seriously I live for this shit. >

The other day a family friend sold their house for $1.1 Million, wasn't even on the market two days and got a cash offer sight unseen. I'm surprised these scams aren't more prevalent given how insane the market is. >

I mean, you aren't often going to find people who go on business trips for several months at a time, know when they are going, know how to get into the house easily, etc.
Even if it sold in two days, the scammers would need lots of time to cover tracks and disappear. They'd also need to find a particularly bad realtor who won't double check their identity >


particularly bad realtor

Is that 1 or 2 out of 3 realtors ? >

So do they get their house back? Does the family that bought it have to move out? Who is out the hundreds of thousands of dollars? >

The "sellers" never actually owned the house they were selling and so it still belongs to the original owners. Just like with stolen goods the buyers are the ones that were screwed out of their money and the property must be returned to the rightful owners. >

It probably depends country to country but in a lot of countries the new owner retains ownership of the property. Certainly that is true of the UK where I live. >

Source? Nemo dat applies in uk law, if you sell something that doesn't belong to you then ownership does not transfer.